In 2014, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions were racing ahead and its terror proxies were destabilizing the region, the Obama administration was more focused on insulting allies than confronting adversaries. A senior official in the White House dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit,” claiming he lacked the guts to take military action against Iran. At the time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were furiously trying to finalize a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic—one they claimed would block Iran’s path to a bomb.
They couldn’t have been more wrong.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It left the centrifuges spinning, allowed weapons research to continue under the radar, and set an expiration date that kicked the can just long enough to get Obama through his second term. Worse, the deal pumped billions into Iran’s economy, fueling the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to militias in Yemen and Syria, and of course Hamas in Gaza.
Today, a decade later, Iran is sitting on enough enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons and is acquiring advanced missile technology from China. The nuclear threshold Obama promised to prevent has not only been crossed—it’s being fortified.
At the same time in 2014-5, Kerry was floundering with the Palestinians. He insisted in 2016 that “there will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world.” That statement aged poorly. Under President Trump, the Abraham Accords blew apart that diplomatic orthodoxy, normalizing relations between Israel and multiple Arab nations—without Palestinian involvement. It turns out peace was possible, just not with failed ideas and appeasement-driven diplomacy.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, never wavered in identifying Iran as the central threat. In a 2021 interview, he reflected on the Jewish people’s tragic history of failing to recognize danger in time. He saw what others refused to acknowledge—and acted.
The legacy of Obama and Kerry is one of missed opportunities, emboldened enemies, and childish fantasies. The consequences are now unavoidable—and the man they mocked is the one who understood the moment all along.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24, 2024. He spoke of the strong ties between Israel and the U.S. and their mutual enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. He thanked Presidents Biden and Trump for being reliable allies, helping Israel fight its enemies and forge peace with those willing to coexist with the Jewish State.
The speech was addressed to a bipartisan audience of past, present and future Democratic and Republican presidents and members of Congress, and reflected the bipartisan and bicameral invitation to Netanyahu.
Yet only one party attended en masse. Only one party rose to their feet again and again during Netanyahu’s remarks. Only one party closed ranks with a strong ally in the middle of a horrific war.
The Republicans.
There was also one party which stood divided about Israel. One party who disrespected and disparaged the Israeli leader. One party whose shrill anti-Israel voices drowned out those who support Israel.
The Democrats.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was angry that Netanyahu came to address Congress as “bad faith efforts by Republicans to further politicize the U.S.-Israel relationship.” In truth, the bipartisan invitation did not politicize the relationship but laid bare the pro-Hamas and anti-Israel wing of woke politicians and Americans.
Nadler, a Jewish Congressman, insulted Netanyahu as “the worst leader in Jewish history.” He spent his time at Netanyahu’s speech reading from a book highly critical of Netanyahu that he brandished about like garlic before a vampire.
Rep. Jerry Nadler read highly critical biography of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while the prime minister addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24, 2024.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who had invited the Israeli Prime Minister, refused to shake the leader’s hand. Schumer had sharply criticized Netanyahu four months earlier in Congress, calling for new elections and meddling in foreign affairs of a democratic ally.
There were some Democrats who were supportive of Netanyahu and the Jewish State. Reps. Torres, Gottheimer, Hernandez, Manning, Franel and Wasserman-Schultz were clear about being proud Zionists, voicing full bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, calling for bringing home the hostages held by Palestinian Arabs, and blasting the antisemitic protests on the streets of Washington, D.C.
Yet few people took notice of their comments which were viewed only a few thousand times on X.
The anti-Israel and anti-Netanyahu politicians were much more popular.
Many far-left members of Congress boycotted the speech. According to Axios, roughly half of the Democrats in the Senate and the House did not attend the address, including Vice President Kamala Harris who chose to attend another event, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.), former House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). That’s over two times the number of Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu in 2015.
When the generals of wokedom Sanders and AOC posted about their feelings of “war criminal” Netanyahu and skipping the speech, MILLIONS of followers took in the bile. Even Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) who has already lost his seat in Congress for the next term, had nearly five times the number of views as Rep. Ritchie Torres.
The streets of Washington were filled with woke antisemites. Some held placards calling for the “final solution” in a reference to Hitler’s plan for a genocide of Jews. Some painted on governmental monuments that “Hamas is comin.”
The left-wing media joined the fray. The New Republic published an article about how horrible it would be for Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, to choose Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), an Orthodox Jew. Such a move would “ruin Democratic Unity” and “fracture the party” because Shapiro is a Zionist. Jacobin wants Harris to pick 82-year old Bernie Sanders as her Vice President, enjoying his vilification of Israel and capitalism.
According to a Gallup poll in March 2024, the favorability rating of Americans about Israel dropped below 60% for the first time since March 2004. It was mostly driven by young people 18-34 whose favorability ratings for Israel dropped in the last year to 38% from 64%, while their opinions barely budged for the Palestinian Authority. As it relates to the war, Democrats and the youth were the only segments to have a higher favorability rating for Palestinians more than Israelis.
By every measure, in just 75 years, Israel built a successful and thriving liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Despite its success, the ongoing war against Gazan terrorists have sapped the support of the young and most left-leaning Americans, according to another poll by Gallup in late March 2024. Whether justified or not and fought minimizing harm to civilians or not, the anti-war movement amongst the young is not just drawing support from the Jewish State, but accelerating a movement to attack it and Zionists globally.
The messages of turning on Israel and Zionists continue to gain momentum, even among progressive Jews. Little known members of Congress like Rep. Sarah Jacobs’ (D-CA), not coincidentally the youngest Jew in Congress, post about boycotting Netanyahu got one million views on X, a platform more often used by young people.
Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress did not “politicize the U.S.-Israel relationship.” It exposed the deep rot of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in a growing segment of the Democratic Party, much like the Congressional hearings about antisemitism at universities shed light on the noxious Jew-hatred metastasizing in woke establishments.
ACTION ITEM
Contact Rep. Jerry Nadler and tell him he’s a vile and childish putz for insulting a leader of an American ally who was invited by a bipartisan and bicameral Congress. Call (202) 225-5635
Israel is the most liberal country in the entire Middle East by leaps and bounds. It has freedoms of religion, assembly and press which are not found amongst its neighbors. It has a diverse population and laws which protect minorities. The country’s western values make it an anomaly in the illiberal region.
Yet despite being a very liberal state, the Israeli people voted for a conservative and religious government to lead them, seemingly at odds with the pluralistic nation’s values. It begs the question as to what drives the disconnection.
Israel Is A Country At War
Israel is not like the United States with only two neighboring countries, each of which recognizes the USA. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries.
Israel is not like Norway which has been at peace for decades. Israel’s neighbors have repeatedly gone to war to destroy the country.
Israel is not like Slovenia, devoid of terrorist groups surrounding it. Israel is surrounded on all sides by terrorist groups and their sponsors.
Israel has been in a constant state of war with its neighbors since its founding, and still has dozens of terrorist groups alongside it sworn to the country’s destruction.
Israel Is Under Assault At The United Nations
Israel is not like Turkey with no standing resolutions at the U.N. about its occupation of Cyprus. There is a standing resolution against only one country: Israel.
Israel is not like Pakistan without a unique U.N. agency dedicated to descendants living in a neighboring land labeled “refugees” who are being pushed to move back. The UN created and maintains UNRWA, a unique refugee agency apart from the global refugee agency, which pushes to have all those descendants move into Israel.
Israel is not like the Vatican which allows full and open prayer for Catholics in the holy city. The U.N. has an official policy of denying Israeli Jews the right to pray at their holiest location on the Temple Mount.
Israel is not like Argentina which has no edicts about Argentinians living in disputed places like the Falkland Islands. Yet Israel has U.N. resolutions to ban Israeli Jews (but not Israeli Muslims) from living in disputed lands.
Israel is not like Cyprus whose capital Nicosia is deemed a united city under its control. Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem is not officially recognized by the global body, and it wishes to divide the city in two as it was during war.
Israel is not like India or the United States which labels products made in territories as made in the country. Yet the U.N. and European Union demand that products made in the Israeli territory of Area C in the West Bank be labeled distinctly, if produced by Jews.
United Nations “refugee” camp with a key on top to tell descendants of Arabs who left Israel while they waited for the Jewish State to be destroyed, that the U.N. is the portal to reclaim old homes inside of Israel.
Israel is perpetually treated as an offensive guest at the United Nations, and not a member state like other countries.
Israel Is On Active Defense
Israel is a liberal democracy at war with illiberal jihadi entities, and consequently elects right-wing governmental officials whom it believes will protect the country and its people, even though the populace strongly desires to elect new leadership.
American media that berates Israel’s right-wing government without simultaneously vilifying the antisemitic Palestinian jihadists, are effectively parroting hateful Hamas propaganda.
American politicians that boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress are essentially supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran’s mission to isolate and destroy the Jewish State.
We know how America, France and other liberal democracies address jihadi terrorism which has no existential threat to the survival of the country. We know how those countries’ liberal citizens vote in elections when their basic safety and human rights are compromised.
People demand safety first and foremost from their governments, and will elect leaders who provide such security, especially when under brutal attack. Demonizing those elected leaders for doing what their liberal citizens require for survival is a reward to terrorists. In Israel, such prize goes to the genocidal Palestinian maniacs who wish to ethnically cleanse the holy land of its Jews.
ACTION ITEM
Write Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Jerry Nadler to stop condemning the Israeli government for fighting to protect its citizens from genocidal Palestinian Arabs.
There was a time when the largest newspaper in the world did its own reporting, analysis and sourcing of news. It chose its stories and reported facts with the aim of educating the world-at-large about important matters.
Those days are long gone. The New York Times has become an activist agitator, reporting on stories from the vantage point of its far left-wing base. The news is not simply delivered as though written in the Opinion Section by progressive activists, but is actually SOURCED from left-wing groups.
Consider the paper’s reporting on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Times has long chosen to vilify him as a monster, even posting TWO close-up pictures of him in an article about a Palestinian Arab youth injured during riots, seemingly suggesting the Netanyahu himself punched the boy in the face. (For comparison, try to find a picture of President Barack Obama in a Times article about American drones blowing up people in the far East).
As the paper is online, it has become easier to track the deep bias against Israel and Netanyahu: J Street.
J Street markets itself as pro-peace and pro-Israel, when it is actually a far left-wing group headed by pro-Palestinian Jews, a counter to the Republican Jewish Coalition that is conservative and pro-Israel. J Street frequently publishes opinion pieces as it lobbies politicians to take pro-Arab actions, and the Times quotes the group’s leadership as though it spoke for the majority of American Jews.
In a recent Times’ article, “Biden’s Confrontation With Netanyahu Had Been Brewing For Years“, it described a letter written by Democratic politicians urging the president to take action against Israel. Rather than source the actual letter, the Times provided a link to J STREET’S WEBSITE praising the letter.
Not only does the “Gray Lady” not go to source documents to draw its own conclusions in writing articles, it acts as a REFERRAL TO LEFT-WING ANTI-ZIONIST SITES.
The radical jihadist group Students For Justice in Palestine said that J Street is a gateway for Jews to become anti-Zionist. The New York Times is providing them a global megaphone.
On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334. The resolution was disgraceful in several familiar respects in condemning Israel unfairly. To name just a few:
It falsely labeled a place called “East Jerusalem” which had only existed for a mere eighteen years from 1949 to 1967
It called East Jerusalem a “Palestinian territory”, when it never was anything of the sort, before, during or after 1949-1967
It proposed a “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” when Israel and the Palestinian Authority had already signed agreements to negotiate lines without any preconceived final boundaries
Demanded that Jews be prevented from living in “East Jerusalem” and other “occupied Palestinian territory”, a blatantly anti-Semitic demand
Called for countries to treat Israel and Israeli territory differently, even though countries around the world – including the United States – do not distinguish in labeling their own products
The U.N. General Assembly (GA) had frequently made such horrible comments. What was new and alarming in this instance was that the resolution PASSED THE SECURITY COUNCIL, which may become legally binding.
As noted by the UN, “resolutions adopted by the GA on agenda items are considered to be recommendations and are not legally binding on the Member States. The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those that are adopted by the Security Council.” Further, “in contrast to the decisions made by the General Assembly, all Member States are obligated under the UN Charter to carry out the Security Council’s decisions…. As Article 25 of the UN Charter states, “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.””
This alarming anti-Israel action managed to pass because the United States opted to abstain in the Resolution 2334 vote. Until that time, the U.S. had always voted against such anti-Israel measures at the Security Council because of possible ramifications.
This time, President Obama took this action in the final days of his administration because of lobbying from Jewish pro-Palestinian groups like J Street, and as payback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepting an invitation from the Republican House Speaker to speak to a joint session of Congress about the existential threat of the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015, without coordinating with the president’s office.
At that time, a senior Obama official said that Netanyahu “spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.“
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama in 2015
Anti-Jewish attacks in the United States jumped 22.9% shortly thereafter in 2017, the largest spike since the FBI tracked hate crime data.
The ever-increasing number of boycotts and lawsuits against Israel, and the dramatic spike in harassment on college campuses and other locations of global Jewry, is related to Obama’s bruised ego and lobbying of alt-left groups like J Street.
Brazil and Israel held elections this week to decide on the future leaders of the countries.
In Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a left-wing politician and former president of Brazil, defeated the incumbent by two million votes on October 30. US President Joe Biden called the president-elect of Brazil the following day. As featured on the US embassy in Brazil’s website, “President Biden commended the strength of Brazilian democratic institutions following free, fair, and credible elections. The two leaders discussed the strong relationship between the United States and Brazil, and committed to continue working as partners to address common challenges, including combatting climate change, safeguarding food security, promoting inclusion and democracy, and managing regional migration.“
On November 2, Israel held elections, its fifth in four years. Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party won the most votes and his right-wing block easily had a majority to lead the next Knesset. As in Brazil, a former leader came to defeat an incumbent, but the reaction of Biden was markedly different.
On the day following the vote, the US embassy in Israel did not say that Biden called Netanyahu. It did not say that the two countries would work together “to address common challenges.”
Instead, the press release posted a release from Ned Price, a spokesperson from the State Department. It read: “Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with Prime Minister Yair Lapid to commend Israel for its free and fair elections, and to thank the Prime Minister for his partnership. The Secretary reaffirmed the strength of the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship. He also emphasized his deep concern over the situation in the West Bank, including heightened tensions, violence, and loss of both Israeli and Palestinian lives, and underscored the need for all parties to urgently de-escalate the situation.“
Rather than follow protocol with the president of the United States calling the incoming Prime Minister of Israel, the Secretary of State called the outgoing Prime Minister. Instead of discussing ways of working together, the US voiced “deep concern” and urged Israel to take action to “de-escalate the situation.”
This is highly inappropriate and a deeply insulting slap in the face of every Israeli.
When Britain elected Liz Truss, a member of the Conservative Party to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on September 5, Biden called her the next day. He offered the incoming leader congratulations and “reaffirmed the special relationship between our countries and expressed their readiness to further deepen those ties…. and discussed the importance of continued close cooperation on global challenges.”
But Biden uniquely snubbed the new leader of the Jewish State. He treated the country as a vassal to take orders, not as a partner to work with in “close cooperation on global challenges.”
Meanwhile, leaders from the around the world had no issue congratulating Netanyahu and discussing collaborating with the Jewish State.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted “Mazel Tov my friend Netanyahu for your electoral success. I look forward to continuing our joint efforts to deepen the India-Israel strategic partnership.“
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tweeted “Congratulations to @netanyahu on winning the elections. It’s always important to see real democracy in action. Ukraine & Israel share common values & challenges that now require effective cooperation. We hope to open a new page in cooperation with the new Government for Ukraine & Israel benefit!“
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called Netanyahu. He tweeted “Just spoke with @netanyahu to congratulate him on his election victory. Looking forward to continuing the very strong relations between our two countries.“
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a statement which led “On behalf of the Government of Canada, I congratulate Benjamin Netanyahu on his electoral success and wish him well as he moves ahead with the process of forming a coalition government. Canada’s friendship with Israel is based on a long history of close cooperation, enduring ties between our peoples, and our shared commitment to upholding democratic values.“
President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola said “Congratulations @netanyahu, on your success in #Israel’s elections. The bond between the EU & Israel is one forged in shared history and based on common values of democracy, liberty & rule of law. We will keep working together for peace, security & prosperity in the region.“
Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni sent her congratulations to Netanyahu on Twitter as well, saying “Congratulations-Mazel Tov to @netanyahu for the electoral success. Ready to strengthen our friendship and our bilateral relations, to better face our common challenges.“
Just days before mid-term elections in the US, President Biden completely disrespected Israel. How does he think tens of millions of American Zionists will react? How much worse will the increasingly anti-Israel Democratic Party treat the Jewish State when votes are not on the line?
Benjamin Netanyahu lost his role as Israel’s Prime Minister over this past June weekend. He served as the longest running head of Israel, and oversaw the country’s emergence as a leading force for stability and democracy in the turbulent Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in May 2021. (Photo by Sebastian Scheiner / POO)L / AFP)
Israeli politics have principally been shaped by four regional realities: The 2000-2004 Two Percent War/ Second Intifada; the “Arab Spring”; the dangerous aspirations of Iran; and the demographics of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel. It is with that backdrop that one must assess why Israel elected the same politician over-and-again in a vigorous democracy, and what future governments of Israel will look like.
The 2000-2004 Two Percent War/ Second Intifada and Hamas2006 and 2007
The Israel-Palestinian conflict was scheduled to reach its conclusion in September 2000 at the five-year anniversary of the Oslo Accords. Rather than accept less than all of his stated goals, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, opted to launch a murderous campaign against Israelis. The “Second Intifada” or Two Percent War watched repeated attacks of Palestinian Arabs blowing up buses and pizza stores to deliberately kill women and children. Only with the construction of the separation barrier was Israel able to stop the Palestinian terrorism.
Hawkish Ariel Sharon, who headed the Likud Party (and later, Kadima) was elected to head the government several times, in March 2001, February 2003 and November 2005, as Israelis internalized that Palestinians would rather slaughter Israelis than make peace. When Palestinians later elected the political-terrorist group Hamas to a majority of the Palestinian parliament in 2006 and watched it take over Gaza in 2007, Israelis understood that land-for-peace was in fact land-for-terror. Israelis clearly saw reality despite cataracts of hope, and elected a leader they thought had a firm grasp of the intentions of Palestinian Arabs.
After Sharon’s debacle in leaving Gaza in 2005 and drift into a coma, it was time for Netanyahu to make his comeback as head of the Likud Party. He assumed the Prime Minister role as head of Likud in March 2009.
The Arab Spring2011-
The Muslim Arab world has long been ruled with an iron hand by monarchies which lived rich lives while their populations lived in abject poverty. In late 2010, the Arab populations had had enough. Riots to oust leaders sprung up throughout the region including in Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Bahrain. In some countries, leaders were ousted while in others – like Syria – the leadership committed war crimes against its own citizenry to remain in power.
How much the thriving economy and democracy of Israel, right in the heart of the region, inspired the popular Arab revolts in the region will be debated. However, what was abundantly clear to the entire world, was that the Arab world was at war with itself, and Israel was a beacon of stability in a vicious neighborhood.
Israelis understood this. They watched countries around them implode while their economy skyrocketed. They re-elected Netanyahu in 2013 as he offered humanitarian aid to victims of the Syrian Civil War, despite the two countries being officially at war.
Iranian Nuclear Ambitions and Sponsorship of Terrorism
Iran has been listed on the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. The Islamic regime has repeatedly stated since at least 2005, that Israel should be wiped from the map, and it has taken various steps to make that happen.
Iran funds Hezbollah in Lebanon (went to war with Israel in 2006) and various Palestinian Arab terrorist groups in Gaza (went to war with Israel in 2008-9, 2012 and 2014). It also assists in the creation of an advanced military platform in Syria (2018-).
And over the past decade, it has advanced its own nuclear weapons program.
The promotion of terrorist groups is horrible enough and forces Israel into military confrontations on multiple fronts. But nuclear weapons in the hands of such a government is completely unacceptable. Not only to every Israeli but to various Arab countries in the region including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Netanyahu capitalized on the collective fear of a nuclear Iran and struck the “Abraham Accords” normalization agreements with Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan and Morocco. More countries will likely follow.
The Israeli street was thrilled with Netanyahu’s peace agreements and aggressively combatting Iran’s nuclear ambitions both militarily and politically.
The Demographics of Haredis
There is a common misperception of what a typical Israeli looks like. To read the news, one would think that they are all White-looking Jews like Netanyahu. In fact, the majority of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries and are as Brown as the Israeli non-Jewish population which stands at roughly 25% of the country. In all, White Israeli Jews make up roughly 20-25% of the 9 million citizens.
Within both the European-looking and Arab-looking Jewish population, there is a rapidly growing ultra-Orthodox population, called Haredim. This ultra-Orthodox group now numbers roughly 1.2 million people, or 13% of the country. They have many more children than the non-Haredi Israelis (4.2% annual growth rate versus 1.4%) and their youth account for 58% of the population (compared to 30% for non-Haredi).
In short, they are the future of Israel, should current trends continue.
Netanyahu actively courted their support in his various election wins. While the ultra-Orthodox typically voted for their own parties (Shas and United Torah Judaism), they aligned with Likud to form governing coalitions, as Netanyahu promised them funding for their yeshivas and accommodations for army service.
Netanyahu may no longer be the Israeli Prime Minister but his Likud party trounced all other political parties with 30 seats compared to second place Yesh Atid with 17. More so, the backdrop of Palestinian Arabs unwilling to compromise for peace, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the rise of ultra-Orthodox community make his positions – if not a comeback of his person – likely to remain.
To read New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is to live in another universe. While he once had some basic understanding of the Middle East, that seems to be a long time ago.
Friedman’s view – and that of almost every journalist for The Times – is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a right wing lunatic, while his counterparts around the Arab world including acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II are simply weak and incompetent. The left wing media will have you believe that the Arab people are peace-loving people who are frustrated with their economy, while Israeli public are racists. The media tells this narrative over-and-again in various ways.
But the reality is much more shocking for both pro-Zionists and pro-Arabs and those who seek an enduring peace in the region.
The Arab leaders are indeed very weak. They hold onto whatever power they have by criticizing Jews and Israel to gain public support. The Arab masses are broadly antisemitic and celebrate any insult and setback of the Jews and their leaders are happy to supply the red meat.
Netanyahu knows all of this. He therefore allows his Arab counterparts to rant and rave while saying and doing nothing, to keep a lid on the Arab masses and stability in leadership. He knows that if the Arab leaders appear to be on overly positive terms with the Jewish State, the Arab street will turn on their leaders and remove them from power.
So when the Jordanian king claims rights over the Christian sites in Jerusalem even though he has none, Netanyahu stays silent. In 2010, when Jordan denounced the rebuilding and reopening of the Hurva Synagogue which it had destroyed in 1949, Netanyahu decided to skip the re-dedication. When Abdullah cries that the biggest crisis in the Middle East is the lack of a Palestinian State while millions of Syrians, Iraqis and Yemenites are slaughtered by fellow Arabs, Netanyahu lets the venting at him proceed without comment.
The theater is because Abdullah needs Netanyahu to prop up his veneer of strength, and noting does that better than castigating the “little Satan” on the world stage for everyone to see and hear. For his part, Netanyahu needs to keep the Arab masses from tearing the Jewish State apart and to keep Jordan as a stable buffer from the crazy Islamic radicals at home and beyond.
The dynamic is not different regarding the two major Palestinian political parties, the terrorist group Hamas and the politely antisemitic Fatah.
Hamas has a stated goal of seeking the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Yet Netanyahu has not assassinated the entirety of its leadership even though he could do so easily. Instead, he allows hundreds of millions of dollars to flow through into Gaza from Qatar to give Hamas a little breathing room with its populace. By controlling the spigot of cash, Netanyahu exerts additional leverage over Hamas.
In exchange, Hamas keeps the rocket attacks to a minimum over the Israeli election season. Fatah occasionally keeps its incitement in check and coordinates security with the Israeli police. Netanyahu goes on to victory and the Palestinian parties get some ammo to trade with Netanyahu down the road.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife
celebrating his 2019 election victory
Right wing Zionists would be upset to learn that Netanyahu is softer than he appears and right wing Arabs would be appalled how their leaders actively consort with their enemy even as the Arab leadership gives public lip service to the masses. For its inept part, the media cannot cover the political machinations anywhere close to as well as they write about every nuance of The Game of Thrones. Their liberal goal is to undermine American support for Israel, not to tell the news.
The leader of the Jewish State has learned how to survive in the turbulent Middle East, playing politics to its fullest both inside and outside of Israel. He leaves behind a media scratching their heads only able to call out “victor” as fact and “right-wing radical” as uninformed biased opinion.
On March 30, 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans for a new town in Area C of Judea and Samaria for the residents of the demolished settlement of Amona. The new US Trump administration gave its tacit approval for the homes for the Israeli families.
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) laughs with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint news conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The move was seen by many as very controversial, as it came just a few months after the UN Security Council passed UNSC Resolution 2334 that deemed Israeli homes east of the Green Line (EGL) as having no legal validity. The development was also the first one announced by Israel since it signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Authority in 1993.
But the Oslo Accord of 1993 and the subsequent Oslo II signed in 1995 made clear that the majority of EGL – known as Area C – was under complete Israeli civilian and military control: it was Israeli Territory. So even though the Israeli government did not announce any new Israeli developments, there was no question as to the administrative authority of the Israeli government to do so.
These facts were not found in the mainstream media.
“Israel’s Security Cabinet on Thursday unanimously approved the construction of a new settlement in the West Bank, according to a message from the Prime Minister’s office, marking the state’s first new settlement in Palestinian territory in more than 20 years.” only calling the region “West Bank” and not including the Israeli name “Judea and Samaria” or neutral nomenclature like EGL. It further misstated that the town was in Palestinian administered land, not Israeli.
“The new settlement, which will be constructed north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah,” anchors the location to a “Palestinian city” and not the Israeli town of Shiloh.
It included this quote from a Palestinian Arab, but quoted no Israelis in the article: “”Israel’s policies remain unchanged as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist, racist coalition government continue to persist with their systematic policies of settler colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, showing a total and blatant disregard for Palestinian human rights, independence and dignity,” Ashrawi said in a statement.” Nice propaganda language to promote.
“The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in December condemning Israeli settlements constructed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal. These territories, occupied by the Israeli military since 1967, are where Palestinians plan to create their future state.” No education to readers that EGL was taken from JORDAN in a DEFENSIVE WAR and that the new town is located in the Israeli Territory of Area C where Israel has civilian and military rule as agreed by the Palestinian Authority.
“Israel’s security cabinet on Thursday approved the building of the first new settlement in the occupied West Bank in two decades, even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu negotiates with Washington on a possible curb on settlement activity.” Adding the word “occupied” gave the deliberate misrepresentation that the land was Palestinian, and not Israeli territory.
Like CNN, Reuters also chose to quote Hanan Ashrawi “”Today’s announcement once again proves that Israel is more committed to appeasing its illegal settler population than to abiding by the requirements for stability and a just peace,” said Hanan Ashrawi, an executive committee member of the Palestine Liberation Organization,” but it did also quoted Netanyahu: “I made a promise that we would establish a new settlement … We will keep it today.” Further, Reuters omitted the highly offensive vitriol spewed by Ashrawi.
Reuters also added this rationale: “Such settlements, in territory that Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war, are deemed illegal by most of the world. Israel cites biblical, historical and political links to the land, as well as security interests, to defend its actions.” It added a few reasons why Israel has “links” to the land, but never mentioned international law of 1920 and 1922 permitting Jews to live in the area, nor political AGREEMENTS signed with the Palestinian Authority.
The Wall Street Journal’s article titled “Netanyahu Pushes New West Bank Settlement,” tied the decision to Netanyahu, not the Israeli cabinet, and did not include any time period relaying how “new” this settlement was.
At least until the opening sentence of the story. “Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday proposed the first new settlement in decades,” so readers got the history that this was a break from recent norms.
The WSJ spent the first eight paragraphs of the story giving some background on the approval process of the new town as well as the tacit approval of the White House to move forward with the project. Only at the ninth paragraph did the paper discuss the controversy around the development, before it quoted Ashrawi. This compared to CNN and Reuters which quoted Ashrawi much earlier in the fourth paragraph to set the tone of the article.
There was not a single article in any major media that mentioned the reality that the new development will be in Israeli administered territory. Of the major media, CNN was the most offensive, airing hateful Palestinian Arab propaganda and actually calling the land “Palestinian Territory.”
On May 18, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington, D.C. to meet the new president of the United States, Barack Obama. It was the beginning of a terrible friendship.
May 18, 2009 file photo, President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
Netanyahu was extremely distressed about the state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and urged Obama to set a hard, near-term timetable to reach a conclusive deal with the Iranians, or use military force to dismantle the dangerous program. Obama rejected both the idea of a timetable and the threat of military force.
Quite to the contrary, Obama used the public forum with Netanyahu by his side, to PRAISE IRAN, even though the US State Department defined it as a state sponsor of terrorism and the country’s leadership had threatened to destroy Israel. In his remarks before Netanyahu, Obama said:
“I [Obama] indicated to him [Netanyahu] the view of our administration, that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them to be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.”
It would take SIX YEARS for Obama to conclude a deal with the Iranians that left their entire nuclear weapons infrastructure in place and permitted the country a legal path to nuclear weapons in a decade. Netanyahu considered the negotiation a collosal failure and argued against it. Obama walked out on him.
Along the way Obama did threaten to use force against another state sponsor of terrorism – Syria – but ultimately decided to retreat from his August 2012 “red line.” A couple of hundred thousand dead Syrians later, Obama announced the legalization of Iran’s nuclear program while millions of Syrian refugees swarmed the western world.
And now Netanyahu is meeting a new US president.
Netanyahu is meeting with Donald Trump to discuss a range of issues. Like Netanyahu, Trump thought that Obama’s handling of Iran and Syria were complete failures. So it is unlikely that Trump will treat Netanyahu like a cuckold the way that Obama did in publicly lauding Iran in his face.
Will this meeting set the tone and restart the US-Israel relationship? Time will tell.
First One Through 