Benito Gantz Talks & Acts like a Dictator -- Israel's Democracy in Danger

Fraud is a common feature of politics, Who would deny it? A blatant contemporary example is the so-called Blue-White Party in Israel. Blue and white are the national colors of Israel, appearing on the flag. Hence, the Blue-White Party wants to be seen as patriotic. It pretends to be nationalist, often called "right-wing" in Israel although that term is often misleading. To further the ambition of Benny Gantz to dominate Israel's government, it was necessary for his party to pretend to be national or "right-wing." This is because  the "left-wing" Labor Party had led Israel into the disastrous Oslo Accords, which multiplied the number of Israelis being murdered in terrorist attacks. And was thus discredited. So "left-wing" became an ugly, threatening term to most Israelis. Therefore, a party had to seem non-"left" or "right-wing" or national in order to win enough votes to form a govt with other  parties in a coalition.

Staying with the Israel Labor Party, although one would think that a labor party would automatically be considered "leftist," the Israel Labor Party pretended to be "rightist" or national in the 1992 elections. In fact, some journalists complained in 1992 that the party was "Likud B." In other words, the party was too close to the Likud in its election rhetoric. It was imitating Likud. Yits'haq Rabin who was at the top of the party's list, and therefore would become prime minister if the party succeeded in forming a government, promised repeatedly that he and his party would not negotiate with the  PLO. We now know that the party, perhaps through Shimon Peres, was negotiating before the 1992 elections with Arab parties, such as Hadash, which was the Israel Communist party but with a chiefly Arab voting base and with Arab nationalist policies and rhetoric. After the election, Yossi Beilin was sent by foreign minister Peres to negotiate with the PLO and these ill-starred negotiations took place in Oslo, Norway, as part of the Norwegian contribution to world terrorism, which the Norwegian govt of the time would have called helping  the "peace process." Perhaps Rabin was sincere in his promise not to negotiate with the PLO. But Peres was able to work around him. It seems that Rabin did not not know about the secret Peres-Beilin-PLO talks in Oslo and was then presented with a fait accompli by Peres. Rabin had previously called Peres "a tireless subverter" [חתרן בלתי נלאה] and he had called Beilin "Peres' poodle." As prime minister, Rabin should have known better than to trust Peres.

This history of the Oslo Accords is very relevant for what is now going on in Israeli politics. Gantz and other party members of Blue-White claimed over and over that they would not try to form a minority govt supported from outside the government by the frankly anti-Israel group of parties in the Joint Arab List.

Just before last week’s election, Yair Lapid, the No. 2 in Benny Gantz’s Kahol Lavan, wrote on Facebook that his party could have formed a government after the previous election in September with the support of the Joint List of Arab parties. But it decided not to. “We won’t form a government with the Joint List. Period, exclamation mark. Whatever you choose.” [Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz, 10 March 2020]

Gantz even went so far as to call prime minister Netanyahu a "liar" for forecasting that that is what he would do after the election. Now, after the election on 2 March, last week, it turns out that Netanyahu was right and that Gantz was unjustly calling him a "liar" for his accurate forecasting. Gantz is hardly one to heed the will of the people if just one week after the election he is already breaking an important promise to his voters. Gantz is not democratic and is a habitual liar himself. We will get to that later.

First, the Israeli system needs explanation. There are 120 members of the parliament, the Knesset. They are elected by proportional representation. That is, the total vote is counted and parties that get more than the necessary threshold of vote percentage [3.25%] will get seats divided up by the percentage of votes for each qualifying party or party list. If a party list gets approximately 10% of the votes, it will get10% of the seats, that is, 12 out of 120. Since a party never gets half or more of the seats [61], it has to form a coalition. In the last three elections, neither major party [neither Likud nor Blue-White] has gotten enough seats among the Jewish parties [most of which have some Arab or Druze voters] to form a govt even in coalition. The Arab parties (including the Communist Hadash), being anti-Israel and Arab nationalist in rhetoric and policies, have never been part of a coalition [alhough the Communist Party in 1948 signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence]. So there is good reason not to include them in a coalition --as opposed to individual Arab politicians considered loyal to the state who have been in the government.

As Benito Gantz has been speaking in favor of forming a minority government supported from outside the govt by the Joint Arab List to provide a 62 seat majority, two members of Blue-White, considered "right-wing," have spoken out publicly against the very idea. Gantz naturally became angry with them, although they were only insisting that the party hold to Gantz' own promises to the voters rejecting the very notion of a govt based on the Joint List [including Communists and Islamists]. What Gantz said to these two members of his own party elected on the Blue-White list to the Knesset is very interesting and instructive. He did not merely tell them why he thought they were wrong and he was right, he put it this way:

Gantz however issued a statement saying “In Blue and White there can be a variety of opinions, but there is only one position and one decision - that of the chairman of the party. Not that of senior officials or associates.” [Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2020]

Benny Gantz issued this statement. But it could just as well have been issued by another Ben, Benito Mussolini. Or Stalin, for that matter. The party leader is called by Gantz the "chairman" as in Communist countries where the top dictator was the chairman of the Communist Party. Is there any doubt that this Benito is a danger to Israel's democracy and a danger to the Jews?

Just to add a little extra sweetness to our portrait of Benito, let's look at what he said last Saturday night. Netanyahu gave a speech to members of Likud in which he severely criticized Gantz. Gantz responded with a speech of his own in which he threatened civil war. Of course, he charged Netanyahu with threatening or working towards a civil war due to Netanyahu's alleged "incitement." But the charge of incitement has been used all too often here in Israel in order to silence political opponents. In fact, Gantz and some of his Blue White comrades have been inciting against Netanyahu by gross lies [here]. Here are beauties from Gantz' speech on Saturday night:

"The Right in recent in weeks are [sic! should be "have"] left no room for no [sic!! This second no does not belong here] doubt, Netanyahu is threatening a civil war with his call of incitement. I stand here in front of you in the name of many people on the Right and Left and say: it's time to heal Israeli society from the plague of hatred," [i24news]

In fact, Gantz has been smearing Netanyahu since his first major political speech in February 2019 [here].
Gantz is far from being a true military hero. He was a mediocre general at best. In Yiddish we can call him Ah gantser gornisht [ א גאנצער גארנישט], a total nothing!! On the other hand, Netanyahu served in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit. He took part in various missions, such as rescuing the passengers on a Sabena [Belgian] airline who were hijacked to the Lod airport here in Israel by terrorists.
Now for the good news. It seems that Orly Levy Abecassis has served as the Queen Esther of our times --on Purim appropriately-- and rescued us from the nightmare of a minority government dependent on the hostile Arab parties who had already warned that they demand a high price be paid for supporting Gantz' would-be govt from outside. For instance, they ruled out any future major military action against the Hamas jihadi terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
Orly Levy, daughter of a Likud foreign minister, joined with Zvi Hauser and Yoaz Hendel in refusing to back Gantz in his endeavor to form a minority govt supported from outside by hostile Arab parties.
Whereas Hauser and Hendel belong to Blue-White and were elected on its list, Levy Abecassis was elected on a joint list of her party, Gesher, along with Labor and Meretz.

Shall Israel Elect a Gross Liar and Fraudulent Party to Mislead the People?

Have people noticed that in many ways the new Blue-White party of Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid has been trying to persuade people that it is much like Likud, but more "honest"? Moreover, Gantz, Lapid  and their strategists wanted to  be seen as patriotic, whereas patriotism is often seen as "rightist." That is why they called their party Blue-White, the colors of Israel's flag although the colors have little ideological content and do not disclose what their policies would be if elected.

In fact, Lapid himself stated on TV that Blue-White was much like Likud, "like Likud used to be" is how I think he put it. Gantz stated in a speech that the distinctions between "Right" and "Left" are not what they used to be. That is often true and I myself believe that the notion of a right-left political and ideological spectrum is very unhelpful for understanding politics today, if it ever was helpful, perhaps at the time of the revolutionary Assembly in France after the 1789 revolution. In those years, the seating in the Assembly was arranged in a semi-circle and parties that were more moderate or conservative were seated on the right and those more radical to the left. However, politics is three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional as on a spectrum.
That brings us back to Israel.
In the 1992 election campaign, the Labor Party pretended to be very similar to Likud but without "corruption" while they accused Likud of being corrupt [מושחתים נמאסתם]. Indeed, this was apparently the design of Haim Ramon who was, as I recall, running the Labor campaign. Enemies of Labor accused the party of trying to be Likud B. Well, what happened was that Labor came out ahead in the elections, partly because several national camp parties did not make it over the percentage threshold of votes, although the national and religious camp did obtain more votes than the so-called Left. And then, after forming a coalition government with the anti-national Meretz party and the ultra-orthodox Shas, Shimon Peres and his poodle, Yossi Beilin [according to Rabin], made the horrendous Oslo accords with the PLO, whereas PM Rabin had promised during the election campaign that he would not deal with the PLO, yet was presented with the fait accompli of the Oslo negotiations by Peres who had started negotiating with the PLO behind Rabin's back. The Oslo accords did not bring peace nor even a lessening of terrorist murders but in fact a sharp increase in terrorist murders. Oslo was a disaster, a death pact, not only for Israel but for people the world over as Oslo quietly encouraged mass murderous terrorism not only against Israel but in many countries, from the USA to France to India to Kenya and Nigeria, etc etc. The Oslo accords set a bad example for the world because they legitimized a band of mass murderous terrorists, they  legitimized mass murder and murder in general. And the relations between Jews and Arabs within the country, within Israel, have worsened. The Oslo Peace was no peace at all.

I see that same thing happening again here in Israel as in 1992. A party that wants to give away parts of the Land of Israel, as Gantz has strongly hinted [unilateral withdrawals in order to "separate" from the Judea-Samaria Arabs], is at the same time pretending to be like the Likud but cleaner, straighter more honest. Yet Gantz is hardly honest. The state controller recently released a report that showed that a now bankrupt company formerly headed by Gantz had obtained a contract with the Israel Police without a proper tender for offers, being issued. The state controller also reported that Gantz' firm had misrepresented important information to the Police. This happened while Gantz was head of the company. The suspicion is of improper collusion between Gantz and the Police Commissioner, ash-Sheikh.

Gantz is also loose with the truth when it comes to smearing Netanyahu. Near the start of the election campaign, about two months ago, Gantz in a speech accused Netanyahu of being an army shirker. Gantz claimed that Netanyahu as a young man had left Israel to go to the United States, specifically to Boston, where he spent much time going to fancy cocktail parties. This is a filthy smear. In fact, BB's father, Professor Netanyahu, had gone to the USA to teach on a university level, and took his children with him. Benyamin Netanyahu lived just outside Philadelphia [not Boston] in Cheltenham Township. And he attended middle school there and later went on to be a student at Cheltenham High School. After graduating high school he came to Israel to join the army, whereas he could have stayed in the USA [although his father would likely have objected]. He followed in the footsteps of his brother Yonatan, Yoni, who was the commander of the Israeli operation to rescue hostages from Entebbe Airport in Uganda. Yoni, z'l was shot and died in the operation, the only soldier to die in it. BB too served in an elite commando unit as an officer. He was hardly a shirker of army service.

And another thing, Gantz also insinuated that BB was not an authentic Israeli, that he was too American. For those unacquainted with Israel and with the anti-national camp, called the Left, that is a fairly common insult for "leftists" to make and I myself have suffered the insult -- and from a "leftist," a member of the anti-national Meretz Party. But it is an ugly prejudice and where is it most common? I already said that.

More personal lies about Netanyahu are detailed by Ruthie Blum in her column in the Jerusalem Post:
Blue and White Party chairman Benny Gantz crossed a rhetorical redline this week that made every other malicious maneuver of the current campaign, on both sides of the political spectrum, seem like child’s play. . . .  Gantz likened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Yes, the leading contender in the race for the premiership actually compared the incumbent leader of the only democracy in the region . . . to a radical Islamist autocrat, who imprisons anyone he deems a dissident. . . .
[Ruth Blum pointed out that Erdogan has conducted] Stalin-like purges and [has] absolute control of every sector of Turkish society. . . . Unlike Turks subjected to Erdogan’s repressive rule, after all, Israeli citizens enjoy human and civil rights.
. . . . 
The future of Israel, he reiterated to the Times of Israel, “is at stake. As a democracy, it is at stake. I’m not saying the problem is coming here tomorrow, but the trend is very, very, very dangerous.”

There’s irony for you.

The so-called “dangerous trend” to which he was referring is actually a positive progression in a system based on the will of the people, not the whim of despots like Erdogan.

Israelis enjoy free speech, for instance, but do not wish to spend their tax shekels on “art” that portrays them as murderous thugs. Hence, Culture Minister Miri Regev’s policy of being discerning when it comes to funding projects has been welcomed by the public.
Nor do Israelis appreciate the degree to which the courts have become interventionist in political matters. This is why, to give another example, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s moves to clip the wings of the judiciary have been widely popular. . . . .

Meanwhile, Netanyahu – whose “attacks on everyone, including the media” are a cause of such great concern to Gantz – is the one under constant assault. He is investigated by the police, hindered by the courts and eviscerated by the press. Whether it is wise of him to lash out verbally in return is arguable.

WHAT IS NOT a matter of debate, however, is that the situation in Turkey is just the opposite. Erdogan has incarcerated thousands of judges, policemen, professors, politicians and members of the media. In fact, Turkey today is reportedly the world’s largest jailer of journalists. 

Given Gantz’s impressive display of ignorance throughout the interview – including admitting to the two journalists gently grilling him, “Listen, you are more experienced than me” – it’s no wonder that he has spent the bulk of his newfound political career looking pretty and keeping his mouth shut. . . . 
Gantz made a final fool of himself by saying that at times, he has been forced to stoop to Netanyahu’s “low” level of campaign discourse – “but in principle, I think that Israel deserves something more respectful, more statesmanlike, more serious. So I try to maintain the high ground as far as possible.”

Really?

Equating Netanyahu with Erdogan is not just the antithesis of “respectful, statesmanlike and serious.” Nor is it simply a form of hitting a political rival below the belt. It is utterly immoral, and should be viewed with the horror it deserves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, 6 April 2019 - - - [also see]- - - - - - - -

Do you get the picture? Various interests in Israel and abroad want to get rid of Netanyahu because he is too successful a leader. Because he is too good for Israel. So they found a former commander-in-chief of the Israeli army, a mediocre general at best, and gave him backing in the form of money and campaign strategists, to go after Netanyahu, supposedly surpassing Netanyahu in the areas that Netanyahu's base is supposedly concerned with, security, defense [in one early video, Gantz boasted of how many Arabs he had killed], good government, and democracy, and for good measure they got two more former commanders-in-chief [Ya`alon & Ashkenazi] to join his ticket plus the former journalist, Yair Lapid, who already had a party organization and had served in Netanyahu's previous govt, 2013-2015, as an incompetent treasury minister. Does it exculpate or incriminate Gantz that his smears of BB were likely proposed to him by his so-called strategic advisors provided by his moneyed backers? The lie about Netanyahu being an army shirker probably was unfavorably received by the public since it has not been repeated. Too many people know about Netanyahu as an officer in the elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, which among other things rescued hostages on a Sabena Airlines plane hijacked to the main Israeli airport by terrorists. BB was wounded in that action and in at least one other combat encounter.
Lapid in 2013, like Gantz now, got a lot of favorable media attention during the  election campaign. As for Lapid's military service, unlike Netanyahu, he served in a rather cushy unit, you might call him a chocolate soldier. He worked on the staff of a weekly magazine published by the army, BaMahhaneh במחנה, which was freely sold throughout the country. Lapid's father was a prominent journalist which probably explains how he got assigned to a desk job. Gantz's disdain for army shirkers does not seem to apply to Lapid, or maybe politics makes strange bedfellows. 
Just one last thing about Lapid. When ex-US prez Obama visited Israel in 2013, there was a receiving line for him at the airport, and most ministers were in the line. Going down the line, Obama stopped for a minute or more in front of Lapid, longer than with anybody else. They looked each other in the eye. And as I recall, Obama told Lapid that he expected to be working together with him in the future. Together with him, with Lapid specifically. What does that tell us about possible connections between Lapid and Obama that have not been reported in the press?
- - - - - - - - - -
MORE ON GANTZ
BBC timeline of Gantz' military career and criticism of him by the state comptroller [here]
BBC bio sketches of various contenders in the 2019 Israeli election, see the section on Gantz in particular [here].  See part of the bio sketch on Gantz below:

"Mr Gantz's election ads have trumpeted his military record, featuring a body count of Palestinian militants and scenes of destruction from the war in Gaza that he oversaw in 2014. [emphasis added]

"Seeking to draw right-leaning voters away from Mr Netanyahu, Mr Gantz has talked tough on Iran and echoed the prime minister's positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He has avoided mention of a two-state solution and ruled out unilateral withdrawals in the occupied West Bank, pledging to bolster large Israeli settlement blocs there and maintain the IDF's freedom of action throughout the territory. Settlements are seen as illegal under international law, although Israel disagrees." [BBC here]

The BBC clearly shows that Gantz is echoing Netanyahu's positions in order to draw Netanyahu's voters. But his dishonesty is obvious. Echoing BB's positions is a demagogic ploy. He cannot be trusted.
In another post, I will present some info about Gantz's incompetent or mediocre army career filled with contemptible actions and decisions. 
[this blog post was slightly revised on 9 April 2019]

Obama & FDR --- Who Was in Charge of the War Department during WW2 & the Holocaust?

In the Spring of election year, a young president's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of reelection. As in 2008, Obama is sweet-talking Jews, some of whom have reportedly escaped from the Democratic Party's corral because of his anti-Israel policies since his inauguration in 2009. He sweet-talked Armenian-Americans too in 2008. Once elected of course, he violated his solemn promise to them to recognize the Armenian genocide. Armenians too have escaped from the corral.

In his efforts to hold on to Jewish and other voters, Mr Promise Breaker has compared himself and had himself compared to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, long a hero of the Democratic Party.
But if the comparison is valid, should it be seen as a merit or demerit of Obama?

That brings us to the AIPAC Conference more than a month ago. In his speech there, Prime Minister Netanyahu brought up a historic fact not known to the general public nor even to many people who consider themselves well-informed. This was the rejection by the US War Department in 1944 of a request by a Jewish organization, the World Jewish Congress, to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz [Oswiecim in Polish] and the railway lines leading there. Such actions would have significantly delayed the ongoing mass murder process. Here is the relevant excerpt from Netanyahu's speech:

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb.

They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran. I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you. Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote: Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans. Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust. [full text of speech here-- texts of letters to & from War Dept here]

Now just who was in charge of the executive branch of the US Government at that time, 1944? Who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of the war and for the setting of war aims? Who was the commander-in-chief of US armed forces in WW2? Yes, it was none other than the same Franklin Delano Roosevelt to whom Obama and his flunkeys compare him in order to place him on the same pedestal of idolization on which FDR has unjustly remained since his death. If the comparison is valid, it is not to Obama's credit.

This is not meant as an endorsement of Republicans. The president at the time of the Holocaust was not a Republican, however, but a Democrat. He was indeed idolized by millions of Americans including most Jews at the time. We can't know what a Republican president would have done if there had been one at the time. We do know that representatives and senators of both the Democratic & Republican parties were sympathetic to the Jews during the Shoah. One of the notable ones being Hugh Scott, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, later a senator. Scott was instrumental in bringing news of the Holocaust to the American public through a discussion with a volunteer with the Bergson Group to whom Scott provided little known information. Yet the Dulles family, Allen, John Foster and Eleanor, who held influential offices in the US Government and were also Republicans, were not sympathetic. But clearly, Jews cannot trust Democrats, especially when their lips overflow with generalities and platitudes about stopping atrocities and genocide.

Real Problems, False Answers from Demagogues & Subversives

REVISED 8-7-2011 LINK ADDED at bottom 8-8&14&15&25-2011

It has long been known that demagogues and those who would take over a state take advantage of real issues, real problems. So it was in Weimar Germany when the Nazis of the National Socialist German Workers Party took advantage of the world economic crisis at the end of the 1920s. The Nazis too blamed the tycoons of the time --often identified by them as "Jewish international bankers." Needless to say, the Nazis did not solve Germany's or the world's economic problem. Rather they brought about a war that led to the destruction of much of Germany and of many Germans, besides the tens of millions of Jews and other peoples slaughtered in the war.

The economic crisis reached America too where it became known as the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt came to power and improved the situation but the United States did not get out of the Depression until the war with massive, government-funded war production and massive recruitment of millions of young men into the armed forces.

Israel's housing crisis is real. The situation became noticeable and started to be talked about early this year. Israel's central bank governor, Stanley Fisher, recently said at a press conference that he had made a choice in his management of Israel's monetary situation. He said that he preferred to bring down unemployment rather than solve the housing problem, since helping one situation with the tools available to him meant hurting the other situation. Indeed, the latest unemployment stat for Israel was 5.7% which is an excellent rate compared to Western Europe and the United States. Nevertheless, housing was getting more expensive, whether for sale or for rent. Especially in the Tel Aviv metro area, called here Gush Dan. Also, food prices have been going up. This reminds us that after some 15 or 16 Euro countries joined the euro currency, the Eurozone, food and other consumer prices went up there and have not come down, although theoretically this should not have happned. People complain in Italy, France and Germany over these inexplicable price rises. In Israel, the food price rise led to the cottage cheese boycott of several weeks ago.

This seems to have given a number of oppositionist bodies funded and coordinated by the New Israel Fund [itself funded in turn by the Ford Foundation among other sources] the idea to use socio-economic issues, rather than their usual whining about the sad fate of Arab terrorists and genocide mongers, in order to bring down the govt. So an employee of an outfit funded by NIF, Dafne Leef, set up a tent in the middle of Rothschild Boulevard in a fairly fancy part of Tel Aviv.
She claimed that she could not rent an apartment at a decent price in the fancier parts of Tel Aviv. She is a poor little rich girl. But the gimmick worked and she has been joined by others throughout the country. Tents supplied courtesy of funds provided by NIF, the Qadima Party, the Hadash Party [Communists], etc.

But what are the causes of the shortage of affordable housing? First of all, the freeze in building in Judea-Samaria, which Prez Obama pressured PM Netanyahu into accepting. Insofar as the NIF supports Obama's anti-Israel, anti-Jewish policy, then the NIF and its constituent funded bodies, like Shatil, are morally complicit in the freeze and in the consequent shortage of affordable housing. Another cause is the increased immigration [`aliyah] of Jews from France and elsewhere in Europe. They are being substantially driven out by the increased Judeophobia there, the most violent and dangerous part of it coming from the large Muslim population in France [not to say that all French Muslims take part in anti-Jewish violence], encouraged by some of the "extreme Left" in France, such as Trotskyist Olivier Besancenot. The immigrants from France are often fairly prosperous and have bought up much of the expensive upscale housing, especially on Israel's coast.

Lastly, in a period when building in Judea-Samaria is next to impossible, bureaucratic Israeli structures of long standing, such as the Lands Administration [minhal m'qarq`in], do their bit, as they have been doing for years, to retard building in the country inside the Green Line, keeping the supply of housing and commercial real estate down, and all this by dragging out the process of approval for building plans for years, up to seven years according to Netanyahu. The Lands Administration is in itself an entrenched special interest and protects certain special interests, the owners of existing built real estate [besides the fact that the head of the Lands Administration is among the highest paid officials in Israel, making more in 2006 than the prime minister in 2010]. When demand for RE outpaces supply, the prices of existing RE go up. It's the old, simple law of supply and demand. Netanyahu has long wanted to remedy this situation, talking about it even in his first term. In July 2009, two years ago, he was trying to pass legislation to reform the Lands Administration but something always came up to derail the final change [Globes, 5-5-2011Hebrew]. So this is something that Netanyahu has been working on for years but could not succeed in pushing through fully and finally. Various entrenched interests were opposed. Almost two weeks ago, Netanyahu pulled out at a press conference a new version of his program to reform the Lands Administration. The self-appointed leaders of the housing protests rejected his plan, claiming that it would make people rich, especially the hated but unnamed "tycoons." Yet, insofar as the Lands Administration was keeping down the housing supply by delaying approval of building plans, then the "protest" leaders were opposing a measure to increase the supply --and a larger supply would of course bring down prices. Maintaining the present system in fact enriches real estate owners, owners of existing built up real estate, because it limits the supply of new housing. So somebody is getting rich either way. If there is more building the contractors and building materials suppliers can get rich. If the Lands Administration is not reformed and Netanyahu's other plans to build homes and rental apartments do not go through then the owners of existing RE get richer.
By opposing the prime minister's proposals the self-appointed protest leaders show that they do not want a solution to the housing problem and do not want to help people.

Of course, the fact that the hard core of the protest movement does not want solutions but is more focused on bringing down Netanyahu, has not escaped many observers in Israel. Dror Eyder, writing in Yisrael HaYom [ 7-29-2011], reports on a lecture by Stanley Greenberg, a public opinion pollster and manipulator for Bill Clinton. Greenberg lectured here in Israel at a meeting of the Rubinger Forum meant to discuss reviving the Israeli "Left," and how to persuade people that there was a "palestinian partner" for peace, that the "settlements" were a "disaster" [conveniently giving the unthinking "leftist" herds somebody to hate], and that it was necessary to go back to socialist economics. Greenberg lectured about 1/2 year ago. He gave his audience "ten steps" to defeat their adversaries in Israel.

Curiously, the audience was told to read an essay by the anti-Communist Czech intellectual, Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless." Ironically, the "Left" in Israel is far from powerless and has always dominated major state institutions since independence, even under Likud govts. They dominate the police, the judiciary, the prosecutor's office, public broadcasting, etc., although some of this is changing, albeit too slowly. They once dominated the economy, exercising enormous power of people who simply wanted a job. Those who did not hold the Histadrut's red membership booklet could not get jobs controlled by the Histadrut which was probably most jobs at one time. Or would have to join in order to get the job, which was my wife's experience. Nevertheless, this membership did not protect her job. She taught for one year at a school owned by the Histadrut, an `Amal school. At the end of one year she was laid off, although a good teacher. All the new teachers were laid off at the end of one year [if they stayed more than a year they would have seniority to keep the job], except for a favored one or two who had ingratiated themselves with the principal. So the "Left" is hardly the disadvantaged or weaker party in Israel. They use their institutional control to continue to shape policy against the wishes of the majority of the people. In short, enemies of Israel at home and abroad, including the NIF, have been thinking of strategies for bringing down the govt.

So the "mass protests" are backed up by a lot of money and powerful institutions and individuals. One of the "leftists" admitted the reality, with some amount of commendable embarassment and regret. Money from the EU and the NIF [much of it originating with the Ford Foundation] is financing the "protest" movement. It is likely that the movement will keep on "protesting" whether any problems get solved or not. The money is there. And when you are paid to organize a protest, you don't drop out until your employer changes his policy.

But Netanyahu, ironically, was able to use these protests as a lever for pushing through his own, long-desired reform of the Lands Administration. It is obvious that the housing problem has been on his mind for a long time, and up till now he could not get his program through because of the opposition of entrenched interests. Now apparently, with the unwitting and maybe unwilling help of the protest movement's self-appointed leadership, he has finally done it. This is like a jiu jitsu fighter using his enemy's strength against that enemy. If this works out, I say to him Kol haKavod, all honors to you. More power to him. Likewise, minister of interior, Eli Yishai, used the situation to approve 930 units of new housing to be built in the Har Homa neighborhood of southeast Jerusalem. Approval of these units had been held up for almost two years out of a desire not to upset Obama who is bothered by Jews having a place to live. Yishai also recently approved a project in northern Samaria in a place called Harish for 4,700 housing units. Another place where Obama doesn't want Jews to live.

For an understanding of some of Israel's basic problems, see an essay by Martin Sherman, a shrewd and knowledgeable social and political analyst. He had an excellent op ed in the JPost showing what some of the real problems are in Israel and some of their causes as well as some of the obstacles to solving them. I agree with just about everything in the article. I have often read Sherman's articles in the JPost and Nativ and elsewhere and had a long conversation with him while he worked as a high official in the Ministry of Agriculture. He is both knowledgeable and honest, as well as shrewd.

To conclude with the leadership of the "protest movment." They are great with slogans. Slogans, slogans, slogans. But they are noticeably weak on solutions. They rejected Netanyahu's proposed solutions to the housing shortage with specious arguments [see above]. But they have a slogan. A favorite slogan: Social Justice. What's wrong with this slogan? Because just about everybody agrees with it, just about everybody can claim to be for social justice. But it means different things to different people. Everybody has his own notion of what social justice is. The strict Muslim wants Muslim rule over the whole world and the non-Muslims as subjects of the Islamic state must be dhimmis, people tolerated in a state of inferiority, like Jews and Christians in the traditional Islamic state that the Muslim Brotherhood --"moderates" according to big shots in Washington-- wants to go back to. On the other hand, a Catholic priest, Father Charles Coughlin, published a weekly paper in the 1930s in America entitled Social Justice. He didn't much like Jews. But he too wanted social justice. He said so himself. But he wanted his version. Although he ranted every week on radio about "international bankers," at first more often insinuated to be Jews, later, usually asserted to be Jews, Coughlin had quiet meetings with at least one international banker who was not a Jew. And after supporting Roosevelt for election in 1933, he became openly pro-Nazi starting in 1936. So the slogan social justice [ צדק חברתי] can mean being pro-fascist. The protest organizers are cleverly using vague, empty slogans. But these do not provide a solution. They are more meant to bring people into the movement --and hopefully bring down the Netanyahu-Likud govt, from their standpoint-- than to provide real solutions to help real people.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
8-8-2011 Yoaz Hendel writes that the demonstrators on Rothchild Boulevard represent not the people of Israel but only one of several "tribes" that make up the people [here]. The protest movement, specifically "the rally last night, was created by the media of this same tribe." And, Hendel writes, the numbers were "tens of thousands," not the 300,000 claimed by various media. He too agrees that "social justice" is a matter of opinion and point of view.
8-14-2011 Sarah Honig in the JPost provides her definitions helpful for understanding the current protest movement. She takes up terms like: front organization, astroturf, useful idiot & others [here].
8-15-2011 Zalman Shoval points to the demagogic slogans like "social justice", used by organizers of the protests, as well as to the foreign funding enjoyed by some of them [here]. Shoval acknowledges the real problems that exist, as well as the Orwellian quality of the protest organizers' response to the prime minister's proposal to reform the Israel Lands Administration [or Authority].
Benny Avni belittles the notion that the tent protest movement will bring down the Netanyahu government [here]. I concur.
8-25-2011 Yaniv Moyal, a protest leader outside the circle of Daphni Leef and her charmed circle of professional/full time radicals, complains that most of the media give that group all of the attention although they are young people of little experience and arrogant, domineering disposition [here in JPost]

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Response to Obama's Sinister Pro-Arab Fascist Speech

UPDATED 6-9-2011 at bottom
The "peace" in "peace process"
stands for peace of mind for
antisemites.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Office issued the following statement following President Obama's sinister speech that denied Jewish human and civil rights:
- - - - - - - -
Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace.
Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.
- - - - - END- - - - -

Needless to say, I do not agree with the first sentence of the Prime Minister's Office's statement that Obama is committed to peace. Obama appears to be committed to undermining peace, encouraging Arab warmongers, and depriving Jews of human and civil rights.
- - - - - -
Daniel Pipes on the speech [here]. In case you're wondering, Pipes considers the speech and the policy that it contains to be "folly."
Omri Ceren, Robert Satloff, Aaron David Miller note that Obama's speech was a grave departure from past US policy on Israel-Arab peacemaking [here]
More Omri Ceren on "change" [here]
Charles Krauthammer on what is new & what old in Obama's allocution [here]
Robert Satloff on Obama's move closer to the Arab position [here]
Jackson Diehl on Obama's mistakes in his speech [here]
Evelyn Gordon on how Obama undermines Israel's negotiating ability and international status [here]
Jonathan Tobin explains that Obama's speech did not appease Arabs angry at his lack of support for Arab uprisings against their own tyrannical regimes, nor did it satisfy the never satisfied PLO/PA leadership, while undermining Israel [here]
Binyamin [Benjamin] Netanyahu's speech after meeting with President Obama [here]. Slightly more of the exchange between the two leaders [here].
Judith Klinghoffer believes that Obama's speech was based on demands from Saudi Arabia that he come out strongly on the Arab side in return for the Saudis bringing down the price of oil on the world market through increased production. The world market price of oil has come down in recent weeks.
Dore Gold on how Obama reversed past US official policy in favor of "defensible borders" for Israel [here]
Wall Street Journal on "The 1967 Line of Fire" [here]
David Bernstein gives some historical perspective on US promises to Israel [here]
Ronald Radosh describes tensions within the White House between now resigned "peace envoy" George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, and Obama himself which led to making Obama's speech less hostile than it otherwise would have been [here]
Yoram Ettinger on Obama's unrealistic understanding and/or ignorance about the Middle East [here]
Washington Times editorial on Obama breaking promises to Israel [here]
Prominent Democratic politicians, Jews and non-Jews, disagree intelligently with Obama's positions on Israel [here] as expressed in the speech of 5-19-2011.
Benny Avni's questions about Obama's speech [here]
Ari Shavit on the bad and the good in Obama's speech [here]
6-9-2011 Carlo Panella on Obama's speech. He upset both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and demonstrated his ignorance of the situation and the issues once again [qui]

Some Ideas for Bibi on What to Say about Peace to Obama & the World

Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, should say a number of things to the world and Obama in his upcoming speech. He should take into consideration that some of Obama's lies and misrepresentations and distortions in the Cairo speech need to be countered.

1- He should stress the long Jewish/Israelite history in the Land of Israel going back more than 3,000 years. The kingdom of David was established around the year 1000 BCE. Jews have always lived in the Land despite massacres --mass slaughter-- by Roman and Byzantine armies, Arab invaders and occupiers [who defeated the Byzantines], and Crusaders. Jews in Exile have always tried to return to the Land when possible.

2-- It is true that Jews suffered persecution in many parts of the world, certainly in Christendom and Islam, although maybe not everywhere as Obama said in Cairo. It is also true that Jews suffered the Holocaust as a kind of culmination of centuries of Judeophobia. But Obama should not be allowed to exculpate the Arabs from guilt either for centuries of oppression/persecution/humiliation/economic exploitation of Jews or for collaboration in the Holocaust. Bibi might add that all non-Muslims under Islamic rule suffered oppression mandated by Islamic law.

3-- Arab collaboration with the Nazis and in the Holocaust was widespread among the Arab nationalists, but one man, Haj Amin el-Husseini, is emblematic of this collaboration. Husseini [Husayni] was the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem and head of the British-created Supreme Muslim Council. The British tolerated his attacks on Jews --perpetrated by his followers-- in the 1920s and 1930s and even encouraged them. The British also enlarged the scope of Hitler's victims by preventing Jews from escaping from the Nazi-controlled domain in Europe. Hence, the British violated the international commitment they had made to the League of Nations to facilitate development of the Jewish National Home. Like Obama and his administration today, who rail against "Jewish settlements," the British forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of the Jewish National Home. The UK violated international law in harming Jews and their rights and violated their commitment to the Jewish people. How can Israel trust the UK or its cultural offshoot, the English-speaking USA? Neither power did anything major to save Jews during the Holocaust, whereas the British deliberately prevented escape.

4-- Hamas and Hizbullah, which the Obama administration wants to chat with, have clearly stated Nazi principles regarding the Jews. Hamas openly advocates genocide of Jews in its charter, Article 7. The German Nazis never openly advocated genocide of Jews. Hamas and Hizbullah must be taken at their world.

5-- It seems that the Obama administration is trying to disavow commitments made to Israel by previous administrations in return for Israeli concessions. Obama is trying to bury his forerunner Bush's understandings with Israel about the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria.