CIJR’S Latest ISRAZINE is
now available on line (isranet.org):
Israel's Levy Report:
Clarifying the Misconceptions
Happy Balfour Day!: Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 31, 2012
The creation of the Zionist state was neither a rogue act nor an unlawful deed. It was fully grounded in international law and approved by the nations of the world. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply twisting the truth.
An Election of Great Import for Israel: Isi Leibler, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 31, 2012
Next week’s US Presidential election will have major implications for the entire Western world, but in particular for Israel. It is also noteworthy that Israel and the Jews have never featured so prominently in a Presidential campaign.
Obama’s Campaign Goes Empty and Strident: George F. Will, Washington Post, October 31
Energetic in body but indolent in mind, Barack Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate
The Reagan Revolution is on the Line: Charles Krauthammer, National Post, Nov 2, 2012
Obama’s intention has always been to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan, the author of a new liberal ascendancy.
Let My People Pray (on the Temple Mount): Maayana Miskin, Israel National News, Nov. 2, 2012
Former ‘Democrats Abroad’ Israel Chair: Join me in Voting for Romney, Rachel Hirshfeld, Israel National News, Oct. 31, 2012
Obama, Islam and Israel: Martin Sherman, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 1, 2012
Obama and The Politics of Contempt: Caroline B. Glick, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 1, 2012
Michael Freund
Jerusalem Post, October 31, 2012
Recent years have seen an intensified effort by Israel’s foes to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state. From organizing flotillas to Gaza to pushing for boycotts and sanctions, these misguided militants have sought to rebrand Israel as a bellicose and aggressive nation.
Consisting of an increasingly strident chorus of Islamist radicals, Western anarchists and pro-Palestinian activists, they have made it their mission to besmirch Israel on college campuses, in the international press and at every available opportunity.
Not content with critiquing Israeli governmental policy, this knot of knaves has gone a step further, seeking to undermine the validity of Israel’s existence by portraying it as an illicit entity in the region. Left unanswered, these charges may begin to stick, further weakening Israel’s image abroad and damaging her standing worldwide. It is time for Israel to fight back and to wage a counteroffensive in the war of ideas.…
A good place to start would be to give the world a quick history lesson and remind them that we are here by right and not out of pity. After all, it was 95 years ago this week, on November 2, 1917, that the British government issued one of the most significant documents of the modern era – the Balfour Declaration – which reaffirmed the right of the Jewish people to renew their ancient Biblical homeland in Israel.
Written by foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour and approved by His Majesty’s government, the declaration stated clearly and unequivocally that Britain’s leaders “view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.”
Subsequently, when the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, approved the Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, it formally incorporated the Balfour Declaration. In the preamble, it stated that, “the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
The Mandate, which was approved by more than 50 member nations, also noted “the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine.” In other words, Israel was later established with the full backing and support of the international community, and it was the Balfour Declaration which laid the conceptual groundwork for that to happen.
As Norman Bentwich, who served as the British-appointed attorney-general for mandatory Palestine, noted in his book, Mandate Memories, “The Balfour Declaration was not an impetuous or sentimental act of the British government, as has been sometimes represented, or a calculated measure of political warfare. It was a deliberate decision of British policy and idealist politics, weighed and reweighed, and adopted only after full consultation with the United States and with other Allied Nations.”
Hence, the creation of the Zionist state was neither a rogue act nor an unlawful deed. It was fully grounded in international law and approved by the nations of the world. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply twisting the truth.
And Balfour Day, the day it all began, therefore presents us with a wonderful opportunity to jog the world’s memory and silence those who say that we are sitting on stolen land. It is a day we should be celebrating as a seminal moment in Israel’s modern- day rebirth.
In case you think that the Balfour Declaration is little more than ancient history and that no one really cares about such things, think again. For a number of years, the Palestinians have been waging a campaign specifically targeting the Balfour Declaration which has included rallies, protests and even calls by Palestinian officials for an apology from Britain.
An October 24 report on Iran’s Press TV stated that a London-based Palestinian group is launching a crusade to compel the UK government to express regret for its “past atrocities starting with the Balfour Declaration.” Clearly, if the Palestinians deem it important enough to wage war against, the dusty old pages of the Balfour Declaration are still highly relevant.
And that is why it is imperative that we once again embrace Balfour Day each year and commemorate it as widely as possible. We must utilize this occasion to educate Jews and non-Jews alike regarding the justness of our cause, which far too many seem to have overlooked.
The battle over Israel’s legitimacy is well underway, and we must use every tool at our disposal to defend the truth. By restoring some historical consciousness and context to the dispute, we can even the playing field and make a better and more compelling case that Israel’s right to exist, regardless of what our critics might say, is not something that is open to debate.
AN ELECTION OF GREAT IMPORT FOR ISRAEL
Isi Leibler
Jerusalem Post, Oct. 31, 2012
Next week’s US presidential election will have major implications for the entire western world, but in particular for Israel. It is also noteworthy that Israel and the Jews have never featured so prominently in a presidential campaign. In last week’s debate on foreign policy between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, both candidates competed to demonstrate their pro-Israel credentials and the Jewish state was mentioned no less than 34 times.
Until six weeks ago there was an emerging consensus shared by supporters and opponents alike, that Romney had failed to make an impact and that Obama would be re-elected. Yet since the first dramatic debate, the upsurge in support for Romney has been extraordinary, and if the polls reflect reality, the outcome could be a real cliff-hanger.
Of course, opinion polls can be misleading. The complexity of the Electoral College voting system does not necessarily grant victory to the candidate receiving the majority of votes. The even more critical factor is whether those who actually vote will proportionately adhere to the same trends as those initially polled.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis will be hoping for a Romney win. Despite Obama’s ongoing commitment to providing Israel with military aid and his more recent positive policies towards Israel, it is no secret that he personally loathes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Most Israelis are fearful that if re-elected, no longer needing a charm offensive to garner Jewish support, Obama is likely to repeat the pattern of his first term when he unashamedly reneged on many of his previous undertakings towards Israel.
They are concerned that he will revert to his earlier policy of “adopting daylight between Israel and the US” and will renew pressure on the Jewish state to make further unilateral concessions towards the Palestinians. There is fear that he will again insist that the indefensible 1949 armistice lines be considered as the opening benchmark for negotiating borders and will also press for the division of Jerusalem.
Romney, in contrast, enjoys a cordial personal relationship with Netanyahu. More importantly he also seems to display a far more positive attitude towards the Jewish state. One of his major criticisms of the administration’s foreign policy has been Obama’s alleged abandonment and continuous public chastisement and humiliation of Israel.
Whereas Obama blames Israeli settlement policies – including home construction in east Jerusalem’s Jewish suburbs – for the impasse with the Palestinians, Romney says plainly that peace will be unattainable until the Palestinians genuinely abandon their objective of destroying the Jewish state.
As to Iran, notwithstanding undertakings to do all that is necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, should sanctions fail to bring about tangible results there are grave doubts as to whether Obama would be willing to take the tough measures required. However, should Romney be elected, while presumably providing notice of tougher intentions, during his first months in office he too would be unlikely to immediately initiate drastic military action.
There is a vast chasm between the approaches of both candidates in relation to the Arab world, which is increasingly falling under more extreme Islamic and jihadist influences and where use of the terms Islamic extremism or Islamic terrorism are even banned.
Despite having eliminated Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration has, as a matter of course, appeased Islamists by initially resisting sanctions and failing to support the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change.
Shortly after taking office, Obama infuriated the Mubarak government by legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood when he insisted that their representatives occupy the front row at his inaugural speech in Cairo. Furthermore, at the outset of protests in Egypt, he abandoned the authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak, regarded as one of the strongest US allies in the Arab world.
Since then, his administration has consistently understated the fanatical extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood and ignored the recent genocidal exhortations against Israel by their newly elected Egyptian leader. The groveling response to the terrorist upsurges in Libya and Egypt is another indicator of the administration’s policy of Islamic appeasement.
Obama also repeatedly publicly praised the dictatorial Islamist Turkish leader, Recep Erdogan, who made himself popular in the Arab world by his anti-Israeli tirades and efforts to impose boycotts and isolate the Jewish state. Yet, after four years in office, despite President Obama’s desperate efforts to appease and “engage” the Islamists, the US today is more reviled in the Arab world than ever before.
The perception amongst most Israelis is that a Romney administration would be more realistic and tougher towards the Islamists. However, in contrast, the majority of American Jews, clearly loath to forfeit their liberal DNA, still support Obama and will continue voting Democrat…
If…Obama is re-elected, Netanyahu will be obliged to try to overcome the personal animosity and work with him, without compromising Israel’s security or long-term strategic interests. This will not be easy but as long as grass roots support for Israel remains strong and Congress does not abandon us, it is possible….
And if Romney wins, Israelis should not be euphoric. Although Romney will undoubtedly have a better chemistry with Israel than his predecessor, we still face tough challenges. And we should bear in mind that whereas Romney is undoubtedly a friend, the track records of Republican presidents toward Israel has also often been problematic. Irrespective who becomes the next president of the USA, American Jewish leaders must seek to reverse the growing threat from the far Left anti-Israeli activists in the Democratic party and…maintain the strong US-Israel relationship.
OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN GOES EMPTY AND STRIDENT
George F. Will
Washington Post, October 31
“It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know he is not a great man.” — Calvin Coolidge
Energetic in body but indolent in mind, Barack Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate. His long campaign’s bilious tone — scurrilities about Mitt Romney as a monster of, at best, callous indifference; adolescent japes about “Romnesia” — is discordant coming from someone who has favorably compared his achievements to those of “any president” since Lincoln, with the “possible” exceptions of Lincoln, LBJ and FDR. Obama’s oceanic self-esteem — no deficit there — may explain why he seems to smolder with resentment that he must actually ask for a second term….
Two economic themes of Obama’s campaign have been that outsourcing jobs is sinful and that he saved GM, which assembles 70 percent of its vehicles on lines outside America. He thinks that ATMs and airport ticket kiosks cause unemployment but may understand that buying an iPhone involves outsourcing to China the jobs of assembling it. Although his campaign slogan is “Forward!” he evidently wants America to compete with China in the manufacture of T-shirts and toasters. His third economic theme — that he will “invest in” (spend on) this and that — has been inaudible amid the clatter of crashing companies he has invested in.
Much of the Democratic Party’s vast reservoir of condescension is currently focused on women, who are urged not to trouble their pretty little heads about actual problems but instead to worry that, 52 years after birth control pills went on the market and 47 years after access to contraception became a constitutional right, reproductive freedom is at risk. This insult may explain the shift of women toward Romney.
’Tis said two things not worth running after are a bus or an economic panacea, because another will come along soon. Obama’s panacea is to cure what he considers government’s unconscionable frugality. Nothing in the president’s campaign has betrayed an inkling that anything pertinent to Social Security or Medicare has changed since they were enacted 77 years and 47 years ago, respectively.
Four years ago, Obama said that he would slow the oceans’ rise but this year has not sought a mandate to cope with — he has barely mentioned — the supposedly onrushing calamity of climate change. He says that this emergency (like everything else) justifies giving government huge new dollops of power, yet our Demosthenes evidently despairs of persuading the benighted public. (See above: condescension.)
His only notable new idea in this campaign is to alter the First Amendment in order to empower government to restrict the amount of permissible political speech — speech about the composition and conduct of government. Nancy Pelosi pledges that if Democrats control the House, they will pass this constriction of the Bill of Rights on the first day.
All politicians are to some extent salesmen. But Obama…increasingly resembles a particular salesman, Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman: “For a salesman, there is no rock bottom to the life. He don’t put a bolt to a nut, he don’t tell you the law or give you medicine. He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back — that’s an earthquake.”
Why the empty stridency of the last days of Obama’s last campaign? Perhaps he feels an earthquake’s first tremors.
The angst most Israelis is that a Romney administration would be more realistic and tougher towards the Islamists. However, in contrast, the majority of American Jews, clearly loath to forfeit their liberal DNA, still support Obama and will continue voting Democrat…
If…Obama is re-elected, Netanyahu will be obliged to try to overcome the personal animosity and work with him, without compromising Israel’s security or long-term strategic interests. This will not be easy but as long as grass roots support for Israel remains strong and Congress does not abandon us, it is possible….
And if Romney wins, Israelis should not be euphoric. Although Romney will undoubtedly have a better chemistry with Israel than his predecessor, we still face tough challenges. And we should bear in mind that whereas Romney is undoubtedly a friend, the track records of Republican presidents toward Israel has also often been problematic. Irrespective who becomes the next president of the USA, American Jewish leaders must seek to reverse the growing threat from the far Left anti-Israeli activists in the Democratic party and…maintain the strong US-Israel relationship.
THE REAGAN REVOLUTION IS ON THE LINE
Charles Krauthammer
National Post, Nov 2, 2012
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution. Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.
And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.
Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declared that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he set about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.
Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolished welfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism. In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.
Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced democracy — control pricing and production and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.
And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830-billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.
And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new HHS regulation does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into non-competitiveness.
Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting. An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree.
The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state. If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent non-liberal….
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of American social contract.
Let My People Pray :Maayana Miskin, Israel National News, Nov. 2, 2012
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat has come out against the ongoing discrimination against Jews on the Temple Mount. Jews are prohibited to pray on the Mount, which is the holiest place in the world according to Judaism, and many have even been arrested for moving their lips at the site.
Former ‘Democrats Abroad’ Israel Chair: Join Me in Voting for Romney: Rachel Hirshfeld, Israel National News, Oct. 31, 2012
“Forget that you voted for democrats since you’ve been knee high to a grasshopper. I did too,” says Bryna Franklin, lifelong Democrat.
Obama, Islam and Israel: Martin Sherman, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 1, 2012
Can anyone with Obama’s perception of Islam be expected to take the measures necessary to contend with the danger this theo-tyrannical political doctrine presents?
Obama And The Politics Of Contempt : Caroline B. Glick, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 1, 2012
Women will vote for him because we are dimwitted sex objects. And Jews will vote for him because we are taken in by his occasional Borscht Belt schmaltz platitudes about Hanukka.
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
