Netanyahu Speaks to the Generals - Caroline Glick

 

by Caroline Glick

For weeks, Israeli opposition leaders and retired generals have been issuing statements presaging Israel’s imminent collapse and calling for IDF soldiers to refuse to serve.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a press conference at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, April 10, 2023. Photo by Tomer Neuberg/Flash90.

The Israeli public reasonably expected a dramatic announcement was coming when the Prime Minister’s Bureau announced Monday afternoon that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would give a prime-time press conference that evening from the Prime Minister’s Office at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv rather than the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. Over the past several days, Israel has found itself in the midst of a simultaneous and coordinated assault. It has suffered terror attacks countrywide and rocket volleys from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

And Iran is on the cusp of independent military nuclear capabilities.

On its face, though, Netanyahu’s press conference did not provide the expected drama. His rendering of the situation was minimalist and descriptive, rather than analytic or thematic. He noted Iran in passing. He described with near antiseptic spareness the retaliatory attacks Israel has carried out against rocket stores and other military infrastructure in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, and its counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria. He praised the IDF and Israel’s other security services. Netanyahu did not gather the public in front of their television sets at 8:15 in the evening to declare war.

So why did Netanyahu do it?

To understand his purpose, and why despite the absence of any major statement, Netanyahu’s press conference was a dramatic event, it has to be viewed in the context of news that hit Israel like a thunderclap the day before.

On Sunday, Israelis awoke to The New York Times’ revelation that among the hundreds of top-secret Pentagon documents that were leaked through esoteric gaming chat groups was one related to the internal political unrest in Israel.

The document originated from the CIA’s March 1 intelligence briefing. Its headline blasted, “Israeli Mossad Encourages Protests Against New Government Over Proposed Judicial Reforms.”

The body of the report read, “In early to mid-February, Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (Mossad) leaders advocated for Mossad officials and Israeli citizens to protest against the new Israeli Government’s proposed judicial reforms, including several explicit calls to action that decried the Israeli Government, according to signals intelligence.”

Beyond the fact that the U.S. is spying on Israel and concerning itself with Israel’s domestic politics, two things are significant about the report. First, while news reports from the CIA’s reporting period of early to mid-February already exposed that Mossad’s leadership was tolerant, if not supportive, of the left’s efforts to overthrow the Netanyahu government, the CIA report claimed that the leaders of Israel’s primary espionage service were organizing those efforts. In other words, the CIA was claiming that Israel was in the midst of an insurrection or coup organized at least partially by its security services.

The Mossad denied the CIA report, but it’s hard to know what to think. The Mossad has a record of disloyalty. In 2012, it was revealed that two years earlier, then-Mossad Director Meir Dagan flew to Washington and informed his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta that Netanyahu had ordered the Mossad to prepare to strike Iran’s nuclear installations. Dagan had already refused to obey Netanyahu’s order.

While uncertainty surrounds the veracity of the current report, it shows us that the U.S. believes that the anti-government protests are being organized by the top leaders of Israel’s security apparatus. And apparently acting on this CIA-based conviction, President Joe Biden and all his senior aides have been openly supporting the opposition and its efforts not merely to block Netanyahu’s governing coalition’s efforts to pass legislation that would place modest limits on the now limitless powers of Israel’s Supreme Court and its attorney general. They seem to support the protest’s now explicit goal of toppling the government itself.

All of this would be terrible under any circumstances. But in Israel, internal developments always impact strategic realities. For the past several weeks, Iran’s media have trumpeted statements by Israeli opposition leaders and retired generals presaging Israel’s imminent collapse and calling for IDF soldiers to refuse orders to serve.

Imminent destruction

Citing these statements, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Hossein Salami, along with various Hamas and Islamic Jihad commanders and preachers, have given speeches declaring that Israel is falling apart and its destruction is imminent and calling for their jihadist forces to prepare for victory.

On Sunday, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, one of Israel’s premier scholars of the Arab world, seemed to bring it all home when he published a dire warning in the Makor Rishon newspaper. Kedar set out what many in the Arab world assess to be Iran’s plan for war against Israel in granular detail.

Briefly, the plan Kedar set out involves a mass missile onslaught against Israel by Iran’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Yemen. Those attacks, which will deplete Israel’s Iron Dome missile inventory, will be carried out in tandem with acts of cyber warfare targeting vital command and control and civilian targets.

Simultaneously, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will carry out sabotage, mob violence and terror throughout Israel, Judea and Samaria.

Following on the heels of these assaults, ground forces from Lebanon and Gaza will invade Israel and assault Jewish communities in accordance with Hezbollah’s operational plans that were widely published several years ago.

Kedar’s report was quickly disseminated to WhatsApp groups and other social media platforms, inducing panicked discussions throughout all quarters of Israeli society.

This brings us back to Netanyahu’s seemingly anodyne press conference in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu’s one substantive announcement was that he is retaining Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Netanyahu’s office had announced his intention to fire Gallant two weeks earlier after Gallant gave a primetime speech excoriating the government’s judicial reform program while Netanyahu was in London.

Notably, Netanyahu stood alone on Monday evening. Under normal circumstances, when a prime minister gives a briefing at military headquarters in Tel Aviv, he is flanked by the senior IDF and national security brass along with the defense minister. At a minimum, given Netanyahu’s announcement that he is not following through with his plan to fire Gallant, Gallant could have been expected to join Netanyahu at the press conference. We don’t know what his absence signals. What we do know is what Netanyahu said, and no less important, how he said what he said. Together, they lead us to Netanyahu’s purpose and why he was willing to forego Gallant’s presence Monday night.

Rejection of refusal to serve

Netanyahu in his remarks emphasized three points: his predecessors’ incompetent management of Israel’s security challenges; the unity of purpose shared by all Israelis to defend the state from its enemies; and the unanimity of national rejection of refusal to serve.

At the outset of his prepared remarks, Netanyahu placed the blame for Israel’s enemies’ current sense of empowerment on the shoulders of the Lapid-Bennett government. He explained that by forming a government dependent for its existence on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Ra’am (United Arab List) Party, the previous government took no action to fight Hamas’s growing military capabilities in Gaza and Lebanon until after it had fallen in a no-confidence vote and elections were called.

Netanyahu condemned the gas deal that then-interim prime minister and current opposition leader Yair Lapid concluded with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon days before the Nov. 1 Israeli elections. That deal, which saw Israel surrender significant portions of its sovereign and economic waters and a natural gas field to Hezbollah in exchange for absolutely nothing, was supported and defended by the IDF despite the self-evident danger it poses.

Judged by its substance, the apparent purpose of Netanyahu’s assault on the previous government’s weakness was twofold. First, he wanted to remind the public how we arrived at the current moment, where Hezbollah, Hamas and their Iranian bosses believe they can attack Israel with impunity. And second, Netanyahu wanted to implicitly remind the IDF and Mossad senior brass of their own role in facilitating the irresponsible and destructive gas deal.

In light of the leaked CIA report, and the leadership role retired generals have played in fomenting the anti-government insurrection over the past three months, Netanyahu’s decision to speak from the heart of the national security establishment in Tel Aviv rather than the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem was central to the message of national unity-of-purpose he sought to deliver to Israel’s enemies. Over the course of his half-hour press conference, Netanyahu repeatedly returned to the theme that Israel’s enemies are misreading Israel’s united determination to defend the country from all aggressors. His laconic rendition of the steps the IDF has taken under his government’s orders was geared towards driving home the united seriousness of purpose and the IDF’s acceptance of governmental authority and power. Netanyahu repeatedly asserted his own authority and responsibility for protecting Israel. At one point he made this point explicit. “It is my responsibility,” he said.

The third and most pronounced message Netanyahu communicated Monday evening was the illegitimacy of refusing to follow orders. When asked about his effort to reach an agreement with the political opposition regarding judicial reform, Netanyahu responded that he has two goals vis-à-vis his work with the political opposition.

First, he said, he seeks to negotiate an agreed-upon plan to limit the powers of the Supreme Court. This is a goal, he said, that a large majority of Israelis support.

Second and clearly more important when judged by Netanyahu’s rhetorical fervor, Netanyahu said that he intends to reach—and indeed, he claimed, he has already achieved—consensus on the “absolute rejection of the refusal to serve.” Netanyahu repeated this point multiple times throughout his remarks.

This final point more than anything else he said drove home the identity of Netanyahu’s main target audience. That audience was not the jittery public, although addressing its concerns was important. Netanyahu’s main audience was the security brass from whose headquarters Netanyahu spoke and whose absence at the rostrum was impossible to ignore.

Bearing in mind Kedar’s warning and Netanyahu’s own (less dramatic but relatively detailed) recitation of the nature of the coordinated assault Israel is already experiencing, it appears that the purpose of Netanyahu’s press conference was to gently but firmly assert his authority over the generals by forcing them to contend with the real threats facing Israel.

For years, Israel’s generals have stated publicly that the gravest threat facing Israel is the divisions within Israeli society. By repeatedly making these statements, and then standing foursquare with the left and pushing its policies from within the security apparatus, Israel’s military leadership wasn’t repairing those divisions. They were stoking and exacerbating them. The consequence of their actions and statements has been the unprecedented statements over the past three months by reserve pilots and members of the IDF’s critical technology units refusing to serve under the government.

Netanyahu’s highlighting the fact that the public as a whole rejects the legitimacy of refusing to serve facilitated his assertion of his own governing authority over the recalcitrant generals. By setting out the threats Israel is now facing, and rightly asserting the all but universal rejection of refusal to serve, Netanyahu was telling the generals that Israeli society isn’t divided on core issues. It is united. The primary threat Israel faces is Iran, not domestic disunity. And under Netanyahu’s leadership, whether Gallant is defense minister or not, the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet and police are required to make defending Israel against Iran and its proxies their top and indeed their only priority.

 

Caroline B. Glick is the senior contributing editor of Jewish News Syndicate and the host of the Caroline Glick Show on JNS. Glick is also the diplomatic commentator for Israel’s Channel 14 as well as a columnist at Newsweek. Glick is the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington and a lecturer at Israel’s College of Statesmanship.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/netanyahu-speaks-to-the-generals/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Death to Israel’: The Iranian plan to attack Israel - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

 

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

If the Israeli public wants to survive, it must prepare—mentally and physically—for war with the Iranian octopus.

 

I hesitated quite a bit whether to publish this piece because of the panic it might cause in Israel. However, in the Middle East environment and particularly in Iraq, these things are known and serve as a topic of open discussion, so it is unthinkable that the Israeli public should not be aware of them as well, especially since they concern Israelis much more than the citizens of Iraq.

A source I’ve known for years—an expatriate from the Middle East, a supporter of Israel, who lives in Europe and is in continuous contact with people in Iran and Iraq—conveyed to me their assessment that Iran plans to launch a combined attack on Israel in the foreseeable future that will include all the forces at its disposal in several Arab countries:

In Lebanon: Hezbollah and Hamas, with many thousands of missiles, some of them precision-guided, and UAVs.

In Syria: seventeen armed and ready combat units (“militias”): Fatimiun, Zinbioun, Nujabaa’, Hezbollah, Abu Al-Fadhl Brigade, ‘Asaa’b Ahl al-Haq, Khorasani Brigade and more. Iran has transferred a very large number of missiles and UAVs to Syria, and these are ready to be launched.

In Iraq: dozens of militias, armed with missiles and UAVs.

In Yemen: The Houthis, who have Iranian long-range missiles and UAVs capable of reaching Israel.

In Gaza: Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with missiles capable of disabling the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli Air Force bases.

It is likely that Iran will not launch anything directly from its own territory, so as not to expose itself to retaliation.

So much for the assessment that came to me from Iraq.

What follows is my interpretation:

Under the pretext of the duty of the Muslim world to save the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Israeli occupation and oppression, Iran will conduct a staged, comprehensive, integrated and coordinated attack on Israel. The first phase will be a shower of missiles and UAVs from all the aforementioned arenas together; the Iranian estimate is that the stock of Iron Dome interceptors will run out within two to three hours, after which the Israeli skies will be open and the air force degraded or grounded.

The first phase, the aerial one, will be accompanied by a cyber-attack on Israeli infrastructure systems. After a full day of cyber-attack and a rain of missiles and UAVs on military bases and civilian infrastructure, the second phase will begin. This will be a coordinated ground attack from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza by infantry forces mounted on dirt bikes and ATVs and equipped with anti-tank weapons, that will attack Israeli ground forces in order to reach Jewish settlements as quickly as possible.

The calculation of the Iranians is that the mobilization of Israel’s reserves will take several days and will at best be partial due to the chaos that will ensue from the initial attack. IDF reinforcements will not arrive in time to the various fronts, and the regular forces will collapse within hours in the face of the ground assault, as happened in the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur (1973) war.

The invasion of ground forces from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza will focus on Israeli settlements, with the aim of demoralizing the Israeli public and forcing the government to surrender in order to save the lives of the many Israeli civilians who will be captured by the Arab and Iranian militias. The Israeli media and especially the social media groups will increase panic among the Israeli public.

It is not clear what role the Iranians will assign to the Palestinians in the war. However, it is likely that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Authority will encourage them to do everything in their power to harm Israelis, the army, the police and civilians moving on the roads, in addition to attacks on settlements and military bases.

In addition, the Iranians expect Arabs in the Galilee and Negev to carry out actions against the IDF such as blocking roads, damaging bridges, spilling oil on roads, blocking intersections, damaging high voltage lines and attacking Jewish settlements (“May 2021 on steroids”).

Due to the fact that Israel’s National Guard is not yet operational, these actions will cause great damage.

The international arena:

Russia and China, Iran’s allies, will “call on both sides to cease violence,” will support Iran almost openly and provide it with information about what is happening in Israel. Turkey will join the call to cease violent actions but will implicitly support Iran. In the Arab and Islamic world, crowds will come out for demonstrations of support for Iran and its action to eliminate the Zionist entity, similar to the support the crowds gave to Hassan Nasrallah in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. This time, unlike in 2006, Saudi Arabia will not take a negative position towards the attack on Israel.

The American and European governments will not intervene militarily but will content themselves with words because no one in the West is looking for another war zone in addition to the Ukrainian one, which is emptying NATO’s ammunition depots and drying up its leaders’ desire to intervene in wars that are not theirs.

Some will see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to get rid of the “headache” that Israel has caused them for years. This view has intensified in recent months after the internal turmoil in the State of Israel, which projects the image of a conflicted and messy country with a depleted civil force that has lost all will to mobilize and fight and on the other hand—a directionless, irresponsible, powerless government that cannot even deal with people blocking roads.

From the point of view of the West, the loss of Israel would not be so terrible, because in any case the Middle East turned its back on the West when Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners—countries much more important than Israel—decided to turn their backs on the weak Western coalition and join the strong and growing Eastern Alliance that includes Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and more.

The Iranian government is very impressed by the continued desire of the Americans in particular and the West in general to appease them, lift the sanctions and accept it as a respected member of the family of nations, while demonstrably ignoring the Iranian race towards the bomb. This Western behavior instills in the hearts of the decision makers in Iran the feeling that no one in the West will do anything on the practical, military level to stop an air and ground attack on Israel such as the one described above.

The U.S. forces deployed in eastern Syria are meant to protect American interests, not Israeli ones, and Iran has already demonstrated several times that it has no problem attacking these American forces with missiles and drones. The American administration knows the negative attitude of the liberal majority of American Jewry towards Israel, particularly in recent months, and therefore is not afraid it will pay too great a public and political price if it allows Israel to deal with the Iranian invasion on its own. Biden will of course declare to the cameras that “Israel has the right to defend itself,” but he will try not to take actual steps.

A coordinated missile and UAV attack is not a theory; Iran has already done this in Saudi Arabia, on Sept. 14, 2019, and this attack caused enormous damage to Saudi Arabia’s oil export capacity, reducing it for many months. This was probably the reason for Saudi Arabia’s avoidance of joining the Abraham Accords and a factor that pushed Saudi Arabia into recently abandoning the understandings it had with Israel and joining the Iranian camp. The United States under Trump’s presidency, and Europe, did nothing against Iran following the attack in 2019, so it is certain that today they will do nothing when Biden is the president.

I don’t know how realistic this scenario of an air and ground attack on Israel is, but even if the chance of it happening in the foreseeable future is only one percent, the State of Israel must act as one united entity, and it is very important that the coalition work with the opposition in order to prepare the country and military for this scenario.

If the Israeli public wants to survive, it must prepare—mentally and physically—for war with the Iranian octopus that has managed to establish its grip on Gaza and the failed countries adjacent to Israel: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen—all countries that have almost nothing to lose. Qatari money and the jihad media channel Al Jazeera are constantly pouring jet fuel on the fire of hatred for Israel and preparing public opinion in the Middle East and the wider world for the great, final campaign.

Qatari money has also bought Western politicians so that they would not see what Qatar does not want them to see, from the violation of human rights and foreign workers in Qatar to what Qatar’s ally—Iran—is planning to do to Israel.

It’s time to wake up. This dangerous scenario may be realistic.

Originally published by Makor Rishon, this article has gone viral in Hebrew and is being discussed constantly in the media.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is an Israeli scholar of Arab culture, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University formerly a long time columnist at Arutz Sheva and currently the vice president of NEWSRAEL, where this article first appeared.

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/369966

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The ‘occupation’ myth is the engine of antisemitic terror - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

The biased reactions of U.N. officials and corporate media to attacks on Israelis as well as to disputes over Jerusalem’s Temple Mount are rooted in leftist lies about Zionism.

 

Anger at the U.N.’s “Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories” Francesca Albanese for her outrageous slanders of Israel is more than justified. So is frustration and outrage about biased coverage of the Middle East in leading corporate media outlets like CNN and The New York Times of a string of deadly Palestinian terror attacks as well as recent events on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

The never-ending series of egregious comments from Albanese provides plenty of fodder for critics of the United Nations and the international “human rights” community. Similarly, news reports that treat terrorist attacks on Jews with indifference while hyping the shootings of Palestinian terror suspects by the Israel Defense Forces or even attempts to restore order on the Temple Mount after the mosques there were commandeered by rioters into grave violations of human rights are flagged by the vital groups that monitor anti-Israel media bias.

These awful examples of how both international groups and the media misreport and falsely characterize events in Israel are, by themselves, important and deserve vigorous pushback. But such statements and media coverage that might well be termed more a form of disinformation or propaganda than journalism are just the tip of the iceberg that those who care about the campaign against Israel must confront. And, as important, even essential, as it is to call out each and every such instance of lies and prejudice may be, the confluence of so many egregious incidents should serve as a reminder that the problem goes much deeper.

The bile and lies tweeted by Albanese as well as most of the media coverage of what’s been happening on the Temple Mount as well as in attacks, such as the tragic slaying of 48-year-old Lucy Dee and her daughters Maia, 20, and Rina, 15, when Palestinian terrorist fired on their car, is infuriating. But it’s not merely the product of indifference to Jewish suffering and rights or even antisemitism, though all of it can be easily observed in such cases.

Still, these are symptoms, rather than the root cause, that explains the problem on display throughout so much of the discussion about Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians. The real complexity isn’t bias, ignorance or even the Jew-hatred that is not far below the surface of the critiques of the Jewish state. The issue isn’t so much prejudice as it is the widespread acceptance of the concept that Israel “occupies” Palestinian territories.

It is the willingness of both neutral observers and even many who claim to support Israel to believe that the relationship between the Jews and the territory in question is one of “occupation” that drives the negative appraisals of Israel’s conduct. It is the endless talk of this concept that explains attitudes towards the Palestinians and the so-called “solutions”—whether of the two-state or one-state variety—to the century-old jihad against Zionism in the media. It’s the belief that the occupation must be eliminated that also motivates the stands of foes of Israel among multilateral institutions like the United Nations as well as the increasingly influential intersectional left-wing of the Democratic Party. But it also is essential to understanding why the Biden administration and liberal Jewish groups believe that Israel must be saved from itself in order to survive as a Jewish state.

The lie about ‘stolen property’

Put simply, as long as Israel is viewed as in possession of territory that belongs to someone else, whether in Judea and Samaria—or even in Jerusalem and pre-1967 Israel inside the old “Green Line”—the slanders and the media bias will continue.

The argument openly expressed by the likes of Albanese and reflected in the coverage of CNN and the Times, is simple. It views Israel as illegally “occupying” Judea, Samaria and much of Jerusalem since the Six-Day War in June 1967. It regards anything that impedes the surrender of this territory by Israel—something that includes both the creation of Jewish communities there or efforts by the IDF to root out Palestinian terrorism—as an “obstacle to peace.”

Albanese, like the Palestinians and the anti-Zionist left both here in the United States and around the world, define the occupation differently. They see the presence of a Jewish state anywhere in the country as also being an “occupation.” And that is a definition widely accepted around the world. In that sense, every Israeli Jew, even the most liberal opponents of settlements who sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, is as guilty of being an occupier as the residents of West Bank settlements.

Of course, liberal critics of Israel don’t accept that. They believe that Israel within the “Green Line” is legitimate while Jews who live on the other side are not.

The problem with that way of thinking is that once you concede that any part of the country that constitutes the ancient homeland of the Jewish people—to which it has rights rooted in history and international law—as off-limits to Israelis and Zionists, you make peace less, rather than more likely.

To state this is not to deny that the Palestinian Arabs, as they now conceive of themselves, have become a separate nationality over the course of the last 100 years, even if that was not the case prior to the early 20th century. At various points over the course of those 10 decades, the Jews have agreed to compromise plans by which the Arabs would have sovereignty in part of the country in exchange for their recognition of a Jewish state in the rest of it. But each time, including repeatedly in the last 30 years since the Oslo Accords of 1993, they have refused any deal that would end the conflict because it would involve them accepting the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders would be drawn.

That refusal is not so much (as well-meaning international observers and multiple American presidents have thought) the product of a misunderstanding or a real estate transaction in which the two sides refuse to compromise. Since the rejection of Zionism is an inextricable element of the Palestinian national identity that came into existence during this conflict, no Palestinian leader, no matter how much both Americans and Israelis want to think of them as “moderates,” can accept any such compromise.

More to the point, the intersectional left, which conceives of the Palestinian war on Israel as morally equivalent to the struggle for civil rights in the United States sees Zionism on both sides of the green line in the same way. If you divide the world, as believers in intersectionality and critical race theory do, into two groups—oppressors and victims—and assign victim status to the Palestinians and treat Israelis as colonizers, then it doesn’t matter how badly the former behave, the latter is always in the wrong.

That’s why U.N. functionaries like Albanese who masquerade as human-rights activists are able to treat crimes against humanity, like the slaughter of the Dee family as justified “resistance” to “occupation.” In the same way, efforts by the IDF to stop terrorists or even to maintain order on the Temple Mount—the most sacred spot in Judaism—as similar acts of “occupation” that should be condemned.

Misguided pro-Israel advocacy

Sadly, much of the efforts by the State of Israel and of those groups who are tasked with defending it in the United States, are compromised by their willingness to give some legitimacy to the occupation narrative, even as they strive for fair treatment for the Jewish state. All too many of Israel’s supporters treat the question of occupation with a “yes, but” approach in which they concede that Israel doesn’t have full rights—which, at least in theory, could still be negotiated away in exchange for real peace—to the territories. That was the conceit of the disastrous Oslo Accords, which sought to trade “land for peace” with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Yet in addition to a transaction that would end up being an exchange of land for more terror, the concessions also legitimized the notion that Jews had no right to be in Judea and Samaria. Rather than, as the Israeli architects of the proposals foolishly thought, illustrate Israel’s love for peace and willingness to compromise, it merely convinced much of the world that the Jewish state was a thief that was reluctantly returning some of the property it had stolen.

Regardless of their political affiliations or sympathies, those who care about Israel need to understand that they cannot avoid confronting the occupation lie. It cannot be evaded by “rebranding” Israel as a source of beautiful scenery or scientific innovation as some have foolishly thought. Nor can it be sidestepped by constant talk of Israel’s willingness to accept a two-state solution that the other side doesn’t want.

If you want to call out the likes of Albanese or those in the media that lie about Israel, by all means do so. Such efforts are both necessary and important to chip away at the anti-Zionist canards that have gained widespread acceptance. But any argument that fails to correct the misconception about occupation is found to fail with consequences that go beyond our frustration about the United Nations and media bias.

 

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-occupation-myth-is-the-engine-of-antisemitic-terror/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What Is Really Happening at Jerusalem's Holy Sites? - Bassam Tawil

 

by Bassam Tawil

The latest tensions began when a few hundred extremists barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque after evening prayers. The instigators claimed that they had decided to spend the night inside the mosque to prevent Jews from "storming" the compound. This claim was totally false: no Jew was planning to set foot inside the mosque.

• [T]ens of thousands of Muslims from Israel and the West Bank were able to attend prayers at the mosque, especially on Fridays, in the first two weeks of Ramadan. That is until a group of extremist Muslims decided to turn the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound into a scene of anarchy and lawlessness, violating the sanctity of the holy site and endangering the lives of the remaining peaceful worshipers who came to the holy site with the sole purpose of praying and not engaging in any acts of violence.

• These extremists, some wearing masks, seemingly did not come to pray. They came, on the face of it, with the aim of rioting and causing disorder. They came with stones, fireworks, wood planks and iron rods. That is not what Muslim worshipers usually bring to a mosque. They prevented worshipers from leaving the mosque. Their intention was, to all appearances, to create a violent riot against Jewish visitors and the police. In addition, they desecrated the mosque by smuggling fireworks, clubs and stones into the mosque and barricading themselves inside it using iron rods and furniture among other objects.

• When the Israeli police moved to evict the agitators, Israel found itself under attack from a number of countries, as well as many in the Western mainstream media, for "assaulting peaceful worshipers" and sending its troops to "storm" one of Islam's holiest sites.

• Ironically, Israel is being accused of "obstructing" Muslims' access to the mosque at a time when -- thanks to Israel's hundreds of cost-free coaches that bus Muslims to Jerusalem during Ramadan from all over Israel -- a record number of 200,000 worshipers attended the most recent Friday prayer.

• These figures were not provided by the Israeli authorities, but by the Jordanian-controlled Islamic Waqf Department, which oversees the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

• The latest tensions began when a few hundred extremists barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque after evening prayers. The instigators claimed that they had decided to spend the night inside the mosque to prevent Jews from "storming" the compound. This claim was totally false: no Jew was planning to set foot inside the mosque.

• Jews have, for the past few years, been conducting peaceful outdoor tours of the Temple Mount compound, which is also the holiest site for Jews.

• There is no law prohibiting non-Muslims, including Jews, from touring the site. In fact, the Islamic religious authorities have long welcomed non-Muslims as visitors at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

• [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas and other Muslim figures, such as his prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, continue to deny any Jewish religious and historical connection to Jerusalem in particular and Israel in general, despite massive archeological and archival evidence to the contrary. This includes the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus Flavius, and even the Qur'an, which mentions the presence of the Jews and Moses in the "Holy Land" multiple times (eg: 17:104; 2:47-48; 9:30; 2:83; 3:110; 3:199; 7:159; 2:62; 22:40; 5:5; 7:145).

• Since Abbas's false -- actually, slanderous - accusation ["The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are ours. They are all ours, and they (Jews) have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We salute every drop spilled for the sake of Jerusalem."], dozens of Jews have been murdered in various terror attacks, including stabbings, car-rammings, shootings and bombings, under the pretext of defending the Al-Aqsa Mosque from Jewish "aggression."

• If there is any violence at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, it comes from Muslims who resort to verbal and physical abuse against the Jewish visitors and police officers accompanying them. The Muslims have even set up groups of men and women called Murabitun ("defenders of the faith") as part of an effort to harass and intimidate Jews who visit the Temple Mount.

• The full responsibility for the latest tensions between Israel and the Palestinians lies solely on the Muslims who hijacked Ramadan, evidently to incite violence and spew hatred against Israel and Jews.

• By allowing these violent extremists to barricade themselves inside the mosque, the Islamic Waqf Department is acting against its own instructions. On March 21, the Islamic Waqf Department issued a directive in which it stated that Muslims should not stay overnight at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This was agreed to during the recent Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh summits between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as by Jordan and Egypt....

• Those who are desecrating the mosque are the people hiding inside it and attacking police officers with fireworks and rocks. Those who are desecrating the mosque are the people who damaged the interior of the mosque by using fireworks as weapons.

• By initiating the latest tensions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the Palestinian extremists are seeking to rally the world against Israel by depicting it as an oppressive state that has no respect for Islamic holy sites. These instigators are hoping to drag Israel into a military confrontation with other Arabs and Muslims, especially in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, from where Palestinians have fired rockets at Israel in the past few days.

• These extremists do not hide their affiliation with Hamas and other Iran terror proxies such as Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran's mullahs say they want to see Israel "wiped off the map." So do Iran's proxies in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

• The Palestinians who are desecrating the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem are inspired and empowered by Iran's mullahs. The Iranian regime does not care if the mosque is vandalized or burned down by Palestinian terrorists: it knows that many in the international community will continue to blame Israel, and exonerate those who declare Jihad (holy war) on Israel and the Jews.

• The mainstream media in the West -- who spout misinformation and outright lies about what is really taking place at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound -- are fully complicit in this naked Jihad to wipe out the Jews.

Those who are desecrating Al-Aqsa Mosque are the people hiding inside it and attacking police officers with fireworks and rocks, and who damaged the interior of the mosque by using fireworks as weapons. "The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are ours. They are all ours, and they [Jews] have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We salute every drop of blood spilled for the sake of Jerusalem. This blood is clean, pure blood, shed for the sake of Allah. Every martyr will be placed in Paradise, and all the wounded will be rewarded by Allah." — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (Image source: MEMRI)

Since the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan on March 22, Israeli authorities have taken a series of measures to enable free access for Muslim worshippers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, also known as the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), in Jerusalem.

The measures include providing free-of-charge shuttle services for the worshippers, as well as sealing off several main streets in Jerusalem to traffic so that the Muslims will be able to enter and exit the city without delay.

As a result, tens of thousands of Muslims from Israel and the West Bank were able to attend prayers at the mosque, especially on Fridays, in the first two weeks of Ramadan. That is until a group of extremist Muslims decided to turn the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound into a scene of anarchy and lawlessness, violating the sanctity of the holy site and endangering the lives of the remaining peaceful worshippers who came to the holy site with the sole purpose of praying and not engaging in any acts of violence.

These extremists, some wearing masks, seemingly did not come to pray. They came, on the face of it, with the aim of rioting and causing disorder. They came with stones, fireworks, wood planks and iron rods. That is not what Muslim worshippers usually bring to a mosque. They prevented worshippers from leaving the mosque. Their intention was, to all appearances, to create a violent riot against Jewish visitors and the police. In addition, they desecrated the mosque by smuggling fireworks, clubs and stones into the mosque and barricading themselves inside it using iron rods and furniture among other objects.

When the Israeli police moved to evict the agitators, Israel found itself under attack from a number of countries, as well as many in the Western mainstream media, for "assaulting peaceful worshippers" and sending its troops to "storm" one of Islam's holiest sites.

Ironically, Israel is being accused of "obstructing" Muslims' access to the mosque at a time when -- thanks to Israel's hundreds of cost-free coaches that bus Muslims to Jerusalem during Ramadan from all over Israel -- a record number of 200,000 worshippers attended the most recent Friday prayer. The number of Muslims who attend the prayers on other days of the year has always been much less.

If Israeli authorities were "hindering" the arrival of worshippers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, how have up to 200,000 worshippers been reaching the site since the beginning of Ramadan? These figures were not provided by the Israeli authorities, but by the Jordanian-controlled Islamic Waqf Department, which oversees the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. On March 31, for example, the department announced that 250,000 worshippers attended the Friday prayer at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It is not unusual for such a large number of Muslims to attend prayers at the mosque during Ramadan.

Last year, Muslims reported that more than 200,000 worshippers attended one of the Friday prayers during Ramadan. Previous years saw similar numbers of Muslims converging on the holy site in Jerusalem, mainly thanks to Israel's measures facilitating their entry into, and stay inside, the city.

The latest tensions began when a few hundred extremists barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque after evening prayers. The instigators claimed that they had decided to spend the night inside the mosque to prevent Jews from "storming" the compound. This claim was totally false: no Jew was planning to set foot inside the mosque. This is also not the first time that this lie has been used to incite violence against Israel and Jews. It is also not the first time that a relatively small group of violent extremists have barricaded themselves inside the mosque during Ramadan.

Jews have, for the past few years, been conducting peaceful outdoor tours of the Temple Mount compound, which is also the holiest site for Jews.

There is no law prohibiting non-Muslims, including Jews, from touring the site. In fact, the Islamic religious authorities have long welcomed non-Muslims as visitors at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound. The issue here, however, is that some Muslims have decided that they do not want to see any Jews visiting the site. That is apparently because Muslim leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, have been telling their people that the Jews have no right to visit Judaism's holiest site.

Abbas and other Muslim figures, such as his prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, continue to deny any Jewish religious and historical connection to Jerusalem in particular and Israel in general, despite massive archeological and archival evidence to the contrary. This includes the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus Flavius, and even the Qur'an, which mentions the presence of the Jews and Moses in the "Holy Land" multiple times (eg: 17:104; 2:47-48; 9:30; 2:83; 3:110; 3:199; 7:159; 2:62; 22:40; 5:5; 7:145).

Here is what Abbas had to say in 2015 about Jews visiting the Temple Mount:

"The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are ours. They are all ours, and they (Jews) have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We salute every drop spilled for the sake of Jerusalem."

Since Abbas's false -- actually, slanderous -- accusation, dozens of Jews have been murdered in various terror attacks, including stabbings, car-rammings, shootings and bombings, under the pretext of defending the Al-Aqsa Mosque from Jewish "aggression."

If there is any violence at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, it comes from Muslims who resort to verbal and physical abuse against the Jewish visitors and police officers accompanying them. The Muslims have even set up groups of men and women called Murabitun ("defenders of the faith") as part of an effort to harass and intimidate Jews who visit the Temple Mount.

The full responsibility for the latest tensions between Israel and the Palestinians lies solely on the Muslims who hijacked Ramadan, evidently to incite violence and spew hatred against Israel and Jews.

Instead of condemning the violent extremists for defiling the mosque, Palestinian leaders and their supporters are blaming Israel for using force to remove them from the mosque to ensure free access to the site for tens of thousands of Muslims who did want to worship.

Instead of calling out the agitators for bringing stones, iron rods and fireworks into the mosque, Palestinian leaders and some Western media outlets continue to issue false accusations and libelous accusations against Israel and the Jews.

By allowing these violent extremists to barricade themselves inside the mosque, the Islamic Waqf Department is acting against its own instructions. On March 21, the Islamic Waqf Department issued a directive in which it stated that Muslims should not stay overnight at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This was agreed to during the recent Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh summits between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as by Jordan and Egypt, to tamp down tensions at the holy site.

Those who are desecrating the mosque are the people hiding inside it and attacking police officers with fireworks and rocks. Those who are desecrating the mosque are the people who damaged the interior of the mosque by using fireworks as weapons. Those who are desecrating the mosque are the people who, after almost every prayer, raise flags and banners of terror groups such as Hamas and chant slogans in support of terrorism.

Where in the Koran does it say that a Muslim who goes to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque is required to chant slogans in support of Mohammed Deif, a Hamas arch-terrorist wanted for his involvement in a series of terror attacks that wounded and killed dozens of Jews?

It is Hamas's charter that openly calls for the elimination of Israel -- Hamas, that has been designated as a terrorist group by the US, the European Union, Canada, as well as other countries.

Is there a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) that encourages Muslims to use a mosque to chant slogans denouncing Mahmoud Abbas as a "spy" for Israel and threatening that Muslims will "stomp on your [Abbas's] head"? Abbas is often criticized by many Palestinians for allegedly displaying a "moderate" policy towards and allowing his security forces to conduct security coordination with the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank.

By initiating the latest tensions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the Palestinian extremists are seeking to rally the world against Israel by depicting it as an oppressive state that has no respect for Islamic holy sites. These instigators are hoping to drag Israel into a military confrontation with other Arabs and Muslims, especially in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, from where Palestinians have fired rockets at Israel in the past few days.

These extremists do not hide their affiliation with Hamas and other Iranian terror proxies such as Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran's mullahs say they want to see Israel "wiped off the map." So do Iran's proxies in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

The Palestinians who are desecrating the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem are inspired and empowered by Iran's mullahs. The Iranian regime does not care if the mosque is vandalized or burned down by Palestinian terrorists: it knows that many in the international community will continue to blame Israel, and exonerate those who declare Jihad (holy war) on Israel and the Jews.

The mainstream media in the West -- who spout misinformation and outright lies about what is really taking place at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound -- are fully complicit in this naked Jihad to wipe out the Jews.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19579/jerusalem-holy-sites

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Iran-led bloc senses an opportunity to threaten Israeli life - Jonathan Spyer

 

by Jonathan Spyer

BEHIND THE LINES: Does Iran see an opportunity in the cracks in Israeli society?

 

A WOMAN walks past an Iranian flag painted on a wall in a street in Tehran earlier this week.

(photo credit: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Recent events in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Israel and the West Bank suggest that a concerted effort is underway by the Iran-led regional bloc to increase pressure on Israel. The evidence suggests that the possibility that this may result in war has been taken into account, and the Iranians and their allies have decided to move ahead nevertheless and take this risk.

The infiltration from south Lebanon by an operative carrying a Claymore mine on March 13, and the launching of 34 rockets from south Lebanon by Hamas on April 6 are the main indications that a concerted attempt is under way. These attacks have been accompanied by a series of ostentatious meetings between Hezbollah leaders in south Lebanon and delegations from both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and by incendiary messages from the leaders of various components in this bloc.

“Zionists are fighting each other and are in a hurry to destroy themselves.”

Ebrahim Raisi

Statements by senior Iranian officials in recent days have, for example, enthusiastically predicted the imminent collapse of Israel. President Ebrahim Raisi, quoted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-linked Tasnim channel on Wednesday, said that the “Zionists are fighting each other and are in a hurry to destroy themselves.” Iranian Army chief Maj.-Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi said that “we are observing the confusion and disorientation of the hegemonic system, especially the clearer signals of collapse and breakdown of the Zionist regime.”

Rumblings in pro-Iran regional media, such as the Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper, repeat the strategy according to which the unifying symbol of al-Aqsa Mosque is to be used to “unify the arenas” of Lebanon, Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel.”

Israel’s response, so far, has been hesitant and uncertain. A recent Israeli media report quoted an assessment given by the IDF to the cabinet according to which the Hezbollah leadership was not forewarned of the Hamas plan to launch rockets from south Lebanon, did not give the go ahead for it, and hence should not be held responsible for it.

A missile is launched during an exercise of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) navy in the south of Iran, in this picture obtained on January 17, 2023. (credit: REUTERS)

The military is, of course, privy to sources of information vastly beyond those of this author. Nevertheless, some skepticism toward this assessment is unavoidable. Perhaps unusually among Israel-based correspondents, I have had the experience of traveling across Lebanon south of the Litani River in a non-military context. It is one of the most tightly secured areas on earth.

Vehicles without license plates, often with blacked-out windows, are ubiquitous in every village and town. These and similarly unmarked motorcycles are visible evidence of Hezbollah's presence. Behind this representation, without doubt, is a yet wider circle of invisible surveillance.

The notion that Hamas or any other Palestinian organization could have brought into this area the necessary personnel and equipment required to launch 34 rockets at Israel without the knowledge of Hezbollah severely strains credulity.

Quite apart from the practical difficulties, it seems less than likely that at a time of visible rapprochement between the two organizations, Hamas would take upon itself of its own volition to embroil Hezbollah in its actions against Israel. Sunni Hamas and Shia Hezbollah backed different sides in the Syrian civil war.

Hamas, with its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, sought to align with what it thought was an emergent new bloc of conservative Islamic regimes. Hezbollah, of course, as a Shia franchise of the IRGC, stayed with its patron. But the Sunni Islamic bloc that Hamas sought to be part of never emerged. Hamas was forced to try to find its way back to the pro-Iran bloc. With the Arab Spring period now a fading memory, it has largely done so. It makes no sense that it would now jeopardize this process.

The inevitable conclusion is that this assessment is most likely inaccurate. As to whether it was given in order to support a policy preference according to which Israel would respond to the rocket fire in only a limited way, avoiding all damage to Hezbollah facilities, one can only speculate.

Strategic attacks on the Israeli homefront

THE APPARENTLY coordinated series of attacks which Israel is currently experiencing should be seen as emerging from a strategy and praxis of long standing held by Iran and its various franchises and clients. Veteran Israeli journalist and analyst Ehud Yaari, writing shortly after the Second Lebanon War of 2006, termed this outlook the “Muqawama [resistance] Doctrine.”

This doctrine, according to Ya’ari, advocates an open-ended campaign of military pressure against Israel, conducted for the most part by non-state forces. The goal, as he expressed it, is the “methodical erosion of the enemy’s resolve.” The belief underlying this project is that Israel is an internally weak society, beset by contradictions. The intention therefore is to subject this fragile vessel to unrelenting pressure, in the belief that eventually it will begin to crack, and will eventually crumble.

The adherents to this doctrine evidently think that an important moment in this process has been reached, given the current internal crisis in Israel. They are therefore keen to increase the pressure, and are prepared to take significant risks and depart from previous patterns of operation.

The outlook described above is in many ways a descendant of earlier Arab and Palestinian nationalist perceptions of Israel, dating back to the first days of the conflict with Zionism. The current challenge differs from earlier manifestations, however, in that it is headed by a state (Iran) with a particular and sophisticated understanding of the melding of state power with irregular military activity, and the combining of conventional military, paramilitary and political forms of activity. Iran’s methods in this regard have delivered it significant achievements elsewhere in the region, in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon.

The focus on this campaign goes back to the first days of the Islamist regime in Iran, and indeed precedes the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in the thinking of those who led it. Ayatollah Khomeini, writing in 1968, for example, asserted that “the danger is directed at the very essence of Islam, it is the duty of all Muslims, and specifically of Islamic states, to take the initiative for the obliteration of this pond of decay [Israel] with all possible means.”

“Zionists are fighting each other and are in a hurry to destroy themselves.”

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi

Sheikh Naim Qassem, a veteran and very senior official of Lebanese Hezbollah, quoted from Surah al-Israa of the Koran in his history of his movement, to explain the nature of its campaign. The quote reads: “And we decreed for the Children of Israel in the scripture: Ye verily will work corruption in the earth twice, and ye will become great tyrants. So when the time for the first of the two came, We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might, who ravaged [your] country, and it was a threat performed... When the time for the second of the judgments came, We roused against you others of Our slaves to ravage you, and to enter the Temple even as they entered it the first time, and to lay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting.”

The available evidence would suggest that the leaders of this bloc have discerned a moment of opportunity for the advancement of the project described above. Israeli planners may have concluded that the current divided Israeli house was in no shape for embarking on a determined response to the recent acts of aggression. If so, Israel’s leaders should be aware that given the nature of the thinking on the other side, the projection of weakness and hesitancy is likely to instill greater confidence, leading to further erosion of deterrence, and increasing the likelihood of additional and yet more reckless moves in the period ahead.

Jonathan Spyer

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-739165

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Learning the Lessons of Lebanese Demise - Joseph Puder

 

by Joseph Puder

Is Israel facing the prospect of a civil war?

 

On the first night of the Passover Seder, Hamas in Lebanon fired 34 rockets into Israel, causing significant damage in the towns of Metula and Shlomi. Nothing in Lebanon happens unless authorized by Hezbollah, and this Lebanese terrorist organization must get a green-light from the masters in Tehran. This barrage of rockets into northern Israel, allegedly because of the disturbances on Temple Mount and the al-Aksa Mosque, was the most intense since the Second Lebanon war of 2006.  The timing and the size of the attack clearly signifies the perception in Tehran, Beirut, and Gaza, that Israel has been weakened by the three months of protests against the Judicial Reforms in Israel.

The protests in Israel that are causing a great deal of damage to Israel’s reputation, economic well-being, and external and domestic security.  These protests have raised the specter of the Lebanonization of Israel.  Sure enough, Israel’s institutions are still sufficiently strong to protect it from total government dysfunction occurring in Lebanon.  But, if the rift between the left and right in Israel should widen further, Israelis would have to seriously consider the lessons of Lebanon.

To many observers, Lebanon was once a Middle Eastern paradise, and Beirut was called the “Paris of the Middle East.”  The arrival of Arafat and his Palestinian terrorists to Southern Lebanon, hastened the conflict between the religious sects and factions, and perpetuated the civil war, which wrecked the “Land of the Cedars,” pitting Muslims against Christians, pro-Syrians, and anti-Syrians. The physical and mental destruction that befell Lebanon and the Lebanese people during the civil war (1975-1990), has not healed yet. The 1989 Taif Agreement that brought an end to the fighting, officially known as the National Reconciliation Accord, left the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia/terrorist organization as the only armed militia force in Lebanon, supplanting the Lebanese Armed Forces.  Hezbollah has subjugated all of Lebanon to its will, capitalizing on hatreds and conflict, and has thus become unchallengeable.

The Lebanese civil war ended in 1990, but the Lebanese people and the nation’s leadership failed to mend the wounds that tore its society, nor did its leaders manage to rehabilitate the state.  Lebanon today is a “walking corpse,” its economy crushed, and its political system paralyzed, causing many of its young people to leave the country in search of a better life.

Israelis must internalize the lessons of Lebanon and find ways to bridge the gap between the political left and right before it is too late. The dream of Jewish resurrection and sovereignty in its historical homeland might fade away because of another clash between ideological factions that brought down the Temple and ended Jewish independence in 70CE, generating a 2000-year long exile. The unprecedented internal convulsion experienced by Israelis currently is too dangerous and mustn’t be allowed to go on. The prospect of a civil war in Israel although unimaginable, could erupt if the political divide isn’t bridged. It is rather urgent that Israelis look at their northern neighbors and realize that the Lebanese themselves destroyed the near paradise that was Lebanon. That is the consequences of a civil war.

The Lebanese failed to build national institutions around which the citizens of the state could unite.  As a result, there is no viable political system that serves the Lebanese people. Nor is there a workable security apparatus that protects the people. Hezbollah has the arms and hence it has become the country’s “boss.”

The educational system and the judiciary no longer function. The media in Lebanon is separated by religious sects, each having their own newspapers, or TV stations, whether Maronite Christian, Sunni-Muslim, Shiite-Muslim, or Druze. And each has a militia of its own, albeit none compares in fire power to Hezbollah’s arsenal. The county’s leaders cared only about the welfare of their own clan or sect, and little about the national interest.

Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General, emerged from his bunker somewhere in Southern Beirut last week, to announce boastfully in a speech that he was right all along when he stated that Israel is weaker than a “spider’s web.”  Nasrallah predicted that Israel would self-destruct soon as a result of the chaos in Israeli society.  He asserted that Hezbollah won’t have to lift a finger since Israelis will destroy themselves.  These are rather ironic words coming from someone who helped in the destruction of Lebanon. Apparently, he knows something about destruction from of one’s nation.

For Israel, being in the amidst of disruptive protests, inspired by the mostly leftist anti-government groups, watching closely the demise of Lebanon, and counting the costs of a civil war is essential.  Israel would do well to adopt a protective policy, to guard against Lebanon falling into Iranian full control through Hezbollah. Israel must use all its efforts to weaken Hezbollah and ensure that it does not take advantage of the internal breakdown in Lebanon, as a cover for military adventurism, or as a way to aid Tehran’s resolve to hit Israel at the expense of the Lebanese people.  This week’s rocket barrage is a case in point.

While Lebanon self-destruction is entirely internal, the threats to Israel are existentially external, compounded by internal instability caused by the opposition to the Netanyahu government.  As the attack on Passover shows, Israel’s enemies are pressing their perceived advantage as Israel is embroiled in protests and instability.

In an opinion piece in Israel Hayom, Meir Ben Shabbat, former national security advisor to Israel’s government, wrote that, “Passover seats all of us together at the table, returns us to our past, and obligates us to remember and recount our journey so far. No less important is that Passover renews our optimism and hope. We made it past the Pharaoh. We made it through crises, conflicts, and separations. We will make it through this too.” Meaning the current crisis over the Judicial Reforms. The attack from Lebanon gives the Jewish state a pause, and sharp reminder of its existential priorities.

Joseph Puder, a freelance journalist, is the Founder and Executive Director of the Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI). He is a regular contributor to Frontpage.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/learning-the-lessons-of-lebanese-demise/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Robin Hood in reverse: Biden green agenda raising prices for consumers, profits for Dem donors - Addison Smith

 

by Addison Smith

Reverse transfer of wealth effects aggravated by new regulatory crackdown on gas cars.

 

President Joe Biden announced plans on Wednesday to require that two-thirds of all U.S. car sales by 2032 be electric vehicles and impose the "strongest-ever" emissions restrictions on gas cars. Like much of the Biden green agenda, the proposals stand to raise costs for everyday Americans while swelling profits for Democrat megadonors.

A recent CNBC survey found that 58% of Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck, and 70% feel financially burdened due to inflation, rising interest rates and more. At the same time, the average cost for an EV as of February was around $58,385, according to CarEdge. 

Cars are already more expensive than ever. Average monthly payments for new vehicles hit a record high of $730 in the first quarter of 2023, a more than 11% increase year-over-year. As more Americans are pressured into buying EVs, increased demand will only drive those prices higher, prompting responses from Republican lawmakers on behalf of consumers.

"Electrification" is the "road to higher prices" for everybody, said Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee in response to the 1,475 pages of new rules unveiled Wednesday by the EPA. 

Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) also weighed in, noting the average cost of an EV was "more than the household income of 46% of American families."

Citing "massive price increases," Power the Future spokesman Larry Behrens told Just The News, "Families are hurting as they struggle to make ends meet" at the same time Biden "takes fossil fueled transportation to yet another vacation."

He added: "We’ve witnessed the highest gas prices ever, the worst inflation since Jimmy Carter and it's all due to Joe Biden's war on American energy." 

It isn't only car and gas prices that are soaring.

Americans have seen their utility bills rise sharply amid Biden's assault on the carbon-based energy economy. A March survey from GOBankingRates found that three-quarters of Americans claim their utility bills have increased by a minimum of 25% within the last year alone. Of the respondents, 22% said they'd seen a 50% increase in their bill, while 10% said their utilities bills have more than doubled over the previous year.

Connecticut has seen a near doubling in electricity costs, according to EverSource, which reports that the price of kilowatts per hour in the state has jumped from 12 cents to 23 cents within the last six months. 

Behrens warned that "continu[ing] down this road" will result in "less energy that is more expensive and an America that is less secure and weaker in the world."

Manhattan Institute energy expert Mark Mills expressed similar price concerns in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast, lamenting that Biden has "made good on his promise" to transform the energy industry in America, much to the disadvantage of "the average person."

"The problem," Mills said, is "the average person will pay more. Not just for electric cars if that's what they're required to buy; they'll pay more for used cars ... they'll pay more for gasoline to drive it because of the hostility towards drilling, they'll pay more for electricity ... all the trajectories push this towards higher costs for everybody," which "the wealthy can afford" but "the average person cannot." 

As middle class consumers struggle under the weight of exploding costs, wealthy green energy investors allied with the Democrats will reap an economic windfall thanks to Biden's market interventions on their behalf.

"To say [the federal government] is putting its thumb on the scales is an understatement," said Mills. "It's putting the whole weight of the body of government on the scale."

A February investigation by the Washington Free Beacon found that Biden has awarded billions to green energy companies that billionaire Democrat donors Bill Gates and Laurene Powell Jobs have a stake in.

Gates and Jobs are both seed funders for electric battery companies Ioneer and Redwood Materials. Over the past few months, Biden has channeled nearly $3 billion in loans to those two companies alone. While the results haven't fully played out yet, Ioneer has seen its stock price rise by as much as 33%. 

During the 2020 election cycle, Gates' foundation gave approximately $70 million to a "payroll reporting agent" for dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund, which in turn gave tens of millions of dollars to left-wing Super PACs, including some who backed Biden, according to investigative news outlet Sludge. Jobs, long a major Democratc donor, gave more than $2 million to Jon Ossoff, Angie Craig and several other left–wing campaigns and PACs in 2020, according to FEC records. 

Gates also launched Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV), a company dedicated to reaching net-zero emissions. Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Jack Ma, Richard Branson and more are all cofounders of the energy mammoth, according to CNBC. By 2019, BEV investors had already raised $1 billion and touted over a dozen energy companies in their investment portfolio. 

The list of billionaires having skin in the renewables game is long. Billionaire John Arnold has "ultimate voting or investment control" over Centaurus Capital LP, an investment fund with a "specific focus" on the renewable energy industry, according to the Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation. Centaurus Capital LP reportedly owns more than 131 million shares of Ioneer, the same green lithium-boron supplier Gates is tied up with and which Biden generously helped fund. 

Arnold has bankrolled a wide array of left-wing causes, from ranked-choice voting to litigation against Republicans. Through their foundation, he and his wife have given to both of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns, a leading Democratic PAC and more.

Follow Addison on Twitter.

Addison Smith

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/ent-bidens-green-transition-could-spell-financial-chaos-americans-benefit

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Climate Change Alarmism Is a Lie that Must Stop - Drieu Godefridi

 

by Drieu Godefridi

[A]ccording to the data of the IPCC itself, the economic growth and well-being in Europe and the United States are more threatened by extremist and delusional environmental policies than by global warming.

• With China opening an average of two new coal-fired power plants a week and India apparently more determined than ever to continue its development curve, as is the entire non-Western world, global CO₂ emissions will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. There is not yet any available, inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels.

• This increase in global CO₂ emissions would be inevitable even if the West persists in its efforts to reduce emissions: Western reductions are -- and will continue to be -- more than offset by the increase in emissions in the rest of the world.

• "Setting an example" to regimes and countries around the world that often hate the West simply enables those countries to grow stronger, while the countries setting the example weaken themselves by committing themselves to severe economic disadvantage -- while having virtually no net effect on the climate.... Meanwhile, as they grow, they would doubtless be extremely happy to see the West hobbling itself.

• The climate knows neither Europe nor Asia. Nothing that Europe and the West accomplish in this field has the slightest meaning if reduction of emissions is not global.

• In its fifth and latest (full) report, the IPCC estimates that a 3° warming -- twice the Paris Agreement target -- would reduce global economic growth by 3%. Three per cent a year? No, 3% by the year 2100. This amount represents a reduction in global economic growth of 0.04% a year, a number that is barely measurable statistically. That is in the IPCC's pessimistic scenario. In the more optimistic scenarios, the economic impact of warming will be virtually non-existent.

• [A]ccording to the data of the IPCC itself, the economic growth and well-being in Europe and the United States are more threatened by extremist and delusional environmental policies than by global warming.

• "The EU and its Member States have focused on climate policy, mobilizing enormous financial and human resources, thereby reducing the resources necessary for the development of its industry and weakening the security of energy supply." — Jean-Pierre Schaeken Willemaers, Thomas More Institute, president of the Energy, Climate and Environment Cluster, science-climat-energie.be, February 22, 2023.

• Future generations will judge us harshly for allowing extremist environmental activism to enfeeble us in the West, while a hostile East – China, Russia, North Korea and Iran -- continue to advance their industrial and military capabilities. Instead of trying to fight CO₂ emissions, we would do better to invest in researching ways to make reliable supplies of energy both cleaner and less expensive so that everyone -- by choice -- will rush to use them.

• Global emissions and the accumulated stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere will, unfortunately, not be decreasing any time soon, but that is no reason to let the global standing of the West decrease instead.

Since 1992, global CO₂ emissions have continued to rise, with China opening an average of two new coal-fired power plants a week. Do we really believe that China, Russia and India will let the West dictate their economic conditions and CO₂ emissions? Meanwhile, as they grow, they are doubtless happy to see the West hobbling itself by persisting in efforts to reduce its own emissions. Pictured: A steel mill with a coal-fired generator in Hebei, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Since 1992 and the Earth Summit in Rio, the West has been living under the spell of a "climate emergency" that is repeatedly renewed but never happened. Since then, the West – and only the West -- has set itself the main goal of reducing CO₂ emissions (and other greenhouse gases, implied in the rest of this article).

It is now 2023, time for a review:

1. CO₂ emissions have not stopped growing and will continue to grow.

Since 1992, global CO₂ emissions have continued to rise. With China opening an average of two new coal-fired power plants a week and India apparently more determined than ever to continue its development curve, as is the entire non-Western world, global CO₂ emissions will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. There is not yet any available, inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels.

This increase in global CO₂ emissions would be inevitable even if the West persists in its efforts to reduce emissions: Western reductions are -- and will continue to be -- more than offset by the increase in emissions in the rest of the world.

2. Will the warming target of the Paris Agreement -- "to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels" -- be met?

Achieving the Paris Agreement target requires drastic reductions in CO₂ emissions. This has not happened. We are not on track. This global reduction will not happen. Therefore, the Paris Agreement target will not be achieved. This is now a certainty or, in the words of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a projection with a very high degree of reliability.

3. Will the EU's target of "decarbonisation by 2050" be met?

Even more extreme than the Paris Agreement is the EU's goal of decarbonisation. As stated earlier, even if the EU ceased to exist, global CO₂ emissions would continue to rise. From this perspective, reducing European emissions only makes sense if it is part of an effective global framework, not a national or regional one. "Setting an example" to regimes and countries around the world that often hate the West simply enables those countries to grow stronger, while the countries setting the example weaken themselves by committing themselves to severe economic disadvantage -- while having virtually no net effect on the climate. Do we really believe that China, Russia and India will let the West dictate their economic conditions and CO₂ emissions? Meanwhile, as they grow, they would doubtless be extremely happy to see the West hobbling itself.

Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, probably the most zealous extremist to come to power in Europe since 1945 -- whose chief of cabinet is the former leader of Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaign -- multiplies measures, initiatives and declarations aimed at drastically reducing European CO₂ emissions -- even at the cost of Europe's economic devastation, at the cost of freedom, and at the cost of causing a cruel increase in Europe's dependence on China's rare earth minerals.

The climate knows neither Europe nor Asia. Nothing that Europe and the West accomplish in this field has the slightest meaning if reduction of emissions is not global.

4. Would the economic consequences of even the most pessimistic IPCC global warming scenario matter?

Let us now look at the issue of the economic impact of CO₂ emissions.

The climate expert and physicist Steven Koonin, former Under Secretary for Science during the Obama Administration, notes in his latest book, Unsettled that even if the IPCC's most pessimistic warming scenario were to come true, the global economic impact would be negligible (Unsettled: Dallas, BenBella Books, 2021, chapter 9, 'Apocalypses that ain't', page 179s.)

In its fifth and latest (full) report, the IPCC estimates that a 3° warming -- twice the Paris Agreement target -- would reduce global economic growth by 3%. Three per cent a year? No, 3% by the year 2100. This amount represents a reduction in global economic growth of 0.04% a year, a number that is barely measurable statistically. That is in the IPCC's pessimistic scenario. In the more optimistic scenarios, the economic impact of warming will be virtually non-existent. The IPCC, AR5, Working Group II, chapter 10 states:

"For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers.... Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices... and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is largely relative to the impact of climate change."

In other words, according to the data of the IPCC itself, the economic growth and well-being in Europe and the United States are more threatened by extremist and delusional environmental policies than by global warming. As Jean-Pierre Schaeken Willemaers of the Thomas More Institute, president of the Energy, Climate and Environment Cluster, noted on February 22:

"The EU and its Member States have focused on climate policy, mobilizing enormous financial and human resources, thereby reducing the resources necessary for the development of its industry and weakening the security of energy supply."

The lesson of all this is simple: Future generations will judge us harshly for allowing extremist environmental activism to enfeeble us in the West, while a hostile East – China, Russia, North Korea and Iran -- continue to advance their industrial and military capabilities. Instead of trying to fight CO₂ emissions, we would do better to invest in researching ways to make reliable supplies of energy both cleaner and less expensive so that everyone -- by choice -- will rush to use them.

Global emissions and the accumulated stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere will, unfortunately, not be decreasing any time soon, but that is no reason to let the global standing of the West decrease instead.

Drieu Godefridi is a jurist (Saint-Louis University of Louvain), a philosopher (Saint-Louis University of Louvain) and a doctor in legal theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne). He is the author of The Green Reich.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19580/climate-change-alarmism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter