After scarcely a week of active parliamentary work, the ruling coalition has already all but shelved two defining right-wing proposals, namely 1) legislation to allow Knesset to overrule the High Court and 2) the Nation State proposal
Also, Dropping West Bank annexation bid, Bennett turns to the Golan
The dust of seven long months of electioneering and coalition building finally settled this week. The 20th Knesset’s committees are now staffed with lawmakers after the last outstanding disagreements between coalition and opposition parties were hammered out in the Knesset last week.
On Sunday, the 34th Government’s Ministerial Committee for Legislation held its first meeting to set the government’s legislative agenda for the coming term, and on Monday, the “housing cabinet,” the committee of ministers charged with finding a solution to Israel’s runaway housing prices, will hold its first meeting.
Slowly, haltingly, the Israeli state is getting back to work after long months of virtual paralysis on many issues.
And as the system returns to a measure of normalcy, some startling characteristics of the new political configuration created by the March election are becoming clear.
For one thing, the new government’s razor-thin 61-59 majority in parliament has all but killed many controversial right-wing measures advanced by lawmakers in the last two Knessets.
On Thursday, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked mentioned in a morning radio interview, almost off-handedly, that “in the current coalition situation, it won’t be possible to change the supersession clause. I prefer to concentrate my efforts where I can make a difference, and to pass laws that I can build a consensus on.”
The “supersession clause” Shaked referred to is the single most controversial right-wing proposal she brought with her to the Justice Ministry. Article 8(a) of the quasi-constitutional “Basic Law: Freedom of Vocation,” the basic guarantor of individual economic rights in Israeli law, allows for the temporary suspension of these rights under three conditions — that any law violating them pass in the Knesset with a majority of 61 MKs; that it explicitly state in the new law that it is in violation of the basic law; and that the offending law expire after four years. Since it effectively allows for a simple Knesset majority to temporarily violate the basic law, it is called a “supersession clause” — giving the Knesset the power to “supersede” any court rulings based on those rights that the Knesset disagrees with.
Shaked is an outspoken supporter of expanding this “supersession” power by adding a similar clause to another foundational law, the “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty,” which guarantees such basic rights as life, privacy, bodily safety and Israelis’ freedom to enter and leave the country — effectively giving the Knesset the power to temporarily suspend these basic rights, and to ignore any High Court of Justice decision based on those rights.
This proposal is the most drastic of Shaked’s initiatives to limit the power of the High Court, so it is telling that the justice minister would announce, in the very week in which the Knesset finally got back to work, that she simply lacked the necessary political support for passing the reform.
But the supersession reform is not the only right-wing initiative frozen in the current coalition: the so-called “nation-state bill,” which seeks to define Israel’s Jewish character in a new basic law, is effectively a dead letter.
The bill was moving forward quickly in the last Knesset, despite vociferous opposition from the left and from centrists in the ruling coalition, including Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and Hatnua leader Tzipi Livni. It generated intense push-back from Arab and Druze lawmakers and leaders, and was excoriated overseas. But it enjoyed widespread support on the right as a counter to what the right saw as an Arab campaign, both within Israel and among Palestinians, to deny the legitimacy of a Jewish nation-state.
The bill is still formally on the agenda, and is a key demand of the Jewish Home party in its coalition agreement with Likud.
Yet in those coalition agreements where it appears, there is also another clause, inserted into the founding documents of the 34th Government by Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party and agreed to by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to which the bill will only win the government’s support — a critical vote of confidence if the bill is to obtain a majority in the Knesset plenum — if it enjoys consensus support among coalition parties.
In other words, without the support of Kulanu, which has staked out a decisively centrist position on such issues and openly says it will oppose any right-wing effort to weaken the High Court or diminish the rights or privileges of minorities, the bill is essentially dead.
MKs have been back at work scarcely a week, and already two signature proposals of the right are either dead or in deep hibernation for the foreseeable future.
The reason is clear, and startling. While much was made of Netanyahu’s stunning election surge from 18 seats in the outgoing Knesset to 30 in the new one, that victory for Likud did not constitute a rally for the right as a whole. The explicitly right-wing parties of Likud, Jewish Home and Yisrael Beytenu won 43 seats in the 2013 elections, and rose by just one, to 44, in the 2015 ballot.
Netanyahu rules a much larger slice of the right, but that expansion came at the expense of the rest of the right wing. While Likud jumped by 12 seats, Jewish Home fell by four and Yisrael Beytenu by seven. Netanyahu’s closest ideological allies, then, are not significantly more powerful in parliament as a whole.
And with Yisrael Beytenu’s split to the opposition, the right’s footprint in the ruling coalition is actually significantly smaller this time around.
In the last Knesset, too, the centrists in the coalition — Yesh Atid and Hatnua — were eager to push forward their own agenda: economic and religion-and-state reforms in Yesh Atid’s case and peace talks in Hatnua’s. Those ambitions, and the need to secure cabinet and Knesset majorities to advance them, meant that right-wing elements in the last government had a stronger hand in pushing their own agenda. Thus a government with over one-third of its lawmakers hailing from explicitly centrist or even center-left parties actually saw the right-wing able to advance even the most controversial versions of its most controversial legislation.
The new government has been labeled by countless pundits the most right-wing coalition in memory, perhaps in Israel’s history. Yet after barely a week of parliamentary activity, it has already proven itself more centrist and more consensual than the last two governments, despite those precursors boasting Labor leftists and dovish centrists among its most powerful decision makers.
To be sure, these first signs of moderate centrism in the new government are rooted in the weakness of a 61-seat coalition. Netanyahu continues to search for new coalition partners, from Labor’s Isaac Herzog to Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Liberman, who might give him the breathing room of a larger parliamentary majority.
If the rightist Liberman returns to the fold, the agenda of the new government could change dramatically. On the other hand, if Netanyahu manages to entice either Herzog or Lapid to join his coalition, the current centrism born of weakness would likely be cemented as the new government’s explicit political identity.
None of this suggests that the government’s centrism will be reflected in its Palestinian policy, where consistent majorities in the Israeli body politic remain deeply skeptical of peace overtures or territorial withdrawals. But at least on domestic concerns, in the culture wars surrounding the judiciary and the character of the state, a delicate but clear consensus has emerged among the coalition’s key leaders, a consensus that suggests this government may last longer than many expect — and do less than its detractors fear.
rsklaroff Said:
When I substitute coadopted for coast I still have no idea
rsklaroff Said:
dont be sad, just try to focus on specific points and answer specific questions honestly and directly. Please do not blame me for your inability to answer a simple question, simply.
I wont play charades with you, if you cant answer a simple question, wrt a point you wish to make, without evasion, then you should stick to reading and avoid conversation.
“Coast” emerged from my hand-held instead of “coadopted”; even the pope belatedly recognized as anti-Semitism the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.
I purposely added a comment (recalling how “Rosencrantz…” satirized Hamlet in a comparable fashion) to see if you could refrain from mockery and, sadly, I was not surprised at what occurred.
As suggested earlier, your contributions to this site serve to dissuade readership and colloquy.
rsklaroff Said:
I have no idea what this means
rsklaroff Said:
😛
Your belief is (again) incorrect; mandating the Palestinian Arabs coast Israel’s formative document must be explicit.
@ rsklaroff:
I believe that you are trying to tell me that you are incapable of answering the question of why you consider it important, a “core value”, for west bank arabs to recognize Israel as a “JEWISH” state.
Not to worry, I realized that a long time ago.
shalom 🙂
Basta!
I have persisted in providing follow-up via this string of interactions but, candidly, we all have limits; this will be my final posting regarding this issue.
You misrepresent, read portions to befit your goals, and mock; as much as I adore Ted, I have thoroughly documented your inanity [for future-reference].
Even stooping to spoon-feed – on a website that presumably functions on a post-graduate level – failed to penetrate your anti-BB electioneering; even invoking Ted’s input on another page was ineffectual, for you ignore simple declarative sentences.
Shalom.
rsklaroff Said:
😛 😛 😛
LOL, the quote was NOT in the Oslo accords as you inferred with your fraudulent misrepresentation.
You failed to assess the entire posting, which built upon
the quote provided by using a syllogism; your snarkiness notwithstanding, the key-point was carefully deduced.
rsklaroff Said:
rsklaroff Said:
😛 😛 😛 LOLROFLMAO
first you are totally incapable of explaining why you consider pal recognition of Israel as a Jewish state to be important to a peace deal……
then you say because it is “consistent with Oslo”……
then when I ask you to point it out in Oslo you paste the relevant clause with an arrogance pretending it demonstrated you fraudulent claim.
DUH????????? as I already knew, you could not find it in Oslo although you fraudulently claimed it was there. I must say that I enjoy your chutzpah, that you actually had the gall to post the quote from Oslo with the one word missing that we are discussing here: the word “JEWISH”
You told a dishonest lie, misleading posters here…. and then you compounded it by pretending that you were posting the evidence for that lie…………….LOL.
Did you think that I and the other posters here are so blind and foolish that we would not notice the absence of the one word under discussion: “JEWISH”????????
It is always amusing to watch folks build a web of deceit, lie upon lie, in order to cover up the first lie, or just an error, a mistake, or a bit of ignorance….. Its not so bad to make an error, to be ignorant of something…. but building a structure of lies to conceal the initial error is pathetic.
we had a poster here before known for that MO where he could never admit to an error, a mistake or even an outright lie when unmasked for all to see…… he always pretended it never happened.
Now that it is clear that it was not in the Oslo agreement we return to the original unanswered question which first demonstrated your ignorance:
Why is it important for a bunch of lying west bank arabs to recognize the state of Israel as a “Jewish” state in any peace document?????
read up and you will find out the reason that has been given.
It seems to have become necessary to provide you info that you already know as pablum; open wide…
“The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition
{“consistent with” does not imply a direct-quote}
“DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence
{Arafat implicitly recognized Israel as she had been self-defined to be; the explicit recognition appears evasive, however, but must be so-specified as a priority [indeed, THE priority].}
I point out BB’s record because I believe it is important for those interested in Jewish settlement in YS to carefully watch BB for factual results. In such a scenario BB is more likely to build in YS or to continue a unilateral defacto building freeze in YS. voters should be aware and watching.
Furthermore, I believe it has been demonstrated that pro YS settlement voters who switched from Bennett to BB in the last hours, due to the BB panic, will be clearly disappointed and that in the future they should not assume that a vote for BB is a vote for Jewish settlement in YS. In fact, Jewish settlement prognosis in YS today looks much worse to me than before the election.
Had BB not decided to stampede pro settlement voters from Bennett to himself there would still be a right wing coalition under BB but with a pro settlement agenda where Benett would have had a meaningful portfolio to settle Jews. This is why I state that BB drove the nail into the coffin of Jewish settlement in YS. The fact that he kept Bennett out of a meaningful pro settlement ministry speaks to me that he intentionally sought to neuter the pro settlement camp. Perhaps folks already forget BB’s promises that Bennett would be his main choice when he sought right wing votes, but immediately the election was over he did a 180 degree turn, as usual with his promises.
Bear Klein Said:
I agree, and we should carfully observe what facts on the ground are established by BB during his reign. In the past the facts I observed was arab and eu building in YS but not Jewish building. I observed large tracts of land rezoned from C to A to build Rawabi. I did not notice large new tracts in C given to Jews to build a city in C. there was a large tract given a couple of years ago in C near Jericho, I do not know if it is the same Rawabi. Rawabi has even been approved to hook up to Israeli water pipes. I was loooking for comparable large development of cities for Jews in the “disputed” territory and found that a Levy report was commissioned and and an area called E1 was approved for building but I am still waiting for it to actually commence,….. meanwhile Rawabi has finished and residents about to move in, an entire arab town in C
I am told here that BB is afraid of Obama which is why arabs can build in areas C and Jews cannot. If an area is in dispute then both parties should not build or both parties should build, but only one party builds and they build in the area fully under the control of the Israeli gov.
rsklaroff Said:
LOLROr
There is nothing more pathetic than the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Your ignorance is once more demonstrated by your total inability to answer the simple question, in your own words, as to why it is important to Israel that the west bank arabs recognize Israel as “jewish” state” in any peace treaty with them?
Your massive arrogance is demonstrated by the fact that you once more publicize your massive ignorance believing that a claim of ignorance is a sufficient answer to a question.
Bottom line is that you are totally clueless as to why BB demands recognition of a “Jewish” state from the west bank arabs in a peace agreement, even though you continue to crow of its importance! Would it take a long time for you to read and find out his reason?
rsklaroff Said:
I was perusing the Oslo Accords and was unable to find a clause which called for the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish” state. Please direct me to the clause that you claimed was in the Oslo accords.
It’s impossible to dialogue with someone who cannot accept mutually recognized existence as a core value; it’s consistent with both Oslo and Israel.
@ bernard ross: We agree 100% Israel should build more and faster in Y/S. Israel will be defamed in all cases by its enemies and their sympathizers.
No peace deal is happening. Establishing facts on the ground is more important the appeasing our critics and defamers.
Bear Klein Said:
its a pity that he is not correct and that they continue to remain “plans”.
Bear Klein Said:
Building in YS, outside the major settlement blocks that everyone knows will be kept, ceased years ago.
Israel will suffer the same libels and defamations if it were building in YS….. the answer and solution is to build in YS.
When they complain the reply is yes, we heard you , you said that already, you said we were building so then we are indeed building.
rsklaroff Said:
In other words you dont know why it is important but you parrot the mantra anyway.
the question was why do you beleive it is important and a “core value” in any peace deal. After all their “recognition” has no value, its words, and they like to fib.
The PA never wanted to negotiated with Bibi and was also arm twisted by Obama. They want land handed to them without any concessions. If they can not get this they threaten violence. Hamas has made it clear they simply will not negotiate and want all of Israel. So even if Israel wanted a real peace deal it could not get it. Below are some of the latest PA quotes.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196572#.VXlr9PlViko
the sine-qua-non of any settlement, dating back to Oslo
@ mar55:
sorry I havent read it yet. thanks for the good words
@ rsklaroff:
what happened to your explanation of why it was important for Israel to have the arabs recognize them as a “jewish” state. You said it was important but although I have asked you at least 5 times you appear to be unable to explain in what way it is important or why it is more than a red herring.
Bear Klein Said:
if thats all you got then you did not “get” what I wrote.
Bear Klein Said:
If you read what I wrote you would see I said also there would be no overt signed peace deal during BB’s term but that he had understandings to which he subjected his decisions.
Bear Klein Said:
I have no idea what obama figured out
rsklaroff Said:
no backtracking the fact is simple and still remains:
BB did NOTHING in 2 terms to advance Jewish settlement in YS and YOU have still not produced one fact to contradict my assertion
@ bernard ross: I get it Bernard you do not like Bibi. That is what I get from pages and pages of your writing!
Ya’alon who is closest to Bibi says there will be no peace deal with the PA and it really appears quite obvious to most people whether on the right or left.
Even Obama has figured this out for the short term.
Ted Belman seemed to corroborate what Bear Klein Said on another page:
“Eldad reported on these threats and said it was putting a gun to his head. Maybe they also threatened him if he approved the Levy Report. It is conceivable that the threats were so specific and draconian as to prevent Bibi from building in the territories and stop him from accepting the Levy Report and to stop him from demolishing Arab homes and especially the homes being built with EU money in area C.”
This adjudication as to what has been occurring throughout the “joint” leadership of BHO/BB is c/w what Oren wrote; thus, although no one is perfect, it would seem BB has provided superb stewardship for Israel during the crisis-period created by BHO…and should be supported until it ends AGGRESSIVELY.
You’re backtracking [understandably]; gotcha!
During this back-and-forth, you have been splitting hair [on an ant, or on anything else handy] while I’ve steadfastly defended BB; the “pathos” that has emerged reveals your adherence to a paradigm that keeps disintegrating, the more you attempt to explain it.
rsklaroff Said:
go back to my posts, I doubt he will build next to unless it is impossible to account for population growth of the settlement inside. I have clearly stated that the nothing relates to new settlements in YS, outside the major blocks, you are grasping at a straw. NOTHING is the correct description wrt advancing Jewish settlement in YS. If you want to split the hair on an ant go ahead, it is pathetic in the scheme of things
@ bernard ross:
What do you think of Jonathan Sacks latest position on the Jews alternative in England? I put the link on: UN Children and Armed Conflict Report Slants Its Gaza Findings Against Israel.
Bernard, do not get upset about people not reading and trying to convince you without reading.
People who are very self centered have the tendency to answer without having read the opposition
opinion. Self centered usually goes with self righteousness. Most of us read your comments.
Bear Klein Said:
reread my first post on what may happen in these circumstances. I am not a clairvoyant but I do believe BB takes these understandings with the GCC and PA into account when making decisions. what they are will emerge as you see his facts on the ground, like where Jews are allowed to live. as for rhetoric and drama, I dont pay it much mind anymore, it appears to be a necessary component of the agreement to have drama in order to maintain an image of disagreement at leadership level. If behavior changes I will change my perspective.
This seems more “minimalist” [my term] than “nothing” [your term]; Bernard, it seems you are again oxymoronic.
Bear Klein Said:
It looks like you dont really read what I write. the answer is: not at this time but that there is an unsigned, covert agreement with which BB complies and in return gets cooperation with GCC. It is the signing and formalizing that all parties avoid. Therefore they will proceed with self imposed limitations agreed upon.
How does this affect Israel in the short term is that there will be no new settlement in YS. Bits of land in C will be given to the pals for planned development, arabs will build in c but not jews. The settlement movement will continue to be isolated, defamed and delegitimized by foreigners and the GOI. BB will not build in C except in or next to major blocks,BB will only allow building in areas of Jerusalem which will remain with Israel.
the pals might be recognized as a state by the UN with boundaries still to be negotiated but Israel will not recognize the state until a final overt agreement is signed and then it might only be an autonomy in the west bank with a state in gaza if they unite. the nature and structure of the state or faux state may be a state or autonomy, I dont know.
Try to understand the difference between informal, covert, uncommitted understandings as opposed to a final signed agreement. Understandings can proceed for years before a signing. In can be backed out of, but while cooperating it is observed as I beleive has been happening for 3 years with the GCC. I beleive the informal understanding is that they will work things out informally under the general parameters of the saudi offer but that the legal side will only obtain after years of cooperation, if at all.
If it all works out I think the pals will get some sort state or autonomy or confederation with Jordan. they will get a part of Jerusalem or suburb or diplomatic compound they can call a capital, E1 will be left to end or we will see who builds as the allowance of arab building will demonstrate who is agreed to get it in the end. Israel will stay militarily in the Jordan valley until a deal or until Israel accepts a pal confed with jordan that covers security arrangements to Israel needs without the pals signing to it. Israel will not keep the outlying settlements, they will get dual citizenship if they want to stay or a package of incentives to leave. Nothing can be done today.
I can not predict the outcome but I definitely believe that BB makes decisions based on certain understandings with the GCC that include the pals and how things proceed. The moment that the GCC lose fear of Iran it can all change including egypt their proxy.
rsklaroff Said:
If you call my assertion of fact incorrect then you must be prepared to submit factual evidence in support. BB DID NOTHING
@ rsklaroff:
you didnt answer any of the questions and you did not submit any evidence that contradicted my major assertion that BB DID NOTHING.
@ bernard ross: Bernard so you believe Bibi is actually signing an agreement with the Palestinians and they are agreeing to it?
So the Palestinians have agreed for Israel to keep all the settlement blocks and many more Jewish towns, renounce the right of return, keep Jerusalem unified and end the conflict plus allow the IDF to remain in the Jordan Valley and agree to Israels security requirements and accept and recognize the Jewish State of Israel?
You believe that do you? Really you do? I know you wrote a whole bunch of stuff and had complaints.
Let me ask it in a YES or NO fashion do you believe that Israeli under Bibi are actually going sign a deal with the PA to enact a Palestinian STATE YES or NO please.
{this is an edited form of the above}
You have reacted to my having documented your gross overstatement [inappropriately transforming my “minimalist” terminology to your “nothing” word-choice…due to your faulty decision to draw implications (c/w your bias) rather than from anything I had inferred (c/w my perspective)] by adopting a mocking posture [amplified by emoticons]; furthermore, in doing so, you know that I can’t quote more than Podhoretz when the book I’m citing (despite not liking Oren’s politics…pending hoped-for x-exam @ his speech in Philly in a fortnight) has yet to have been released.
Furthermore, you attack a PM who you know has only 61 seats and, thus, lacks the type of flexibility you profess he should exhibit; again, prioritizing the Iranian-Nuke threat and how BB has juggled pressures [almost losing his position as a result of his bravery], it would seem he has maxed-out on the ability to unify Israel behind his opposition to appeasement [which is more important long-term than construction…which has otherwise exploded].
So, please, “chill” and recognize that everyone doesn’t share in your anti-BB construct; further, note that the effect of enhanced bombast is often greater alienation from those whom you would most want to convince of your rectitude.
You have reacted to my having documented your overstatement [transforming my “minimalist” to your “nothing” due to your drawing implications rather than from anything I had inferred] by adopting a mocking posture [amplified by cartoons]; furthermore, in doing so, you know that I can’t quote more than Podhoretz when the book has yet to have been released.
Furthermore, you attack a PM who you know has only 61 seats and, thus, lacks the type of flexibility you profess he should exhibit; again, prioritizing the Iranian-Nuke threat and how BB has juggled pressures [almost losing his position as a result of his bravery], it would seem he has maxed-out on the ability to unify Israel behind his opposition to appeasement [which is more important long-term than construction…which has otherwise exploded].
So, please, “chill” and recognize that everyone doesn’t share in your anti-BB construct; further, note that the effect of enhanced bombast is often greater alienation from those whom you would most want to convince of your rectitude.
@ rsklaroff:
bernard ross Said:
still waiting for your reply to these specific questions
😛 😛 😛
rsklaroff Said:
I only cited anecdote as a side dish to show you why your name droppiong of idols is not only irrelevant logically as fallacious but also contradicts my personal experience in dealing first hand with presidential advisers.
My assertions have been factual starting with the every first which you have yet to offer one shred of evidence in contradiction of my simple factual assertion as follows:
bernard ross Said:
still waiting for you to provide evidence of ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF EVIDENCE that my assertion is not factual.
lots of blah blah blah but still not one.
rsklaroff Said:
First,you have still yet to actually cite this “reportage” of events which allegedly agrees with yours… citation, quotation, evidence of your assertion????
Second, Oren’s observations and conclusions reflect his perspective of events and likely his political status
rsklaroff Said:
agian. “posturing, rhetoric, feelings, perceived threats,….. all perceptions substituting for factual behavior. My model explains all this quite well so why the need for yours other than your feelings and the political benefits that accrue to BB and oren?
Your model has not explained the questions I put to you which you continue to repeatedly evade, running and hiding behind generic quotations, elizabethan bards, and opinions of politicians whom you do not even quote.
rsklaroff Said:
😛 😛 😛
really, recognizing Obama posturing is profundity?
I recognize obama posturing, threats, rhetoric… what I do not recognize is that they are evidence supporting BB’s total non performance wrt platforms he announces he will implement.
Obamas posturing is no more indicative of fact than BB’s posturing when he announces E1, Levy, etc.
BB told you what was going on but you are so married to your feelings and beliefs that you even ignore his very words.
rsklaroff Said:
I asserted he did nothing and you have yet to present evdence in contradiction of that fact, not one fact have you presented. You present excuses, explanations, feelings to explain his behavior BUT you have not rebutted the fact of NON PERFORMANCE AS ASSERTED BY ME. Hence indeed you have “agreed” with my assertion or you would have presented one fact.
rsklaroff Said:
Onece more running away, and hiding behind ad hominem, instead of presenting ONE SINGLE FACT contradicting my very clear assertion
rsklaroff Said:
it doesnt take much familiarity with the data base just a propensity NOT to assume beyond the facts. I stated a few simple facts requiring little knowledge, especially the first. I speculate, but I do not assume that my speculations are completely correct until the evidence and pattern are almost undeniable. Hence, for years I gave BB the benefit of the doubt while speculating; but now the facts are undeniable that he is intentionally following a plan based upon understandings undisclosed to the public but now finding their way out. After all I am sure I am not the only one questioning his credentials.
rsklaroff Said:
HUH????
rsklaroff Said:
What we know is that there is an appearance of him being bullied but it is conjecture. there is no supporting fact and there are facts as I laid out to you which support other explanations for his behavior. If you think about it, once you accept that there might be understandings with the Gulf it is not difficult to perceive that his decisions would take his understandings into consideration. However, he could not give those understandings as a reason, therefore left without reasonable explanation the appearance of bullying maintains the scenario. Using my model I have over the past 3 years predicted various things including qatar rapprochements and obama returning to Sisi. I have given a reasonable alternate explanation every time BB made very controversial decisions along the way at POD, 9 mos negotiations, prisoner release, PE, egypts cooperation, the need for resistance rhetoric for abbas and hamas, the bombing of empty fields, the tax recycling drama that always ends the same…etc etc etc
It is now coming out that my speculation regarding understandings with GCC have been correct.
It’s pleasant to agree with you, Bernard; will now assume the colloquy has been completed.
You have been reduced to citing anecdote [which you would want to invoke to negate Oren’s first-hand reportage of BHO’s pattern of anti-Israel posturing] instead of honoring its profundity [which you would dismiss, in an uncanny fashion, as born of MSM-perfidy].
Then, you equate my having characterized BB’s policy as “minimalist” with your conclusion that I’d written that he has done “nothing”; this is perhaps the most stark example of how you corrupt facts to befit your anti-BB posturing [perhaps to tool-up for the 21st Knesset?].
You are far more familiar with the database than am I, but you inappropriately invoke this “power” to claim ideological supremacy despite the fact that most-everyone who isn’t an ideologue would KNOW that BB has been bullied [as much as he has been able to do, before/during/after the electoral-period] by BHO.
http://nypost.com/2015/06/09/a-new-inside-account-of-obamas-israel-ire/
A new inside account of Obama’s Israel ire
By John Podhoretz
June 9, 2015 | 8:04pm
rsklaroff Said:
LOL, you cite someones essay, opinions, judgement and perspectives to rebut statements of FACTS!!! perceptions are not facts.
everyone has opinions and perceptions
as for name dropping I once sat and chatted with Ronald Reagan Caribbean Basin Initiative leader and concluded that RR had based his policies on the perspective of someone who spoke only with one side when visiting a nation. Having intimate knowledge of the scenario I factually concluded that big leaders make the most pathetic of errors and ever since then I never take named dropping to mean a thing… that was in 1980
here is a current story which shows you how MSM media works from one of your own sources
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/pamela-geller-media-jihad-diet-coke-vs-decapitation
rsklaroff Said:
Please do not at this late time engage in transparent evasion. this was your answer to my assertion that BB did NOTHING to advance Jewish settlement in YS.
rsklaroff Said:
You offered NO rebuttal to my assertion, you only offered excuses for BB dong NOTHING… to the effect that Obama made him do NOTHING.
would you like to now amend your prior post to show us what BB did in his 2 terms to advance Jewish settlement in YS outside of the major blocks already settled?
Perhaps you can explain how Obama made him commission the Levy report and then abandon it after the election, or announce E1 building to abandon it after,….. why he sought credit and votes for work never done
after that perhaps you can explain why he lets the euros run rampant in area C illegally building houses for arabs while he maintains a defacto and covert building freeze?
after that perhaps you can explain and show us the “core value” of BB’s demand for a recognition of Israel as a “jewish” state” as a condition in a peace agreement? You have been evading this since you asserted its prime importance.
You stretch to reject Oren’s personal reportage of bho’s perfidy because it was reported in an essay published in the MSM.
Perhaps you should not “kill the messenger” (particularly noting his current politics) and, instead, face the truth of how he endorsed my perception of BB’s motivations.
Finally, again, your credibility is impugned when you falsely claim I admitted a position that you then invoke to fuel your disproven paradigm.
rsklaroff Said:
absolute rubbish, you agreed he did nothing and made lame excuses for him which are pure conjecture.
rsklaroff Said:
LOL, you cite opinions of essay writers in the MSM….. the same MSM that carried fraudulent assertions of “fact” by international wire services, libels on Israel. You cannot cite opinions you must give FACTS, to be taken seriously. Actually you did not even cite opinions, you only referred nebulously to writers giving them. Such a simple point that you keep evading:
Fact: he did nothing in his 2 terms for jewish settlement in YS
Conjecture: Obama made him do it
BB laughs all the way to the bank because many of his voters have feelings that although he does nothing for jewish settlement that he is for Jewish settlement. BB’s platform and agenda is security, land for Jews in YS is not part of his platform. they confuse “right wing” moniker with land for Jews and zionism. The facts prove otherwise. those that ran to BB from bennett will be disappointed if they were interested in land for jewish settlement in YS.
Your entire construct is contradicted – and mine is validated – in Oren’s new book; see essay by John podhoretz in N.Y. Post. BB has been forced to manage BHO’S hatred of the modern Israel.
@ rsklaroff:
BB has allowed the entire subject of jewish settlement in YS to come off the menue. He has facilitated the narrative of the defamers and delegitimizers wrt Jewish settlement in YS. the concept of Jewish settlement in YS has become verboten in the BB gov. It does not exist, no one talks about it any more save for Hotovely’s “cry in the GOI wilderness”. BB never mentions it, its taboo, it is disappearing from memory.
There are those in his party and in the coalition that still beleive in jewish settlement in YS but BB has made sure to destroy that remaining hope. That is the BB legacy: putting the nail in the coffin of Jewish settlement in YS, accepting the boundary of the Jewish ghetto of Israel as dictated by the 2000 year Jew stalkers.
rsklaroff Said:
my experience with posters who talk about my tendencies has been that they evade the simple points.rsklaroff Said:
I already stated that BB does not bow to obama “threats” when he confines himself to building in existing major blocks that everyone knows Israel will keep. Therefore, I demonstrated that Obama threats are NOT the motivation for BB not building in YS as Obama threatens wherever BB builds.
BB does not build in YS, imo, because he has made covert agreements not to build there. The obama drama is Obama helping BB to look like he is threatened so as to maintain his right wing credentials and keep control of the right wing voting block. BB could not do what he is NOT doing and retain control over the right wing without a story to “explain” why he actually implements left wing policies. Notice that not one new settlement has been undertaken by him in YS. that is because he is holding it in escrow for the pals. Notice also that pals are building in area C with the illegal help of euro govs. Is that part of your narrative too?
Have you ever heard of KISS? try to answer to the points rather than make generic irrelevant observations of my “tendencies” and other irrelevancies.
Still waiting for your explanation of BB’s “Jewish” state recognition, the “core value that you consider “difficult to evade”.
You have the tendency to phrase your points to the extreme; factor in the possibility that BB doesn’t cowtow always and you will then discover your derivative errors.