How to ensure Netanyahu is our next Prime Minister.

By Ted Belman

It is imperative that Naftali Bennet shift his votes to strengthen both Likud and Yishai. A deal should be cut in advance to that gives him the Defense Ministry and Shaked the Interior Ministry.

Netanyahu was right to talk to Congress as he did and did so admirably. There is no question that if a deal comes out of the negotiations, it will be a better deal, though not necessarily an acceptable deal.

Obama’s manufactured outrage at the alleged violation of protocol, has fueled the fire of the anybody-but-Bibi camp. As a result he may have won the battle but lost the war i.e., he won’t the Prime Minister after the elections.

According to Haaretz, as of early yesterday, the average of the recent pols show, Likud  23,  Zionist Party 24, Bayit 12, Arab list 13, Kaluna 8, YB 6, Yesh Atid 12, Shas 7, Yishai 4, UTJ 7, and  Meretz  5.

The only right wing seats we have is Likud, Bayit, Kulana, YB, Yishai, UTJ and Shas is 67. Of course this is before we see the polls after today.

There are two problems here, Likud isn’t the largest party and Yishai may not reach the threshold and thus 4 rightwing seats will be lost. This would be a calamity.

It is imperative that Naftali Bennet shift his votes to strengthen both Likud and Yishai. A deal should be cut in advance to that gives him the Defense Ministry and Shaked the Interior Ministry and Ariel the Housing Ministry.

Of course this is assuming the polls don’t get better.

March 4, 2015 | 162 Comments »

Leave a Reply

12 Comments / 162 Comments

  1. Justin Said:

    Your main point is that Iran can overcome the Sunni-Shia divide by being the Arabs sugar daddy in Israel.

    I am saying that this is the card that has been used in the past AND HAS bridged that gap wrt Israel. I am saying that what is important is the Iran gov perceptions as to what will bridge that gap enough to fulfill their aspirations for hegemony. They have been attempting to woo sunnis in this manner in the current war. terrill gave no supporting reasons for his conclusion other than using his western oriented “common sense” which appears to be a serial, chronic failure wherever it has been applied.
    Justin Said:

    Under such a scenario, the Iranian leadership would judge they have nothing to lose since their own removal was imminent.

    Pure fairy tale specculation with no supporting evidence.

    Okay, what do you think?

    Iran has already stated that one nuke will destroy Israel but not Iran. They have already alluded to a desire to catalyze the coming of the Mahdi with such action. I think that when facing existential threat one should destroy their enemy first. Israel could have destroyed their nukes but the US said no, let them negotiate. When that failed Israel asked for the bunker busters and were denied. Now instead of relying on liars who renege Israel should nuke Iran in order to save its own before Iran builds the first bomb. The example of hiroshima and nagasaki are the last successful examples of successful military strategy for long term success.
    Justin Said:

    Russia remains an existential threat to the US but the probability of attack is very low and the US cannot get rid of the Russian bomb at this time.

    this proves NOT to wait for Irran to have a nuclear weapon especially considering that Russia behaves rationally and does not invoke the mahdi as a reason to nuke folks.
    Justin Said:

    On the other hand, the Sunnis categorically reject the idea of a non-Muslim (non-Sunni) presence in Israel, period. They are the ones who share the ideology of Hamas and throwing Jews to the sea.

    None of the sides are trustworthy or reliable. the egyptian and jordan peace depend on who is the gov at the time, heavy military costs must still be expended with no benefits. as for the pals, like most of the muslim nutter world, they are unstable and infused with a cult of intolerance, violence and destruction. It is not sensible to believe that permanent peace agreements are reliable. the staus quo on a&B with an annexation of the mainly vacant C in order to settle Jews is the only sensible approach in the mid term. A sort of halfway house where the criminals and lunatics are given a bit of rope. If they prove they can develop sustainable institutions and live in a culture of peace with no anti semitism only at that time should other possibilities be investigated. It is foolish to force an unworkable solution in order to satisfy dummies in the US and europe. I doubt, beyond the rhetoric that Abbas is looking for a state now that could bring millions of pals to settle in the PA and bring chaos to his rule. Its all baloney. In any case israel should proceed rationally without any foolish hopey dreamy that has consistently failed in the past as the left would advise. afterwards the left always has to backtrack on their misjudgments, but it is too late.

  2. @ Justin:

    Israel will survive and so will the JEWISH people. It may take Devine intervention – so….what else is new?

    I provoke some people just because I breathe. Does that mean I should stop breathing so as not to provoke them??

  3. Justin Said:

    Why is it “that important” that Israel builds apartments in Arab Jerusalem?

    it is important that Jews are not ghettoized in their own homeland. In the Jewish city of Jerusalem the arabs are the colonial squatters. Israel was willing to allow them to remain in peace but in my view it is impossible and they should be expelled as were the ZJews from the arab nations as a result of the same conflict. there are current areas in jerusalem and the west bank which were ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Jordanians and arabs in the Jordanian illegal occupation of 48-67. These atrocities should not be allowed to remain, why would you expect jews to respect thae arab ethnic cleansing of jews? In Israel arabs and Jews may build anywhere it is only in arab controlled areas that apartheid and judenrein exists. Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel from before your recorded history.
    Justin Said:

    And isn’t it possible that the Israel and the US have a different assessment of the costs of this action?

    you appear to be incorrect judging from the speech but you should write your congressman instead of coming here and find out why the US leadership of both parties have not bought into your narrative
    Justin Said:

    Do you really think that Israel would be better off if the US stopped backing Egypt’s military, Jordan’s King, the Saudis, and the UAE?

    you appear to be out of the loop, those you mentioned agree with Israel right now and not the US. The US meddles in the ME to maintain its hegemony and influence, no rocket science here. The US has always pressured Israel to forego its own interests to serve theirs by stopping Israel from full victory thus keeping the arabs reliant on the US for security, ostensibly from Israel. that narrative is breaking down now.

  4. Justin Said:

    Trust me – I’m not an expert by any means, but I’m not totally naive –

    I do not trust you, and its irrelvant to fact…… you are obviously naive and unknowledgeable but still willing to offer your ludicrous opinions on everything. Yamits and shmuels submissions make sense , yours is unsupported fluff.

  5. Justin Said:

    I’m pretty sure the Obama narrative is “[1]Israel has a moral obligation to make peace with the Arabs in conquered Israel but I had to seem to support Israel to be elected.…..
    [2]The Arabs may behave badly but what can Israel expect given its cruel behavior?” …..
    If you don’t think that’s his view, let me know. If you find evidence that I support this view, let me know. ….. Israelis should not be so quick to discount US friendship just because of a tactical disagreement.

    [1] YOU: Israel has an obligation to makepeace with the arabs on their terms because it is in americas interest and I had to seem to support israel in order to propagate my absurd agenda.
    [2] YOU: the arabs may behave badly but what do you expect given your illegal settlements.

    Israelis do not discount the US frienship you are the one trying to scorch the relationship and defend the minority view,in the US, of your pres.
    Justin Said:

    Again, let me respond after carefully reading your documents.

    The fact that you were unable to immediately respond and need to read the relevant documents shows you are dishonest because you never checked the facts before libeling the jews. You either ignorantly parroted your peers or handlers mantras or you intentionally and knowingly sought to libel.

  6. Justin Said:

    You still have not answered to my assertion wrt you being a libertarian. Non intervention is not the same as advancing the narrative that jewish settlement is illegal or illegitimate

    I must repeat this a third time, you appear to avoid this specific statement. this goes to your character and honesty. you presented yourself in many ways similar to BDS trolls tactics. You said you were a libertarian conservative as if seeking credibility for your allegations. My read is that the leadershp and majority of conservative libertarians DO NOT advance the BDS muslim arab narrative of illegal or illegitimate Jewish settlement, but you do. You appear to me to be a typical BDS troll employning tactics we have seen before.. All of your posts conclude in reinforcing an anti Israel set of narratives far from the american mainstream. I think you have come here on a mission to abuse Jews by removing their defense to your ilk with deception and then inserting your unsupported and deceitfuul narratives. the purpose is to brainswash ignorant Jews and confuse and interrupt the rest. Similar to the BDS tactics of breaking up meetings. I have had this experience on many sites before where the trolls return to their handlers for rebuttal info after having libeled the Jews without the facts.

  7. Justin Said:

    But to the broader point, I explained what I meant by provocative. I did not mean illegitimate as stated previously.

    sorry, I do not buy your story. You continue to try and promote your agenda switching from one failed narrative to another as they are shot down. Therefore, you demonstrate that your agenda supersedes honesty. the use of the word provocation was specifically intended to imply covertly that Israel, the Jews, are at fault. It is absurd to make Israel responsible for the behavior of the arabs: is a rape victim responsible for provoking the rapist? Some say yes and the more muslim you venture, the more yes it will be. Therefore, you are disingenuously employing a typical BDS tactic of intentionally, knowingly, covertly implying that the intransigent ones are the victims.
    Justin Said:

    A lot of people – NOT ME, NOT ME, NOT ME – feel that the settlements are “against the law” in the jurisdiction.

    You are becoming disgustingly insulting implying that jews should buy the libels of what a lot of people say about them. You say you are of south Korean descent. Did you know that a lot of people believe that Koreans are “gooks”? Do you agree with that assessment? What would your reaction be if I suggested covertly that you should accept their assessment that Koreans are “gooks” and start behaving accordingly? Please stop insulting Jews here with such disgusting arguments.
    Justin Said:

    I don’t think “international law” is well-defined enough to pretend to make an objective claim on this matter.

    And yet you had no shame in arriving here trumpeting that settlements are illegal even though you now admit to being clueless. The fact is that you have already admitted that you knew and know nothing of the international relevant law in this matter but that did not prevent you from coming here to libel Jews. If you knew anything you would have already rebutted my assertions in that regard. you probably need the time for your BDS troll group handlers to feed you the rebutting info. When calling something illegal the only relevant basis is the law. Therefore,once more you are proven to be a dishonest liar when you asserted that jewish settlement was illegal without knowing anything about the international relevant law. Now you are compounding your dishonesty in that you say “international law is not defined enough to make an objective claim” in spite of admittedly knowing nothing of international law AND MAKING A CLAIM OF ILLEGALITY IN SPITE OF NOW SAYING THE LAW IS NOT DEFINED ENOUGH.
    Could there be anyone more dishonest than you?
    Justin Said:

    Many of these “jurisdictions” you mention violate said law in unambiguous and gruesome terms.

    Therefore, even though those jurisdictions (saudi, afghan) violate human rights you still offer them as being valid justifications for the argument that the victim was provocative in your analogy in order to further your disingenuous narrative of illegal jewish settlement?
    Justin Said:

    TBernard Ross said:
    The libelous reactions to Jews exercising their legal, historical and moral rights is provocative, illegal and illegitimate and worse is that those advancing the canards in the west are signatories to “facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging jewish settlement in the Palestine mandate territory.
    Justin said:
    I’ll wait to read your citations before responding.

    Its a pity that you did educate yourself BEFORE going to websites and inciting against the Jews by spreading false information about which you had no direct knowledge. People like you are existentially dangerous and the fact that you spread these lies without knowledge reveals that your arguments are subservient to your narratives and agenda which is to defame and delegitimize Jews.

    Justin Said:

    I would take issue with your statement that my Presidents have all abandoned Israel, but that’s another argument.

    First, I did not say abandoned, I said reneged on treaties and agreements. Second, it is only another argument because you lack knowledge. Read Francisco Gil White and the Loftus Secret War against the Jews” for the facts on that issue. The US was a guaranteeing signatory to “facilitating jewish immigration and encouraging Jewish settlement in the Palestine mandate territory”. By calling Jewish settlement illegitimate it reneges on those treaties and agreements and also libels the state of israel. Also, Obama has reneged on the Bush letter of agreement with Israel. The same with the euros who call it illegal after signing on. I have already posted here the relevant treaties and agreements.
    Justin Said:

    Now, if you assume the maximalist position,….I would say that Israel’s leaders have been aware of their rights but not suicidal.

    It makes no sense to follow you on another tangent which is the usual tactic of BDS trolls. First deal with existing subjects.

    Justin Said:

    My point was simply that I don’t think settlements SHOULD have become the issue because they detract from the real claim you raise – the claim to all of Jerusalem, from which any such development follows.

    Inaccurate, it is a claim to all of Israel from which all else follows. Your opinion makes no sense. Settlements are a prime demonstration of debunking the lie of the illegality and illegitimacy of Jews living in the land of Israel. There is absolutely no legal, historical or moral argument for this canard. Delgitimizeing Jews living in any part of Israel leads to, and is synonymous with, delegitimizing the existence of Israel as the jewish historical homeland. The BDS folks have already began this agenda as you are probably aware. Jewish settlement was THE PRIME DIRECTIVE the RAISON D’ETRE for the creation of the Palestine mandate territory after WWI. By allowing this right to be reneged upon, defamed and delegitimized the Jews allow the beginnings of the next holocaust. You could never be more wrong.
    Justin Said:

    Let me provide an analogy:

    you did that already and it proved disingenuous so let me provide an analogy:
    Many people say that the US should stop supporting South Korea. they say that South Korea is provoking North Korea with its military drills. They also say that south Korea provokes north Korea by flaunting its material wealth in thte face of the impoverished North Koreans. Many say that the US has nothing to gain from supporting south korea and that by allowing south Koreas to be merged into North Korea like Vietnam we could defuse the serious nuclear threats being made by North Korea. Many say that the North Korean belligerence would fade away with the removal of the american occupied puppet state of south korea and that we would enter a more peaceful world. Many say that our relations with China would also be greatly improved and it is in the US interest to remove impediments to good relations with China and to give China what they demand. Many say that south Korea competes with american jobs and production and harms the american economy, that it also competes with the US in global commerce. Many say that south Korea is an illegal and illegitimate puppet state created by the US to provoke North Korean animosity and if the US were to disengage from south korea we would benefit. Many say that america should not be risking nuclear war over south korea.

    whats your take on this analogy? As a self professed libertarian dont you think we should be removing support and perhaps even giving south korea, taiwan to N korea and china as a good will gesture?

  8. Justin Said:

    I’m far more sympathetic to Israel than I am to the rest of the region, but I’m also realistic about what is achievable and what is desirable.

    rubbish. The only narratives you have presented and supported here are the narratives of the BDS movement. Furthermore, you are not at all realistic as to what is achievable or desirable unless you are representing the views of the arab muslim world. When you speak of “achivability” you have obviously not taken into account the glaring trend of much of the arab muslim world devolving into chaos and much of the rest engaged in violent intolerance presenting a serious existential threat to many on the globe. You are suggesting it is in the US interest to withdraw from their only sustainable, reliable, dependable, consistent ally in the ME, the only one who has NEVER denied the US access to resources when requested by the US and instead to invest in those who are falling apart and in quarrels with the world. And this you are doing when the US is becoming less dependent on ME energy. Its a good thing that americans are not as foolish as you. More intelligent would be to invest in the reliable and consistently dependable. I do not beleive you have americas interests at heart as you never even mentioned any interests beyond appeasing muslims and foreigners.

  9. Justin Said:

    First, AGAIN, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a woman wearing a bikini on the beach. But if a western woman dons the bikini in Gaza or Saudi Arabia or Iran, it’s obviously provocative.

    Why do you continue with this obviously false analogy AFTER I have already shown you why it is not analogous. This is one reason why I continue to doubt your honesty and that doubt increases every time you post. In saudi and afghan is it illegal and against their mores in their jurisdiction. If they were to do it in America your analogy would be better: the jews are settling legally and legitimately in their own homeland. If a muslim was provoked by a bikini and raped the woman in america would you say the woman was provocative? In their jurisdiction that would obtain but in america you would be incarcerated for your rape.
    Justin Said:

    The point is, these American women acted within the bounds of natural law but still placed the state in a needlessly-uncomfortable position.

    Would you have the same view if muslims did this to a woman in america? That would be the proper analogy.
    Justin Said:

    Every UN state save for the US and Israel…. have been adamant that they want the settlements to stop first and foremost. Settlements become a flash point for conflict both locally and internationally…… It is my opinion that Israeli settlements damage US credibility with the Arabs ….. and impose a greater cost on US support for Israel……

    At least you are abandoning your ludicrous entrance canard and libel that settlements are illegal, illegitimate or immoral. Finally we can see that your only reason fro trying to swindle and con Jews out of their legal,historical and moral rights to live peacefully in their own homeland is YOUR opinion that it would satisfy the arabs and others. This was the same argument used by the nazi appeasers and we can see to where the appeasers were led. Furthermore it is not settlements which damaged US credibility but US military adventures in the muslim world on their own behalf without Israel. YOu are propagating a long discredited canard that only has wings in the BDS movement. Apparently the overwhelming majority of the american people and their representation in congress has an opposing view to yours. Few believe, or today espouse, the muslim narrative that the problems with the arab muslim world is Israel; considering arab and muslim violence and chaos on almost every inch of the globe they inhabit. Therefore, your opinion is based on faulty and inaccurate judgments as even the libertarians who are the flag bearers of non involvement and isolationism have NOT echoed your views regarding Israeli settlement as provocative, illegal or illegitimate. This view is primarily propounded by leftists, muslims, BDS supersessionist churches, neo nazi supremacists, jewish conspiracy bugs.
    Justin Said:

    the US could at least say “we support Israel’s position” or “we do not support Israel’s position” knowing full well what the position actually is.

    MOst in the US do not seem to have your problem supporting Israel including libertarian conservatives. I think you are telling fibs here, arriving and speaking under false pretenses, spreading falsehoods.
    Justin Said:

    Now, this line of thinking brings about two questions: first, how much cost is the US willing to shoulder on behalf of Israel, however justified? And second, is Israel capable of enacting such a policy on its own?

    LOL,you appear to be massively ignorant or massively dishonest; I will wager on the latter. The US has no problem supporting Israel and those who are knowledgeable in government recognize the strategic, military and economic advantages of a very strong relationship with Israel. You are one of the few dummies seeking to end US support without even presenting the pros and cons of such an argument. You have not at all enunciated any of the very real benefits to the US so it is no wonder why americans have not bought into your BS except for a very few. the Obama narrative of embracing the arabs and the muslim world at the expense of Israel is soundly rejected by americans. You appear to not to have taken into account american global military interests, only the interests of arabs and foreigners. Your overiding narrative on the US israeli relationship is framed in arab interests. It appears that you may be a fruaud when you say you care about american interests just like you are a fraud when you pretend to being nuetral and concerned about israel. DUH?????????????
    Basically you say it is in americas interest to placate the arabs and foreigners but that is an absurd and childish submission.

  10. Justin Said:

    There is nothing incompatible with a program being overpriced and strategically important.

    The F35 is kind of the whipping boy of defense procurement in the US. I’m sure pockets have been greased.

    Pls read:

    August 27, 2010
    Israel should reject the F-35…. But she won’t, by yamit82

    Besides cost overruns and delivery delays

    New Small Diameter Bomb Doesn’t Fit Inside Marine’s F-35B

    Read more: http://defensetech.org/2015/03
    /04/new-small-diameter-bomb-doesnt-fit-inside-marines-f-35b/#ixzz3TzTSWwbI

    F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022

    Military.com? – 11 hours ago
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots will have to wait until 2022 to fire the U.S. military’s top close-air-support bomb. … The JSF office has already discovered that the SDB II does not fit onto the F-35B — the U.S. military’s top close-air-support bomb after the Small Diameter Bomb II enters service in 2017, JSF officials explained.

    The Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) is an upgrade from previous precision-guided air-dropped weapons because of its ability to track and hit moving targets from up to 40 miles. However, the F-35 will not have the software package required to operate the bomb loaded onto the fifth generation fighter until 2022, officials said.

    The delay in getting the SDBII onto the F-35 will reduce the aircraft’s ability to provide close-air support to ground troops. It plays a role in the debate over the aircraft’s ability to adequately fulfill the mission of the A-10 Warthog if Air Force officials are allowed by Congress to retire the close-air-support aircraft.

    F-35 is already obsolete and modern radar and SAT detection have rendered them vulnerable and most of their advanced technology Passe’. each plane when including hangars and spare parts and cost of maintenance training and new weapons systems and avionics will make the cost of the plane amt to over 150 million dollars. At those prices you cn hardly afford to lose any due to training accidents and malfunctions no less during combat.

    It also locks Israel into American diktat and blackmail for the next 20 years or more the exact opposite of where we should be heading.
    Israel was actually heavily pressured into purchasing and when we balked over conditions like flying the planes to Cyprus and allowing only American technicians to maintain the planed America caved to Israeli demands . If Israel reduces to purchase almost nobody else will. We are the best sales tool used by America and their contractors to sell their overpriced junk.
    Defense.org

  11. Ted Belman Said:

    This goes to the heart of your argument. Israel chooses its battles. It does not want to be provocative, at this time, by regaining her rights on the Temple Mount but it does want to build housing even if provocative.

    Of course it does. It could be much more provocative. The question is whether the current choice of battles is the right tactical choice for Israel and/or the US.

    You are arguing that when we build we put America in a difficult position forcing it to condone what is legal thereby alienating the Arabs or Muslims or Europeans or all, or bashing Israel and trying to stop them. You don’t want Israel to build because it puts America in a bind. In other words, Israel is a liability to America. To this I say, America has its interests and Israel has its interests. These interests are often polar opposites. While Israel is prepared to take American interests into account where possible, she is not prepared to substitute American interests for her own. She will build even if it puts America in a bind. Its that important.

    Maybe Israel is a liability to the US in some scenarios and vice versa in others. I don’t think Israel is a net liability at this time, and I certainly don’t think the US is a net liability at this time. Sometimes allies have divergent interests; this is unavoidable.

    Why is it “that important” that Israel builds apartments in Arab Jerusalem?

    And isn’t it possible that the Israel and the US have a different assessment of the costs of this action? Let’s say Israel thinks it is not costly but the US thinks it is. If the US is wrong, then all is well. But if Israel is wrong, the US will have no choice but to intervene on Israel’s behalf.

    On the other hand, America should support Israel even if it means angering the Arabs, because we have the legal right to do so and because they are our friend and ally and because its the right thing to do. Unfortunately America goes out of her way to support the Arabs at our expense. We don’t have to go along or to put American interests above our own.

    Do you really think that Israel would be better off if the US stopped backing Egypt’s military, Jordan’s King, the Saudis, and the UAE? What about the PA? Why do you think so?

    Why can’t America be impartial? Why not say that all issues are to be negotiated (as they so say)? Why come out in favour of ’67 lines which totally support the arabs. Why did they have to do this?

    This goes back to the earlier question. My belief is that the US support of Israel’s Arab neighbors is a benefit, not a detriment, to Israel’s security. The weapons the US provides the Arabs are second-rate and have only been used to suppress internal dissent (like what happened in Bahrain or in Saudi’s Shia areas). Do you think that a MB-dominated Egypt would have benefited Israel’s security?

    Now if you accept this belief that such support for the Arab regimes is vital to Israel’s security, then the US should do the absolute minimum necessary to keep up appearances. If they insist on working from the 67 borders, and Israel rejects this, it puts the US in a bind as you say. Why would the US make this demand of Israel absent pressure from these neighbors?