Why Trump's 'Deal of the Century" will fail

(Last updated: February 3, 2020)


On January 27, 2020, US President Donald Trump presented a much-advertised "Peace Plan" Trump has named, 'The Deal of the Century'. It's an ambitious Plan. One indication of its ambitiousness is the curious fact that, out of all Peace Plans ever presented to solve the Arab-Israel conflict (since 1948), this is the only one to present an actual, geographical  map of how the Plan  would play out "on the ground" (here). Apparently, no other plan, not even the  most recent (2013) 'John Kerry' Plan, contained a map (ibid). 

As I understand it, this Plan would give to a new Palestinian state some 70% of the West Bank (Judea-Samaria), mostly involving what is currently called 'Areas A and B', which are already under Palestinian control (ibid). This new map seems designed to disrupt current Israeli-controlled areas as little as possible--something that might well be another innovation of this Plan.

Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into this idea. Will it be accepted?

Well, in Israel at least, this Plan will be debated. As with all past 'plans', it aims to change the 'status quo' for both sides. As time unfolds --and if you follow this Israeli debate--you'll learn why Israel will be divided over it.

In the end, however, it won't matter what Israelis conclude--or do--about the Plan. Yes, Israelis will certainly vent their passions over it. But that venting will be nothing more than an empty exercise. It will be wasted energy.

It will be wasted energy because the Palestinians will never  say yes to it--ever.  Palestinian leader Mahmmoud Abbas has said all along--since the end of December 2017-- that this deal is dead. He's said all along it didn't matter. He's said all along he was rejecting it, sight-unseen.

Even without looking at details, he understood that this Peace Plan wasn't for him a deal at all. It was a slap in the face (here). 

From his point of view, Abbas is 100% correct. This deal is stillborn for Abbas and his followers because it would mean the end of the Palestinian dream. Abbas will never say 'yes' to a Plan that wouldn't just end the Palestinian Cause (here). This Plan, Abbas has said, "aims to liquidate [my emphasis] the Palestinian cause (sic)" (ibid).

This Abbas-led hostility to peace is what all Peace Planners for the Arab-Israel have always missed or chosen to miss. Abbas--and his predecessor, Arafat--have never wanted a state to call their own, 'to live side-by-side with Israel in peace and security'. The "Palestinian Cause" is not about just statehood. It's about a new state that replaces Israel, a state that would take over all of modern Israel and wipe the Jewish state off the face of the planet.

To see this truth, all you need to do is look at another map--that of Palestine as envisioned by  the Palestine Cause:




(courtesy of palwatch.org)


This picture immediately above is the Palestine envisioned by Abbas (standing on the left in this picture, holding the frame). It's a map of Israel, with Arabic text on it, that renames Israel as 'Palestine'. 

Abbas knew from the very beginning of Trump's administration that the Trump Peace Plan would never do Abbas's bidding and convert Israel into 'Palestine'. For Abbas, this Trump Plan is no different from all other Plans: It's just one more reprint of the West's silly desire to create a two-state solution for this conflict. 

Abbas doesn't want a two-state solution. He's never wanted a two-state solution. He wants one-state solution--an Arab-Muslim nation that sits on top of a destroyed-and-replaced Israel--a 'Palestine' similar to what you see above.

That is the Palestinian dream--to replace Israel with a Muslim 'Palestine'. That dream is the essence of  the 'Palestinian Cause'. 

Therefore, any Peace Plan that ignores this Palestinian vision for nationhood is automatically 'dead on arrival'. Such a Plan is useless. It doesn't bring Abbas peace--or fulfill the Palestinian dream. Instead, it "liquidates" the Palestinian Cause--because the Palestinian Cause isn't about peace. It's about conquest. 

To the West, a "Peace" Plan is an attempt to avoid or end war. Put another way, peace is about "liquidating" the need for war. 

That's not Abbas' idea of Peace. His idea of Peace is a Region with no Israel, anywhere.

This is why Trump's Plan will fail. It leaves Israel intact. It won't satisfy the Palestinian dream.

More questions about Benny Gantz's fitness to be Israel's Prime Minister

I have already written about the question of Gantz's fitness to be Israel's PM (see "Has Benny Gantz just proven he lacks  the skill to make competent political decisions?", below, December 31, 2019). In that essay, I questioned his ability to choose competent enough advisors for him to become Israel's leader. Now, a new report surfaces that again raises this same question--for the exact same reason.

As you may  know, Benny Gantz was in Washington, DC yesterday, January 27, 2020. The purpose of this trip was to meet with US President Trump just before Trump was scheduled to announce details of his "Deal of the Century" Peace Plan for Israel and 'Palestine'. Current Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu was there, too--but not at the same time. Each man vying in the March, 2020 national election in Israel to be Israel's next PM got his own session with Trump to hear privately about the Peace Plan's details. 

So far, there's nothing obviously wrong with any of this. What is wrong is Gantz's apparent inability--once again--to choose close advisors who are politically competent. The latest person to raise this issue, inadvertently, of course, is a "close" Gantz advisor, Ronen Tzur. Tzur, we have been told,  had accompanied Gantz to Washington for this visit (here).

Apparently, Tzur is what some might call a potential "political hand grenade" right next to Gantz. If that 'political hand grenade' goes off, Gantz could be finished. 

What did Tzur do? Well, here's a short list of some of what Tzur has done:

-In March, 2016, Tzur twitted about Trump that, "Trump's next book: Mein Trumpf".

-In May 2017, Tzur wrote, “The most surprising thing about Trump is only one thing was leaked to the Russians until now.”

-In July, 2017, Tzur wrote: “Tonight at the White House: The Elimination Episode.” [The Hebrew word for 'elimination' is the same as 'impeachment' (sic)].

-In August, 2017, he referred to Donald J Trump as "Donald Adolf Trump".

-In May, 2018, he tweeted, “2 approaches to leadership now clashing fiercely: Obama and Clinton’s psychological approach and Trump and Putin’s psychopathic approach.”

Tzur never deleted these tweets (ibid). The inference is, he came to Washington with them still up--and visible for anyone to see.

If Gantz is to serve as Israel's next PM, will he be well-served by such an advisor? Certainly not, if Gantz wishes to have a good relationship with the current US President.

To lead Israel successfully, Gantz needs to know how to interact with foreign leaders. He especially needs to know how to interact with leaders from the planet's most powerful nations. Insulting those leaders, or bringing on a visit to such a leader those who do that insulting for Gantz (for that will be the inference taken), doesn't win friends. It doesn't influence any sitting foreign leader for the better. 

Can Israel afford such a leader? 

Unfortunately, Tzur wasn't finished with insulting others. He kept it up from Washington. Apparently, some members of Likud reacted badly to these tweets about Trump. Two hours before the Trump-Gantz meeting took place, and in reply to criticism from Likud members, Tzur labelled such followers of Likud as 'cult members'. He wrote, "“Seeing that some members of the cult have gotten overexcited at some tweets from past years I will clarify: There were certain issues that I thought differently about from the president" (ibid). 

Clarification for Tzur: 'thinking differently' about 'certain issues' isn't the same as calling Trump, Donald Adolph Trump, or using such language as Mein Trumpf, or 'Trump behaves like a psychopath'. 'Thinking differently' isn't even in the same league as these insults. If Tzur doesn't understand the difference between 'differences', versus slanderous--or, perhaps, even hate-speech--what's he doing at the ear of a potential Prime Minister?

For that matter, what's he doing in Washington, DC with that potential leader? A t the very least, leave such a man at home.

 Yes, at the same time that Tzur trashed Likud followers, and just minutes before the Trump-Gantz meeting, Tzur did praise Trump (ibid). But such praise doesn't erase the unerased anti-Trump slurs from 2016, 2017 and 2018. Indeed, compared to the earlier insults, such praise right before a meeting with Trump just makes Tzur look like a hypocritical boot-licker.

Is this the kind of advisor Gantz surrounds himself with? Worse yet for Israel, what does such a choice tell us about Gantz?

Remember, Tzur is a political confidant of Gantz. Unlike you or me, he has Gantz' ear. He's important enough to travel to Washington with Gantz. 

What is someone like this doing so close to a potential Israeli leader? 

In the US, many, many people who refer to Trump using this language above are Leftists. They promote an anti-capitalist, anti-border, anti-religion, anti-Trump and pro-Socialism agenda. Is this what Ronen Tzur believes? 

More important for Israel's voters, is this what Gantz himself believes? Is this why Gantz has Tzur traveling with him?

What is Tzur--and his beliefs--doing with Gantz in America? We don't know.  But his tweets raise questions: Does Tzur suggest with his political insults what will be Gantz' secret agenda--an anti-Trump, pro-Socialism agenda for Israel?

How, exactly, will that look for Israel? Well, Gantz hasn't spoken about any of this. He hasn't laid out the plans he will bring to Israel. Does Tzur now speak for him? Certainly, we actually know next to nothing about Gantz' plans for Israel--other than, Netanyahu-man-bad-Netanyahu -must-go.

Is this enough to elect him our leader?

This is what make Tzur's slander so frightening. It makes us realize how little we know about Gantz' ideas and ideology. Does Tzur inadvertently reveal the political realities that are close to Gantz' heart?

More important for all of us who will vote in March, 2020, is this the kind of anti-Trump, anti-capitalist  belief-structure Israel wants to vote for?

Once again (as with the episode reported in the December 31, 2019 essay), we see a Gantz advisor force us to ask if Gantz is really the 'best man' to lead the world's only Jewish state. After all, between now and at least the end of 2021, Israel has some treacherous waters to navigate. Israel will need to travel upstream against strong currents in the UN, the EU, a potentially hostile US Congress, a hate-mongering Iran, rockets at Israel's Northern--and Southern--borders, potential fallout from international economic anti-Israelism, a potential ICC war crimes tribunal set up against Israel, and pressure from a growing Russian interest in increasing its influence in the Middle East. People like Ronen Tzur aren't going to help Israel with such challenges. People like Tzur could, in a single, unguarded instant, seriously undercut--or even destroy--any positive understanding Israel has--or will have--developed with a foreign power.

Israel's voters need to think very hard about what they'll get with a Gantz-led Israel. So far, Gantz does more to cut off his nose despite his face than to enhance his standing in the world. Is the man Israel needs right now?

Is this why Trump has been impeached?

As I have previously suggested to my readers, since I now live in Israel, I try not to get involved in US politics. But the US drive to impeach US president Donald Trump is so historic an event, I cannot stay away from this event. It's simply too big to ignore, no  matter where I live.

I'm sure you know the basics of this impeachment. I won't rehash anything. But I do want to offer the occasional comment from afar. Perhaps distance provides some perspective.

I realize some of my readers could be offended by what I will say. After all, one doesn't have to live in Washington, DC to understand how passions about Trump run high--very high. I hope my readers will not abandon me over this issue. I hope you remain loyal to this blog.

Here's a comment about this Trump impeachment process: in the US Senate impeachment trial now unfolding, the US House of Representatives has seven 'Managers' whose job it is to serve as 'prosecutors' against Trump. If I understand matters correctly, these seven Managers will today, Friday, January 24, 2020, finish presenting the Democratic case against Trump. These seven Representatives, all Democrats, all chosen specifically by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), include: Jason Crow (D-Colorado), Val B. Demings (D-Florida),  Sylvia R. Garcia (D-Texas), Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), Zoe Lofgren (D-California), Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and Adam Schiff (D-California) (here). 

According to one source, US Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), three of these seven US House Managers in the Senate impeachment trial (some 42+ percent of the House 'Prosecutors') voted against lethal aid to the Ukraine--and these same three (Nadler, Jeffries and Lofgren) now lead the call to impeach Trump for, arguably, simply delaying the same lethal aid which they themselves refused to send? (here). Indeed, what's worse, delaying aid because of Ukraine's recent past history of corruption--or voting against it altogether? 

What's going on here? Is this why Trump is being impeached--over a policy dispute? 

Certainly, some have believed that, during December's House impeachment hearings, several anti-Trump 'witnesses' (few of whom had any face-to-face interactions with Trump, never spoke to Trump, but condemn him for impeachable offences anyway) were actually arguing that they condemn Trump because they, the professional diplomats, disagreed strongly with Trump's policy decisions (at least, that's the way it looked to some).  Is this the impeachable offense?

In the end, the impeachment Articles spoke specifically of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of the Congress is a separate issue. But is this policy dispute over Ukraine the real reason behind Trump's alleged Abuse of Power?

Remember, at app 10:25 EST yesterday, Thursday, January 23, 2020, Representative Adam Schiff said that this President "needs to be removed [from office] because Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies and national security advisers" (here). Schiff then added, "that makes Trump dangerous" (ibid).

Really? Dangerous? A President does not have the power to send special envoys on special missions? Plus, if a President does use such envoys, he can be removed from office?

Really? How many times have other US Presidents used special, even private, envoys? A hundred times across American history? A thousand times?

Democrats claim no, no and no, again. That's not the reason for this impeachment. They say Trump's Abuse was his effort to influence a foreign leader to get for Trump dirt on a potential political opponent (Joe Biden). But was Trump's interest in a potential Biden-Ukraine connection just about a potential political opponent--or about real corruption in a place that had been one of the most corrupt countries in the world; a corruption that could have included the-then US Vice President (Biden and his family members) working behind the scenes?

More to the point, if what Schiff said, above, is not the point for impeachment (that Trump needs to be removed because he didn't rely on his own advisers, etc), then why make that remark? How does it relate to 'Abuse of Power'? If Schiff is saying that such a remark is in fact related to 'Abuse of Power', is such a connection legitimate? 

Does Congress really want to create a basis for the impeachment of a President that will literally tie the hands of all future Presidents? What is the message here--that a President cannot choose his own foreign policies, and cannot choose whom he wishes to perform delegated tasks?

Has Congress become this stupid? Something is wrong here.

Very wrong.

Here's a video. About Trump. From 1980. Dare you watch it?

(Last update: January 15, 2020. includes a title change)


Over the years I've been writing, I've developed an informal rule: stay away from US politics. True, I haven't always adhered to this rule. But it does influence what I choose to write about.

I believe that for the better part of the last two years, I've been pretty faithful to this rule. So far as I can remember, I've published little, if anything, about US politics during this time-frame.

You can confirm that by digging deeper into my blog posts, below. What I've written is not hidden. It's part of the blog's historical record.

Today, I will break this rule. I will show you a video about Donald Trump--from 1980, when he was 34 years old. A friend sent it to me from a Facebook entry they had found. It's less than 4 1/2 minutes long. 

You might say that I post this interview not for a political purpose, but for historical perspective. Perhaps it puts Trump-the-man into an historical context. Perhaps that context could be important.

Please note that Trump in this interview references Iran and the 'hostages'. He is referring in this interview to 52 Americans who were taken hostage by Iran, in Iran, in early November, 1979, eleven months earlier. At the time of this interview, October, 1980, those hostages had been held in captivity for something like 380 days. Iran didn't release them until January 20,1981, the very day the newly-elected US President, Ronald Reagan, was sworn into office. Iran held these Americans for a total of 444 days before their release.

One final point: no matter what your political position is vis-a-vis Trump, I think this brief interview excerpt is worth your time. 

What do you think? 

Has Benny Gantz just proven he lacks the skill to make competent political decisions?

(Last update: January 1, 2020)


Benny Gantz wants to become Israel's Prime Minister. To that end, he's chosen to become a political fighter. 

He appears to know he's no longer in the Army. In the Army's strict command structure, everyone knows that the top man--the 'boss'--is always appointed to his position, not elected to it. Gantz knows that. He also knows that to become Israel's Prime Minister, he's not going to be appointed to it by a higher authority. He's decided he's got to fight for it.

To take ownership of the PM's seat, he's apparently defined his need to 'fight for it' as, 'we have to demonize my main opponent'. He doesn't define his fight as 'I'm the man Israel needs right now, not my opponent'. He defines his fight as the need for personal attack.

He won't lead with ideas or policies. He won't lead by 'values'. He'll lead by personal attack. 

Is that the kind of leader Israel wants?

Gantz shows his true leadership skillset by demonizing Benjamin Netanyahu. Every opportunity he gets, he calls Netanyahu unfit for office. 

Netanyahu's corrupt. He takes bribes. He's been indicted for crimes! He's unfit!

Gantz is a military man. What does he actually know of a political democracy? Does he know that, in a democracy, the  'presumption of innocence' is the basic right of every accused, even a Prime Minister? 

Apparently not. 

Gantz doesn't act as if he understands the underlying ideals of the nation-state he wants to lead. He treats allegations in an indictment as established fact, not accusations. He sees an indictment, even one possibly politically tainted, as being the same as 'guilty'. 

At least, that's what he wants you to believe. Is that the kind of leader you want?

Gantz attacks. He rarely discusses policy. He doesn't debates policy. 

His attacks take place at the basest, nastiest level. No, Netanyahu isn't Israel's most experienced, longest-serving Prime Minister. He's unfit. He's a corrupt politician. He paints Netanyahu as if the man's nothing more than an indicted criminal nervously waiting to be sentenced--even before a trial. 

Is this how Gantz is going to lead? 

Now, in an effort to keep pushing this negative, destructive narrative against Netanyahu, Gantz may have gone too far for his own good. His latest personal attack may have (unintentionally, of course) just proven that it's Gantz who's not fit to rule, not Netanyahu.

Gantz's latest--and perhaps most self-inflicting--attack comes as a result of something that didn't happen. What didn't happen was a public statement by Netanyahu.

Yesterday, December 30, 2019, the Prime Minister's office issued a statement that, at 8 pm, December 30, 2019, Prime Minister Netanyahu would speak to the public. He would issue an 'announcement'. No topic was given for this 'announcement', but the conventional assumption was that, given the day's rumors, it would be about Netanyahu's interest in seeking immunity from the Knesset against prosecution. He would, specifically, seek a new law that a sitting Prime Minister could not be indicted for crimes until he was no longer in office. 

He never made that announcement. Instead, just two hours before the planned 'announcement', an unsourced statement came out of the PM's office that declared Netanyahu's 'special 8 pm announcement' would be "delayed". No other information was given. 

This is when Benny Gantz stuck his foot where it needn't go. By the way, he didn't actually do this to himself. His friends did it for him--his friends in his Party (Blue and White). Apparently, a Party spokesman said, Netanyahu "can't manage a statement. How can he manage a state?"

What an absurd thing to say! Sure, if Netantyahu were, say, a retired Army General (like Gantz) who'd never been elected to office (like Gantz)--or been appointed to a political position in a ruling government (like Gantz)--then, yes, maybe, a statement he had not given might be reason for criticism. A change of plan could suggest, for example, a rookie's hesitation. It might suggest that such hesitation to act is what you might expect from someone with little political experience. It could even be used to suggest, do you want such a hesitant, inexperienced rookie handling a ship of state that must travel through treacherous waters--or would you want someone more sure of himself, someone more experienced, someone like me (Netanyahu's opponent)?

Of course, Gantz can't say that because he has no experience to boast about. He's a 100% political rookie. Netanyahu, however, is no political rookie. He's Israel's longest-serving Prime Minister, ever. If anyone has experience to manage a state, it's Netanyahu. In fact, if either of these two candidates is totally inexperienced in political leadership, it's Gantz--not Netanyahu. 

It's Gantz who's never held any elected or appointed government position. It's Gantz who has already demonstrated that the only non-military position of authority he's held--head of a start-up company--where he had the opportunity to show what kind of non-military leader he could be, was a position he failed.  That is, with the very first job he took post-military, Gantz didn't prove leadership at all. The only thing he proved in that fiasco was how to drive a new company to bankruptcy--and, possibly, to future criminal investigations into how, exactly, did his  company do its business. 

That's not an example of his non-military leadership experience. It's an example of incompetence.

Gantz's Party did him no favors with this attack on Netanyahu. With friends like this, Gantz doesn't need any political enemies at all. His own friends will do him in. 

Does Gantz's inexperience in Israel's tough political spotlight begin to show? Is this what we can expect his chosen advisors will do to him? Make him look like an idiot?

Right now, recent polls suggest Gantz will/could gain more seats than Netanyahu in the upcoming election. Yes, Israel's pre-election polls seem, at times, notoriously unreliable--and, for some, easily manipulated. But still, if this incompetent attack on Netanyahu reflects accurately on the people Gantz has chosen to surround himself with, Israelis had better think twice about voting for him. 

Perhaps Gantz may yet prove to be competent in some political area. But to lead Israel, which faces extraordinary challenges, "perhaps" doesn't cut it. A leader of Israel has got to be better than "perhaps". 

The next leader of Israel will have no time to find his 'sea legs'. He'll need to be fully competent the moment he steps into office.  

If Gantz is indeed not qualified to steer Israel's ship of state through the turbulent waters ahead, this idiotic statement attacking Netanyahu could come back to haunt him. The idiocy of "if Netanyahu can't manage a statement, how can he manage a state?" could be the proverbial 'tip of an incompetency iceberg'. 

Is that what Gantz is, another Titanic heading towards an iceberg? Could be.

Does this incident reveal that Gantz doesn't at this time have the ability to make competent decisions, both with personnel and political strategy? That'll be for you to decide. 

The ICC writes Israel's modern Chanuka story

Tonight, Sunday, December 22, 2019, marks the beginning of this year's Chanuka. It will be an eight-day celebration. In Israel, it is a time for festive joy--family gatherings, sufganiyot (donuts) galore, special foods and lots of Chanuka songs everywhere.

Chanuka commemorates Israel's war of independence against the anti-Semitic, anti-Judaism rule of  Syrian-Greeks some 2200 years ago. Those non-Jewish rulers over the Jewish people in Israel wanted to stamp out Jewish observance. These efforts to stamp out Judaism was, by the way, embraced by many of Israel's Jews. 

That war against that non-Jewish enemy essentially began when a Greek General demanded that a pig--anathema to Jewish law--be sacrificed in the Jewish Temple. Instead of committing such an abomination, a man called Matityahu (if I recall correctly) called out, 'who stands with HaShem (G-d), join me!' He gathered a relatively small band of fighters. After he was killed, his son, Judah, led the fight. 

Incredibly, miraculously, Judah conquered this enemy. Then, he cleansed and dedicated (the meaning of 'Chanuka') the Jewish Temple for Jewish use. 

Today, we relive that Jewish fight for survival. Today, we have enemies both in Israel and world-wide who seek to destroy not only the state of Israel, but Judaism itself. Many Jews everywhere gladly embrace this anti-Jewish effort.

We saw such a "Jewish anti-Jewish embrace" in the last national election. Some politicians called for Israel to reject its Jewishness. They wanted voters to replace 'Jewishness' with 'democracy'--as if Judaism itself is anathema to the concept of a democracy. 

As any Israeli born and raised in America or Britain knows, that is simply not true. If anything, a democracy protects Judaism. It doesn't promote the destruction (or removal) of Judaism,  as some here in Israel seek.

But then, most Israelis were't born in a Western-style Western democracy. Most Israelis weren't born in the US or Britain. 

Certainly, they live, in Israel, in a supposed 'democracy'. But they never experienced living in an authentic Western democracy.  Still, they do seem quick to vote for those who would 'defend democracy'--especially for those who, in the name of protecting democracy, would attack Israel's religion. 

This anti-Jewish Jewish rebellion in Israel won't go away anytime soon. It's a chronic sore that threatens but will not destroy Israel's Judaism. However, what can destroy Israel--and destroy Israel's Judaism with it--now takes stage center on Israel's collective consciousness: a potential war crimes  investigation against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Friday afternoon, December 20, 2019--just before our Shabbat-before-Chanuka began--the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it would accept a petition from the Palestinian Authority to open a war crimes investigation into Israeli war crimes supposedly committed by Israel against humanity during the 2014 Gaza-Israel war. Remember now, the UN has already written an inflammatory and anti-Semitic, anti-Israel study of that war in which the UN falsely claimed that Israel had indeed committed war crimes in 2014. Now, presumably, the ICC will seek to find high-ranking Israelis, including both politicians and military leaders, potentially guilty of crimes against humanity. 

Won't that be fun.

Those who support the 'Palestinian Cause' (to destroy Israel) are delighted (here). At least according to  Mahmoud Abbas, unelected dictator of the Palestinian Authority, this announcement now means that any Palestinian wounded by Israeli 'Occupiers' will be able to file a lawsuit against Israel at the Hague (here). 

How will that work? Well, right now, Hamas pushes Palestinians to their border with Israel to riot against Israel. Any one of them wounded can now, at least according to Abbas, file a war crime charge against Israel? Any Palestinian in Judea-Samaria who is wounded while attacking a Jew with a knife can file a lawsuit against Israel? 

Won't that be fun.

 To make sure we all understand what this ICC investigation really means, Palestinian Saeb Erekat has already announced that the PA won't just 'flood' the ICC with names of Palestinians hurt by Israel; the PA will "drown" the ICC with names! (here). 

Won't that be fun.

A war crimes investigation will--if it comes to be--provoke a world-wide tsunami of Jew-hate and anti-Israelism. It seems no coincidence that just today (December 22, 2019), a UK study was reported to demonstrate what Jews paying attention to these things already know: the supposedly "Humanitarian" Amnesty International organization is not objective when it comes to Israel-hating; it is "obsessed with that hate" (here). You can bet this ICC report will energize Amnesty International against Israel.

Won't that be fun.

An  ICC 'investigation' could make the world-wide increase of anti-Semitism that we saw during 2016-2018 look like child's play. It could easily bring a Nazi-era style Jew-hate to every nation--and most especially to the UN and the EU.

Won't that be fun.

This ICC investigation will provoke all Jew-haters to jump on the Palestinian bandwagon. Indeed, the ink of this ICC news story had hardly dried when Hamas called for a renewed 'battle' against the Jew in Judea-Samaria (here). 

Won't that be fun.

This ICC investigation against Israel will go a long way to legitimize the Palestinian Cause. It will also energize Palestinian anti-Israel demonizations. Already, some within Official Israel quake at what this all means for Israel (here and here). 

The modern anti-Jew Chanuka story has now begun in earnest. This ICC investigation, if it gets off the ground, will be the catalyst for this modern Jew-hate story. 

Jews and Israel will now,  as they had to do some 2200 years ago, once again have to answer "the call". That is, Jews will have to choose to stand with HaShem or.... 

What will you choose?

Happy Chanuka.

Who is Gantz kidding?

Israel's Benny Gantz, head of the Israeli political Party, Blue and White, wants to become Israel's next Prime Minister. All he needs to do is convince 60 other Members of Knesset (MPs) to join him to form a ruling coalition government.  He's failed to do that.

Meanwhile, the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,  has met with a similar fate. He, to, has been unable to find 60 other MK's to join him to create his own ruling coalition. This stalemate means that if there's no movement towards forming a coalition (by anyone) between today and later this month (December 2019), Israel will be forced into new elections in March 2020--for the third time in the same 12-month period.

Israel has been in this position since April 2019. There's no real government, just an unending 'transition'. Little-to-nothing gets done in the Knesset. Military funding is frozen. A budget won't get done. Laws won't be passed. 

Both Gantz and Netanyahu blame each other for this impasse. For example, just this week, Gantz accused Netanyahu of doing everything in his power to create the need for a new election (here). He suggests Netyanyahu is doing whatever it takes to get to another election (ibid).

But these accusations are patently false--and Gantz is going to be hammered for these accusations. Indeed, that 'hammering' has already begun (here).

The truth is, it's Gantz who's the one to blame for no government. Here's why:

Just after the September 2019 election, it was clear to all that neither Gantz nor Netanyahu would be able to form a ruling coalition. The numbers needed to do that (given how Israel's electoral system works) just weren't there. Israel's President Reuven Rivlin saw this problem--and began to propose creative ideas for establishing a shared Prime Ministership for both Gantz and Netanyahu (here). While the media in Israel essentially interpreted Rivlin's initial proposal to mean a 'rotating leadership', that wasn't what he was proposing (ibid). 

Rivlin's first proposal (here) was unusual. Looking back almost 500 years to a plan first created during Europe's Reformation period, Rivlin offered Gantz and Netanyahu a co-equal Prime Ministership. In this arrangement, both men would have power together--at the same time. Both would have a veto right on the other. Both would therefore be forced to govern together (ibid) to get anything accomplished. This initial proposal did not mention anything about a rotation of power, where only one-at-a-time would govern.

The idea was to create some kind of 'unity government', so that no other election would be necessary--and governing the State could begin. But this first proposal by Rivlin went nowhere.

Then, Rivlin proposed that a new law be passed so that Netanyahu could 'suspend' himself as PM while he worked to clear his name from accusations of criminal behavior while in office. During this 'suspended' time, Gantz would govern as PM (here). But Gantz, rejecting every democracy's idea of the presumption of innocence, rejected this offer, saying he would not enter a government where the sitting PM was under a criminal indictment (ibid). Gantz then falsely called Netanyahu a 'unity government rejectionist' (here).


As this impasse was unfolding, Israel's  Avigdor Liberman (head of the political Party, Yisrael Beteinu), essentially demanded there be only a 'true unity' government, where the Parties of both Gantz and Netanyahu would govern together, with a rotation schedule. Gantz rejected it. He wouldn't sit in any government with an indicted criminal (Netanyahu). 

The presumption of innocence? Forget it.

Now, Netanyahu has made a new proposal (here). He would, as in other proposals, be the first to rule in a shared rotation leadership agreement. But this offer is not to serve two years before giving Gantz his own two years. Now, Netanyahu says he would serve as PM only until February or March 2020--for three or four months. After that, Gantz would automatically take over for the next three+ years.  

What's not to like here? For Gantz, it'd mean a certainty to serve far longer than Netanyahu. It also meant a short waiting period before becoming PM. 

Of course, if Gantz rejected this proposal, Israel would continue to be in limbo. Worse, Israel would be forced to hold a third, unprecedented election--in February or March 2020. 

What's interesting about this proposal is that if Gantz rejected it,  he'd have to wait for elections until February or March 2020 anyway--and then, to be PM,  he'd have to win that election. If he took the offer, he'd get a guarantee to be PM--in that same February or March 2020.

 In other words, Netanyahu was offering Gantz his Premiership on a silver platter, guaranteed. There's be no unprecedented third election. There'd be no chance for Gantz to lose. 

Gantz rejected it. 

After having accused Netanyahu for months of doing only what would be good for Netanyahu,not what's good for the country (by demanding to form a unity government only if he, Netanyahu, served as PM first), Gantz was demanding the exact same thing: he'd only sit in a unity government if he (Gantz) served first! (here). He said he had to serve first because he couldn't sit in a government headed by an indicted (potential) criminal. 

Democracy's presumption of innocence? Forget it. 

Gantz runs the risk of being labeled with the very accusation he'd used repeatedly against Netanyahu. It isn't Netanyahu who puts his own  desires first--Netanyahu is willing only to serve just three-four months; it's Gantz who puts himself first exclusively: the only way he'd serve is if Neta nyahu resigns. Worse, this latest rejection by Gantz means we must now (short of a last-minute miracle) suffer through an historic third (and expensive to the state) national election. 

Who is Benny Gantz kidding? The unity rejectionist isn't Netanyahu. It's Gantz. 

Caroline Glick has already said that Gantz's Party was founded on only the flimsiest of foundations--to destroy Netanyahu (here). With Gantz saying he'd serve in a unity government only if Netanyahu steps down (here), Glick looks correct in her assessment. 

What appears important to Gantz is not serving Israel by becoming its PM. What's of primary importance to him seems to be gaining the title, "the man who finally forced Netanyahu out of office".

Gantz's excuse is, the indictments. He says Netanyahu must go so he (Netanyahu) can deal with the indictments against him.  But while that sounds like a good idea, it isn't. It's a terrible idea-- because it's illegal.

Israel's Attorney General says Netanyahu cannot legally resign (here). The reason is simple: a Prime Minister cannot just resign at this time because when an Israeli government is in transition--as this government is now--a PM simply cannot resign (ibid).

This government has been in transition since September 2019. How many times has Gantz said throughout this time that Netanyahu must resign? Ten times? Fifty times? In every speech? In every interview?

Neither Gantz nor anyone on his team seems to understand Israel's laws. This ignorance is why his Party still insists Netanyahu must (illegally and impossibly) resign before Gantz will serve in a unity government. 

Gantz condemns Israel to a third election--with an illegal demand, no less.

Perhaps this is why Gantz--and all of his Blue-and-White co-leaders--is now being called a bunch of amateurs (here). They don't understand anything about Israel's legal system. They reject democracy's presumption of innocence. All they care about is getting rid of Netanyahu.

Is this what Israel has voted for--bumbling, ignorant amateurs from Chelm?

How's that going to work out?