RUTHFULLY YOURS

If my title seems counterintuitive, let’s concede from the start: not everyone does love Israel now.http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2016/11/everybody-loves-israel/

There’s still a Palestinian Authority that actively encourages Palestinians to murder Israelis; there’s still an Iran that periodically threatens to finish the Holocaust; there’s still a very active boycott-Israel movement in Europe and on American college campuses. And there is still and always the United Nations, with its unparalleled half-century record of hostility toward Israel and wildly disproportionate list of standing resolutions targeting the Jewish state.

As for the United States, the current president’s relations with Israel and its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been anything but loving. Barack Obama has viewed the Jewish state almost exclusively as a regrettable holdover from the era of European colonialism and an occupier of land properly belonging to the embattled and oppressed Palestinian Arab population. Despite the president’s boasts to the effect that he “has Israel’s back,” and despite the recent renewal of military aid (albeit delivered with an air of chilly regret), he has hinted in the past at compelling Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, and many Israelis worry that a lame-duck Obama may feel freer to take unilateral action against them.

Not just anti-Israelism but outright anti-Semitism is on the rise. For European Jews in general, the encircling atmosphere of hostility, often instigated by Muslims but tolerated or excused by elites, seems to worsen year by year. Jacques Canet, the president of La Victoire synagogue in Paris, reports that the France’s Jewish community—still the third largest in the world, though rapidly diminishing—feels threatened to the point where “Jews in Paris, Marseilles, Toulouse, Sarcelles feel they can’t safely wear a kippah outside their homes or send their children to public schools.” The number of French Jews emigrating annually to Israel has steadily risen from 1,900 in 2011 to nearly 8,000 in 2015, with no end in sight; additional thousands are making their way elsewhere. No less grim is the picture in the United Kingdom, where the Labor party, in Douglas Murray’s wordsy—“the party of Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair”—has been taken over by “forces aligned with naked anti-Semitism.”

The examples multiply. All in all, then, we may grant that in many quarters, an anti-Israel—and anti-Jewish—mindset remains a palpable presence on the political and social scene. But there is also good news: elsewhere, and not in obscure corners but in world capitals, a transformation of attitudes is under way. Far from being the pariah of the Middle East, Israel is fast becoming the region’s golden child, courted and caressed even by some of its most important and once-implacably hostile neighbors. The change has certainly registered in Israel itself, but so far has been largely ignored by Western media.

More than three years ago, in a column entitled “Why Israel Will Rule the New Middle East,” I wrote these sentences:

Israel . . . is set to dominate the region like never before. . . . Indeed, instead of plotting Israel’s destruction, its Arab neighbors could find themselves courting Tel Aviv’s favor the way the United States and Europe courted OPEC in the 1970s and 1980s.

At the time, I was thinking primarily about the game-changing implications of Israel’s recently discovered offshore energy resources (about which more below). And indeed those resources, one of the most massive discoveries of the past several decades, do play an important role in the new view of Israel, especially on the part of its neighbors in the eastern Mediterranean.

But that is hardly all. Perhaps most strikingly, the change in attitude has little or nothing to do with any shifts in Israeli policy regarding the one issue that’s assumed to be paramount in the world’s judgment of the Jewish state: namely, its relations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process,” Israeli settlements in the territories, Palestinian statehood, and Gaza, not to mention his outspoken criticisms of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, might have seemed geared precisely to inflame rather than placate international opinion. Yet it is under his adroit tenure in office that the shift in his country’s favor has accelerated.

Lebanon’s newly-elected president vowed to “liberate Lebanese territories occupied by Israel” in his first speech following his appointment.

Retired general Michel Aoun, 81, said no effort would be spared in Lebanon’s effort to “defend itself against an enemy who aspires to control our land, water and natural resources,” a reference to natural gas fields located in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel.

Lebanon has claimed the gas fields extend into its water territory.

Aoun secured the presidency earlier Monday after winning the backing of 83 of Lebanon’s 128 Members of Parliament, including the crucial backing of Hezbollah and the Shiite bloc, ending a two-and-a-half-year deadlock, including 45 failed attempts to elect a new president.

Despite the largely ceremonial role the country’s president plays, critics fear Aoun’s appointment will be further victory as it solidifies Hezbollah’s national role and tips the balance in favor of Tehran in the ongoing regional conflict between Sunni and Shiite rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“The selection of General Aoun as a President of the Lebanese Republic may seem to please the country on the surface after two years of constitutional void, but it places an ally to Hezbollah in the highest office of the land,” Tom Harb, Secretary General of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution told The Foreign Desk.

The World Council of the Cedars Revolution is a Washington-based NGO comprised of Lebanese nationals living outside the country and dedicated to freedom and democracy in Lebanon.

“Aoun will have to appoint Hezbollah and allies to the cabinet and to the command of the Lebanese army,” Harb said.

The deadlock was broken earlier this month when former Prime Minister and leader of the Lebanon’s Sunni bloc Saad Hariri who heads the “Future Movement” agreed to end the political stalemate and back Aoun for president.

Hariri, who will reportedly be appointed prime minister, was the first choice of Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Richard Kemp was Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Balkans and Northern Ireland and was head of the international terrorism team for the UK Joint Intelligence Committee.

Flying in the face of the long-standing US bilateral policy of rejecting these borders, there is increasing concern that President Obama’s parting shot at Israel might be to either endorse such a resolution or fail to veto it. Such actions would have incalculable consequences – not least a flare-up in violence and the prospect of global sanctions against Israel, which would rightly be unable to accept such a resolution.

Depending on his audience, President Abbas claims to desire a two state solution. But his actions speak louder. How can it be possible to bring about peace with a country or a people that you constantly vilify and attack? Hatred of Jews and denial of their rights permeate PA speeches, TV shows, school-books, newspapers and magazines.

Murderous terrorists are glorified by naming football teams and sports stadiums after them. They are incentivised to violence by salaries and payments to their families – funded of course by the American and European taxpayer.

[Arab Jew-hatred] has caused Britain up to the present day to sometimes fail to condemn Arab aggression against Israelis, and to find excuses for their violence. All in the name of appeasing the Arabs and their supporters in the Muslim world and even at home.

[Britain] can be intensely proud that Britain alone embraced Zionism in 1917. And it was the blood of many thousands of British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers that created the conditions that made the modern-day State of Israel a possibility.

Even 99 years after the world-changing Balfour Declaration, we still have our work cut out for us in supporting the Zionist project, which owes so much to the unequalled historic backing in Great Britain.

“This Mandate [for the Jewish national home] must be carried out not nervously and apologetically but firmly and fearlessly.” – Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.

Israelis and the pro-Israel community at large will breathe a collective sigh of relief when Obama leaves office. During Obama’s tenure, relations with Israel were caustic at best. Barely five months after taking office, he publicly launched a scathing attack against Israel – where he perversely insinuated a moral equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian actions – and did so in one of the most virulently anti-Semitic countries on the planet. He later skipped over Israel despite the fact that Israel was a mere 20-minute plane ride away. That was Obama’s opening salvo against America’s closest ally. It was only downhill from there.

Obama utilized high-level administration sources to leak negative information about Israel to sympathetic members of the press. In one such instance, an administration official –probably Ben Rhodes – referred to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chicken-Sh*t.” In another instance, Obama voiced concurrence with French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, when Sarkozy characterized Netanyahu as a “liar.”

Often, the Obama administration would subject Israeli dignitaries to humiliating treatment during official state visits. Israel’s defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, was shamefully transformed into a persona non grata. In the most notorious incident, Obama left Netanyahu out in the cold while having dinner with Michelle and his daughters. One commentator dryly noted that Obama treated Netanyahu as though he was the president of Equatorial Guinea.

Ultimately, Obama crossed the line and received significant pushback from Democratic lawmakers and donors. Obama got the message and toned down the rhetoric but his deep-seeded animus against Israel never dissipated and relations with Israel’s prime minister remained toxic.

Tensions surfaced again during Israel’s counter insurgency campaign against the Gaza-based terror group Hamas. Obama held up a shipment of Hellfire missiles to Israel and then tried to strong-arm Israel into accepting a suicidal ceasefire agreement brokered by Turkey and Qatar, two despotic nations that support Hamas and gave aid and comfort to Islamic State terrorists.

From e-pal Janet Levy :”Russia’s growing military presence in the Middle East coupled with its long-standing support for the Arab-Palestinians at the U.N. has Israeli leaders deeply troubled. Recently, Russia added ground troops, aircraft, missiles and drones to its arsenal in the region and will soon deliver the S-300 and S-400 missile systems to Egypt, Syria and Iran. To make matters worse, they have threatened to target any entity that threatens Russian or Syrian forces. Also disturbing is the fact that Russian leadership had the temerity to characterize Israel’s response to the UNESCO resolution denying any Jewish and Christian ties to the Temple Mount as “emotional and unjustified.” (Christians take note: Your holy sites are in jeopardy. Not supporting Jews and Israel is suicidal).It appears that the Jewish State has jumped from the “frying pan to the fire.”

“Tel Aviv- Israeli-Russian relations have witnessed tension because of the

growing Russian military existence in Syria and the Mediterranean and the
continuous Russian support for the Palestinian cause at the United Nations.

Political sources in Tel Aviv said that PM Benjamin Netanyahu has conveyed
his concerns to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The subject was also
tackled during a meeting held between Russian and Israeli officials at the
Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

Sources said that Netanyahu talked with Putin ten days ago, and requested
him to renew the conditions of the military coordination between them and to
refrain from supporting anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish resolutions at the U.N.

They said that Amir Eshel, the commander of the Israeli Air Force, also
visited Moscow to discuss military issues.

During their meetings, Israeli officials revealed their main political
concern, which is the possibility of voting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue
at the United Nations. According to a senior Israeli official, Tel Aviv has
declared that it opposes any intervention in the peace talks especially from
the Security Council.

The unraveling of the US electorate comes against the backdrop of the diminution of US military power.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming trips to Australia, Singapore, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan might be the most significant diplomatic visits he makes in his tenure in office. The trips will take place against the backdrop of two major international shifts that cast Israel into uncharted waters as a small state with a dizzying array of strategic threats arrayed against it. The states that he will visit are all well-positioned to help Israel navigate its next moves.

The first shift is the US’s political crackup.

Next week American voters will choose their next president. The major candidates, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, are the weakest candidates to have ever stood for the highest office in the land. Their rise is a testament to the weakening, if not the unraveling of the glue that has held America together since the Civil War.

The unraveling of the US electorate comes against the backdrop of the diminution of US military power. The US’s multi-trillion dollar investment in inconclusive if not failed wars in the Middle East over the past 15 years has come at the expense of military modernization. The F-35 program has sucked up the majority of the remaining research and development funds.

And it has yet to produce a reliable airplane.

Worse, the F-35’s long and problematic gestation period has given Russia and China the time and opportunity to develop air defense systems capable of neutralizing the F-35’s stealth systems.

Those systems were supposed to be its chief advantage as the next generation fighter for the US and its allies.

The deterioration of the US’s military capabilities has gone hand in hand with the US’s apparent loss of strategic rationality.

This is apparent worldwide, but is nowhere more obvious than in the Middle East.

President Barack Obama’s decision to effectively abandon the US’s major allies in the Middle East in favor of cultivating ties with Iran has made the region far more dangerous to the US and its spurned allies than it was eight years ago.

True, in theory, Obama’s decision to prefer the Shi’ites to the Sunnis makes sense given the totalitarian and imperial nature of Sunni jihadism. But in light of the genocidal, totalitarian and imperial nature of the current Iranian regime, his move made no sense and its impact has been massively destructive.