By Abraham Cooper, TOI

[..]

We thought we would list some of the scores of other “Occupied Territories” disputes that neither the Obama Administration nor anyone else has paid as much attention to as they do to apartment houses and kindergartens being built in peaceful Jewish communities on disputed territories in the Holy Land:

China/Japan–territorial disputes between China and Japan in the East China Sea continue, with both sides claim as their exclusive economic zone.

China/Korea–the historic Chinese-Korean historic dispute over land that was part of the ancient kingdom of Koguryo.
Read more…

by CONRAD BLACK, NATIONAL REVIEW

Trump must try to cope with his predecessor’s disastrous legacy.

Like most people, I had hoped for the customary settling down after the very tumultuous and nasty election. We have been denied that, not by the candidates, who have been dignified, but by the outgoing administration. I have written here and elsewhere before that this has been the most incompetent administration since James Buchanan brought on the Civil War, but I had not realized how the immunity to severe criticism afforded President Obama, because of his pigmentation, had been allowed to disguise how inept this administration has been, how authoritarian and sleazy, and how the president’s demiurgic vanity has gone almost unnoticed as the toadies and bootlickers like Tom Friedman and David Remnick went into overdrive.
Read more…

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero, AMERICAN THINKER

Normally, when the U.N. Security Council passes a resolution, a vote is taken and the result recorded. Period. Something very unusual happened after the Security Council voted to declare Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria as Arab/Islamic land. The representatives of the nations applauded and celebrated what they had just done by giving themselves a standing ovation. They clapped not so much in behalf of what they gave to “Palestinians” but more so in declaring the Jewish tie to the Old City of Jerusalem as illegitimate and Israel’s attachment to the Temple Mount and Judea and Samaria as illegal. It was a celebration by too many of the nations of the world against the history of the Jewish People and their Covenant to the Holy Land. It was an act of anti-Semitism.
Read more…

T. Belman. This is an excellent description  of the battle that is being waged. But it implies that Zionism is racism. The rule of law is the enemy of Zionism at least the rule of law that the left embraces.  The right also wants to live by the rule of law but a different one. It wants a rule of law that accommodates the Zionist project rather than one that insists on the equality of Arab and Jew in all matters. It wants a rule of law that limits the Court to interpreting the law and leaving it to the Knesset to pass the laws. The rule of law as it now stands enables the Court to negate Knesset legislation that violates the “dignity” of man. Unfortunately the Court defines what “dignity” requires turning it in effect to a bill of rights. But it is the Knesset that should legislate the Bill of Rights not the Court. Such a Bill of Rights would protect Zionism.  It would recognize the right of Jews to J&S and that Israel is the nation state of the Jews and so on. What is at stake here is what rule of law to be governed by.

The dismantlement of the liberal rule of law is a prerequisite for the establishment of Jewish ethnic supremacy in Israel and the West Bank.

By Chemi Shalev, HAARETZ

An Israeli woman holds a poster reading in Hebrew: ‘We never abandon soldiers’ as she demonstrates outside the defense ministry in Tel Aviv on January 4, 2017. JACK GUEZ/AFP

The unequivocal verdict against Elor Azaria, the IDF soldier accused of killing an unarmed terrorist in Hebron, was a rare victory for human rights, the IDF and the rule of law. Azaria was unequivocally convicted of manslaughter: the military court that tried him didn’t leave even a sliver of doubt in its judgment. It is a measure of the degree to which confidence in the legal system has been eroded in recent years that so many Israelis were taken by surprise by the clear-cut, no-ifs-or-buts decision rendered by the Tel Aviv Military Court.
Read more…

T. Belman. Traditionally AIPAC always pushed the government to protect Israel. But now it has a problem because the Government is going to pass pro Israel policies without the need for them to push. The Republican Congress agrees with such policies so there should be clear sailing.  If AIPAC continued to push for its favoured policies such as no settlement construction or the two state solution they would be fighting against the administration and what Israel wants.  The only role for them now is to move the Democratic Party to support the administration Israel policies. They have always wanted bi-partisan backing so it is incumbent on them to move the Democrats closer to the Republicans on Israel matters.

The flagship pro-Israel lobbying organization failed to stop Obama’s Iran Deal. It may lose even more influence under Trump.

By Armin Rosen, TABLET

At first blush, at least, a Trump presidency promises everything that AIPAC, America’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, could ever wish for. After eight years of rocky relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Donald Trump promises that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will receive a much friendlier reception in the White House during his administration. The inclusion of Iran hawks such as CIA director Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee for CIA director, and defense secretary nominee James Mattis could even spell the end of the nuclear agreement with Iran, especially in light of Tehran’s repeated flirtations with violating the deal.

In reality, Trump poses a string of new problems for AIPAC. “There’s definitely no question that it was better and easier for [AIPAC] if Hillary won,” said one Democratic strategist recently. “Policy is only part of it. It would’ve been an opportunity or their best chance at hitting reset for Democrats.” Instead, after losing its fight against the Iran Deal, the lobbying group must try to stake out an unstable middle ground during an even more polarizing presidency than Obama’s while fending off challenges from its left and right. “In this new world where J Street really is a pro-Israel validator for segments of the Democrats and the Zionist Organization of America is a validator for segments of the Republicans, what’s AIPAC role?” the strategist wondered.
Read more…

Two resolutions being considered by lawmakers are supportive of Israel, but only one explicitly backs a peace settlement that establishes a Palestinian state

BY RON KAMPEAS, TOI

WASHINGTON (JTA) – There’s a striking difference between competing bids in Congress addressing last month’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

It’s not that they differ on the United Nations – the two nonbinding congressional resolutions under consideration condemn the Security Council, as well as the outgoing Obama administration for abstaining and not exercising the US veto.

Here’s the difference: Missing from one of the resolutions are the words “two states.” In the other resolution, the two-state outcome features prominently.
Read more…

T. Belman. INSS is a left of center think tank associated with Tel Aviv U. I agree with their thinking that Israel, in conjunction with the US, must move unilaterally and must build on what they agree Israel is to keep. I also agree that Israelis prefer a two state solution but with different borders.  I couldn’t find the proposed map but it redraws Area C:

“Besides carving out 17 percent of the area for the settlement blocs, where 86 percent of settlers live, Orion and Dekel suggest using up to 42 percent for development on behalf of the Palestinians and up to 33 percent for protection of “vital” security sites, including the Jordan Valley.”

It does not say who will have sovereignty over the 33% nor if whether the designation is permanent. Let us assume we have sovereignty over the 33%. This means that we can build there too  but I do not believe that’s what INSS has in mind. I disagree strongly that we should use the 42% for the Arabs. They should get nothing without an agreement. Better that we amend Bennett’s plan to give them some of Area C but less than INSS suggests and that we close down some  of Area B and move the Arabs to the new housing for them in Area C to do away with the swiss cheese effect. In other words rationalize the borders of A, B and C. This should be a proposal only waiting for their agreement. In the meantime build on the land we intend to keep.  We can always change the proposal if there are no takers.

Note also that they do not want to violate Oslo.  Why not? The Arabs do it all the time.

By Andrew Tobin, TOI

JTA — Israel’s leading security think tank has published a plan to redraw the map of the West Bank in a bid to consolidate major settlements and prevent the spread of others

The plan, presented Monday to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin as part of the Institute for National Security Studies’ yearly strategic survey, calls for the government to allow construction in West Bank settlement blocs and Jerusalem. At the same time, it recommends a halt to construction in the 90 percent of the territory outside the major settlements.  Read more…

Bill seeks to counter Obama admin refusal to call Jerusalem Israel’s capital

By Adam Kredo, NEW BEACON

A delegation of Republican senators is moving forward with an effort to freeze some funding to the State Department until the U.S. embassy in Israel is formally moved to Jerusalem, according to new legislation.

The legislation comes as the Obama administration continues to face criticism over its behind-the-scenes effort to forward a United Nations resolution condemning Israel.

The Obama administration, like previous administrations, does not formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city and has worked to stymie efforts to move the U.S. embassy there.
Read more…

But Republican leadership on the Hill is waiting for Trump to take the lead

By Michael Wilner, JPOST

of Representatives plans to vote on a resolution this week that will condemn the UN for its targeting of Israel, its leadership has already planned additional measures sure to please the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its allies in Washington.

Over the course of the next hundred days, Republicans hope to punish the UN for its passage of a resolution condemning Israel over its settlement enterprise and Iran over its destabilizing actions in neighboring Middle East nations.
Read more…

“I believe that any American act of stupidity will ignite the Palestinian territories,” says senior Fatah official.

JPOST

The Palestinians will start a new violent uprising if Donald Trump’s incoming White House administration relocates the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a senior Fatah official indicated this week in an interview translated by MEMRI.

“I believe that any American act of stupidity will ignite the Palestinian territories,” Fatah Central Committee member Sultan Abu al-Einein told Egypt’s Alghad TV on Sunday.
Read more…

Nonreligious Israelis have only themselves to blame for their country’s increasing religiosity, but they can do something about it.

By Rami Livni, HAARETZ

Rogel Alpher is shocked by the amount of religious content second-graders learn at Israeli state schools, and accuses Education Minister Naftali Bennett of spitting in secular faces.

Wrong. Bennett isn’t the address, just as there is no point blaming a cat for its healthy instincts when it licks the cream left in a dish. Settlers have a built-in political interest in weakening not only the left but also Israeli secularism as an ideological, existential and cultural option – because it is clear to them that a potential threat to their enterprise can only blossom in a secular setting. Bennett is no loser. He is selling a deal to secular Israelis in which only he is the winner: We get to bless wine and he gets the occupation. Any takers?
Read more…

By Herb Keinon, JPOST

Continuing a push for a two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is “messianic behavior,” at a time when what is needed is “opening our thoughts” to new diplomatic approaches, Education Minister Naftali Bennett said on Monday.

Bennett, in a 90-minute meeting with The Jerusalem Post editorial staff, stressed that one thing he does not want to see is a “second Palestinian state.”

“I do not believe in a second Palestinian state beyond what we have in Gaza,” the Bayit Yehudi head said.
Read more…

The opportunity now upon us may be lost forever as the PLO comes back to win its zerosum game against Israel.

By Caroline B Glick, JPOST

Since its inception in the late 1970s, the Israeli peace movement has been based on one thing: hope.

Members of the peace movement hoped the PLO’s war with Israel could be resolved through compromise. Proponents of peace with the PLO hoped that Yasser Arafat and his terrorist minions weren’t truly committed to Israel’s destruction.
Read more…

A Palestinian test case, courtesy of President Obama.

By Andrew C. McCarthy, NATIONAL REVIEW — December 31, 2016

It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue.

The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?

After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses.
Read more…

By Eugene Kontorovich, WaPo

The U.S. decision to allow a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements to pass was met with bipartisan condemnation, including from leading players in efforts to achieve a two-state solution, such as Democrats Dennis Ross and George Mitchell.

Of course, the goal of the Obama administration was to box in President-elect Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The most direct way to reject the Security Council Resolution 2334 is to reject the opinions it expresses and act against its recommendations. Trump will likely seek to reverse the measure, not only because of substantial policy disagreements, but to reject the notion that a president can bind his successors more tightly through U.N. action than through statutes or executive orders. Read more…

By Jonathan S Tobin, COMMENTARY