Hitler, al-Husseini and Hungarian Jewry

(this post has been, and will be, updated)

Prime Minister Binyamim Netanyahu is under fire:

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has attracted a storm of criticism for an incendiary speech [only The Guardian would use 'incendiary' in a Holocaust-related story against a Jew - YM] in which he accused the second world war Palestinian grand mufti of Jerusalem of “inspiring the Holocaust”.  The comments* – made by Netanyahu in a speech to the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem in the context of the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians– were condemned as incorrect by historians and by Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog for trivialising the Holocaust. On the Palestinian side, senior official Saeb Erekat described the remarks as absolving Adolf Hitler.In his speech Netanyahu purported to describe a meeting between Haj Amin al-Husseini and Hitler in November 1941. “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said: ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here [to Palestine].’” According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

*
"And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." "So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, "Burn them." And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo. But this is what Haj Amin al-Husseini said. He said, ":The Jews seek to destroy the Temple Mount." My grandfather in 1920 seeks to destroy…? Sorry, the al-Aqsa Mosque. So this lie is about a hundred years old. It fomented many, many attacks. The Temple Mount stands. The a l-Aqsa Mosque stands. But the lie stands too, persists."


and

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Wednesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

and

Zionist Union chairman Isaac Herzog took to Facebook, criticizing the premier for "factual errors."

"Even the son of a historian needs to get history right," Herzog wrote. "Yesterday, Netanyahu told the Zionist Congress that the Nazis didn't want to exterminate the Jews, but instead were seeking to expel them, and that it was the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who gave the tyrant Hitler the idea [to commit genocide]."

"This is a dangerous distortion of history, and I demand that Netanyahu correct this immediately since he is trivialiazing the Holocaust," Herzog wrote.  "[Netanyahu] is minimizing Nazism and the role played by that awful tyrant, Adolf Hitler, in the terrible tragedy that befell our people in the Holocaust," the opposition chief wrote. "[The premier's comments] play into the hands of Holocaust deniers and pits them against the Palestinians."

Zevaha Galon of the left-wing Meretz party said Netanyahu's remarks show "the depths to which this man has sunk."

Being that the Mufti was a Nazi sympathizer from 1933 and that contacts between the Mufti and Nazi leaders preceded by years the 1941 decision, I really do not think anyone can exclude a possibility that the Mufti indicated that he demanded of the Nazis to deal with the Jewish Question on European soil and not allow any more Jews into the Palestine Mandate.

But more importantly, the fact is that the Mufti explicitly contributed to the 1944 demise of Hungarian Jewry by a fiery extermination method.

From Bernard Wasserstein's book, Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945, page 266:

And I have been sent this now from Barry Rubin's book

(meeting transcript here)

UPDATE


Sorry, I forgot the poisoning the water operation in 1944.

P.S.  and leave it to revisionist historian Saeb Erekat to befoul matter.


And here is Netanyahu's statement of clarification, (Communicated by the PM's Media Advisor) today, (Wednesday 21 Oct. 2015) before departing to Berlin:

...absurd. I had no intention to absolve Hitler of responsibility for his diabolical destruction of European Jewry. Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution to exterminate six million Jews. He made ​​the decision. It is equally absurd to ignore the role played by the Mufti, Haj Amin al -Husseini, a war criminal, for encouraging and urging Hitler, Ribbentropp, Himmler and others, to exterminate European Jewry. There is much evidence about this, including the testimony of Eichmann's deputy at the Nuremberg trials, not now, but after World War II. He said:

'The Mufti was instrumental in the decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe. The importance of his role must not be ignored. The Mufti repeatedly proposed to the authorities, primarily Hitler, Ribbentropp and Himmler, to exterminate the Jews of Europe. He considered it a suitable solution for the Palestinian question'.

Eichmann's deputy, added:

'The Mufti was one of the instigators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and was a partner and adviser to Eichmann and Hitler for carrying out this plan'.

The attempt by certain scholars and people to be apologists for the key and important role of Haj Amin al-Husseini, is clear. Many other researchers cite this testimony and others regarding the role of Haj Amin al Husseini. 

My intention was not to absolve Hitler of his responsibility, but rather to show that the forefathers of the Palestinian nation, without a country and without the so-called 'occupation', without land and without settlements, even then aspired to systematic incitement to exterminate the Jews.

Unfortunately, Haj Amin al-Husseini is still a revered figure in Palestinian society, he appears in textbooks and it is taught that he is one of the founding fathers of the nation, and this incitement that started then with him, inciting the murder of Jews - continues. Not in the same format, but in a different one and this is the root of the problem. To stop the murders, it is necessary to stop the incitement. 

What is important is to recognize the historical facts and not ignore them, not then and not today". 

Some other findings:

in June 1941, Hitler briefly mentioned his vague hope of “exploiting the Arab Freedom Movement” after the Soviets were defeated, and in November he agreed to meet Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, to talk about his “uncompromising fight against the Jews”.

____________________

Bostom

During 1938, a booklet Muhammad Sabri edited, Islam, Judentum, Bolschewismus (Islam, Jewry, Bolshevism), was published in Berlin by Junker-Duennhaupt [Dünnhaupt]. Sabri’s booklet included Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s 1937 declaration—also deemed by some as a “fatwa” (an Islamic religious ruling)—appealing to the worldwide Muslim umma. El-Husseini’s declaration was extracted and reprinted, separately, by the Nazi regime as Islam und Judentum (Islam and Jewry), and distributed to Muslim SS units in Bosnia, Croatia, and the Soviet Union. As I detailed in a 2103 monograph, which provided, and riveted upon, the first full English translation of el-Husseini’s 1937 “religious edict” (“fatwa’) about the Jews (available here; and as a free pdf here), the former Mufti of Jerusalem exclusively invoked traditionalist Islamic themes, familiar to the Muslim masses, to incite their annihilationist Islamic Jew-hatred. Reiterating foundational Jew-hating motifs from the Koran itself, and embodied by the inflammatory words and murderous actions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (in the “hadith” or traditions, and earliest piousMuslim biographies of Muhammad), el-Husseini’s traditional Islamic Jew-hatred has remained a staple of contemporary Palestinian Muslim religious discourse, through the present.

___________________

Middle East Forum scholar, historian and author Wolfgang G. Schwanitz added, “It is a historical fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini was an accomplice whose collaboration with Adolf Hitler played an important role in the Holocaust. He was the foremost extra-European adviser in the process to destroy the Jews of Europe.”

Although Schwanitz heard for the first time the dialogue between Hitler and al-Husaini as told by Netanyahu, Hitler was the key architect of the Final Solution. But indeed, it is absurd to ignore the role played by al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini, a war criminal, for encouraging and urging Hitler and other leading Nazis to exterminate European Jewry. According to the foremost expert on the ties between Nazis and Islamists, there is much evidence that al-Husaini's primary goal was blocking all of the ways out of Europe. He pushed Hitler to slam the last doors of a burning house shut.

^

Peres, Arabs and Voting - and Netanyahu

In this week's Matzav HaRuach weekly, Hagai Huberman reprints two pages from the book "The Suicide", a recounting of the failure of Shimon Peres' 1996 election campaign in which he started out, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, with a 20% lead over his contender, Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud.  The book was authored by Ben Caspit, Hanan Kristal and Ilan Kafir, subtitled "A Party Abandons Government", and published by Avivim Press. It contains on pages 279-280, a description of Peres attempting, in desperation, to get out the Arab vote after he realizes the Likud is, surprisingly, doing well in voter turn-out in its areas.

He did so to point to the hypocrisy of the critics of Netanyahu's call this month on election day.

Here is the original Hebrew of Netanyahu's call which rankled US President Obama:

In translation:

"The rule of the Right is in danger.  Arab voters are moving in large numbers to the voting booths.  Left-wing NGOs are transporting them in buses.  We don't have a V15, we have an Emergency Call-up #8, we have only you.  Get out to vote, bring friends and family.  Vote Likud to close the gap between us and Labour."

Going back to Peres, here are the two most relevant sections:

a)

Peres calls up heads of Arab councils in a special personal effort and tells them "every vote is important, every vote in critical, it's a close contest".

b)  

Peres gets himself interviewed by Kol Yisrael's Arab affairs reporter who informs the country that Peres said, "Get out and vote, every vote is important."  And he yells at the Justice Minister David Libai, "we're losing the elections, get out to Baqa Al-Garabiya, get the people out into the streets."

In addition to what I wrote, here and here, I emphasize that the voting in Israel is via proportional representation which can favor an organized voting pattern as there are no constituencies.  The country is itslef one voting district.

But whatever you think of Netanyahu, think the same of Peres.

______________

UPDATE

Check out what Bibi said later that day and what did Arab MKs say, too.

^

GraphicZionism: Obama Confronts Saudi Arabia

.

^

Where Is Obama's Denunciation of the Left?

As we are all aware, petulant Obama had his spokesperson say

“The United States and this administration is deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens. It undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together.”

And he added: 

“Rhetoric that seeks to marginalise one segment of their population is deeply concerning, it is divisive, and I can tell you that these are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

That was called a 'snub'.   'Unseemly' and well as 'pettiness' and 'petulance'.  An anti-Netanyahu 'slam',

In responding the Tom Friedman of the NYTimes, I provided an explanation for his statement.

But let's not let Obama off the hook too quickly.  What were his reactions to these malignant and divisive statements?

• Author and cultural figure Alona Kimhi: "Long live stupidity, maliciousness and false consciousness. Drink some cyanide, f---ing Neanderthals. You won. Only death will save you from yourselves" (March 18, 2015).

• Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy: "The people need to be replaced. We don't need an election to choose the leadership of the country; we need a general election to choose the new Israeli people. [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu deserves the people of Israel and the people of Israel deserve Netanyahu" (Haaretz, March 18, 2015).

And earlier:

• Cultural figure Yair Garbuz: "Superstitious amulet kissers are running this country. How is it that such a minority controls us?" (March 8, 2015).

• Author Amos Oz: "I am guilty for Netanyahu's behavior -- I kicked him in the head when he was three years old. Either I kicked too hard, or not hard enough" (TheMarker, Feb. 14, 2015).

• Zionist Union leader Tzipi Livni in a veiled criticism against Netanyahu: "Herzog and I will take out the trash together" (Channel 10 satirical program "Matzav Ha'uma," Feb. 14, 2014).

Could it be that he agrees with the sentiments?  The rhetoric?

________________

Follow-up from the WashPost

Organizations that were active in the Israeli elections “with the political goal of replacing Netanyahu as Prime Minister.” 

• “A Million Hands,” an NGO, organized the massive demonstration “Israel Wants Change; ” Netanhayu says it was funded by foreign donors, primarily Daniel Lubetzky and S. Daniel Abraham, and “cost hundreds of thousands of shekels, and its promotion cost hundreds of thousands of shekels more,” the campaign said. (A shekel is worth about 25 cents.)  The total costs of the activity of “A Million Hands” to replace Netanyahu was $6 million to $7 million, the campaign asserted, though an article it cited did not contain that figure.

• V15 (“Victory 15”), which is tied to a U.S. group called OneVoice and included the involvement of a former top Obama campaign aide.  “The activity of V15, and especially its activity on election day, was several million dollars, the overwhelming majority of which came from American donors,” the campaign claimed.  A spokesman for OneVoice promised a response but we have not received one.

• “Commanders for the Security of Israel,” a group of former generals, which the campaign said was funded to the tune of “hundreds of thousands of shekels.” That’s maybe $100,000 to $200,000.

• Ameinu, another group, sponsored a get-out-the-vote campaign in the Arab community.  The campaign cited a fundraising documentfrom December that sought $3 million, but Ameinu president Kenneth Bob said it turned out to be “closer to $2 million.” He said the effort was “nonpartisan” intended to improve Arab participation. Though he acknowledged that Arabs tend to support left-leaning candidates, he noted that a Druze candidate on the Likud list also benefited from the group’s work.

• Activities of political strategist Eyal Arad, which the campaign said was funded primarily by American donors and cost “several million dollars.”  Arad has previously denied that claim, and had shot back that in 1994 Netanyahu had offered him a job that would have been funded by a “foreign and unnamed businessman.” (Netanyahu’s campaign denied that claim.)

__________________________________________

UPDATE

And remember this?

"... .. The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away 

Obama, 2008.

Typical.


^ 

Sidra Does Esther - and Netanyahu

Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi identifies herself as Professor Emerita of Comparative Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a Guggenheim Fellow. She's the wife of far-out Leftist Bernard Avishai who republished her and termed the Netanyahu speech as "conceived as a political stunt". She has written for the radical Tikkun, attacked Elie Weisel in the Int'l Herald Tribune and lied there or was woefully ignorant about Muslims residing in West Jerusalem.  I seem to recall some controversy about her first work but as I cannot now find the proper reference, I'll skip that.

She now has published an op-ed in - of course, Haaretz - which analyzes the Biblical reference of Binyamin Netanyahu to the Book of Esther and claims

By invoking Purim, Netanyahu calls for a preemptive strike on Iran
The Israeli prime minister conveniently ignores the first eight chapters of the Book of Esther, recruiting only the revenge tragedy part to justify his agenda.

She introduces her literary deconstruction so:

The Netanyahu approach ignores the first part of the Purim narrative, which is a comedy, and reflects only on the second part, a revenge tragedy, recruiting the popular version of the story to justify his militant position against Iran...Parody, masque, commedia dell‘arte: what this text reflects in its early chapters is the comic impulse...[of the Jews who lived in the Babylonian, Persian and even the Hellenistic diaspora]...the Book of Esther is a fantasy...

Then, she gets angry:

...comedy has turned into revenge tragedy, an explosion of blood-curdling violence — not by Persians against innocent Jews, but by Jews against innocent Persians.  Esther...is granted permission to preemptively slaughter all who have received the order to kill the Jews. There is no textual hint that these Persians ever took up arms – “no one dared to stand up against them, out of the fear that they instilled” [9:2]. Yet the Jews go ahead and slaughter 500 innocent people in the satrapies that belong to the King. Then sweet Esther, the beguiling descendant of Babylonian exiles, wife of the clueless Ahasverus – whom little girls will emulate in gauzy costumes for centuries to come – asks for, and is granted, another day of slaughter: in the capital city of Shushan alone, 300 people are slaughtered, and in the surrounding satrapies 75,000 are slaughtered 

Like, this is so wrong. 

First of all, she could have written that Bibi should send a female agent into someone's bed. That would have been at least commensurate with spy literature.

Secondly, there actually was excellent diplomacy until the taking up of arms. 

Third, the killing was indeed of "enemies".  Here's Chapter. 9. verses 5-6,

And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they would unto them that hated them. And in Shushan the castle the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men.

Fourth, a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities isn't really a bad idea.

Fifth, Secretary of State Kerry is, reportedly, willing to promise a nuclear umbrella so maybe he is willing to kill some innocents.

Six, to borrow a phrase from the Obama White House, does she present a viable alternative?

________________________

P.S.

After a night's rest and after a fourth reading of the Meggilah (here in Shiloh, as we are in doubt whether indeed a wall existed around the site of the Tel at the time of Joshua bin Nun, we celebrate two days - imagine how perverted our little girls must be), besides the throwaway reference to the King's sanctioning of the defensive attack on the enemies of the Jews, there are other aspects I think needs be stressed.

The obvious one is that no one had smartphones or Internet connection then and sending messages around on horseback was a communcations system that would assure that Jews would be killed if any Jew simply depended on some called either Esther or Hadassah told them they could safely walk the streets. That the Persians were afraid does not mean they weren't intending to kill the Jews and Ezrahi should know that fear is a great motivator to kill.


Moreover, the Hebrew text uses two terms "enemies" (אויבים) but also "haters" (שונאים) [see verse 1, 5 & 16 in that chapter 9].  That is an irrational and emotional state that cannot and, at that time, would not dissipate overnight and they'd probably disbelieve the retraction order.  These persons were surely proper targets.  Incidentally, the Leket Tov comments that the phrase that the Jews congregated in their cities indicated many had fled to the hills and distant villages from fear and I presume that they knew their neighbors better than Ezrahi (and Netanyahu knows the Iranians better than her, as well).

All in all, this is a corruption of the text and I will not pass judgment whether the story is historically true.

^

Netanyahu in Washington - GraphicZionism

^

Netanyahu Mulling His Speech

.

Some "GraphicZionism".

^

A Graphic Zionist Comment

.

(with apologies)

^

Why Is Kerry Pissed Off?

Have we forgotten this?

The open mike I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that moment when French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" and Barack Obama didn't disagree is a tale as old as the hills for American presidents and secretaries of state.
For decades, American presidents and diplomats have been locked in uneasy relationships with Israeli prime ministers from the Likud Party. One example: "Who's the f---- superpower here," a frustrated Bill Clinton exploded to his aides after his first meeting with Netanyahu in 1996.
It's a good thing for Obama that the open mike caught Sarkozy with the ad hominem attack on Netanyahu rather than the president.
"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said. Obama was heard to say, "You're tired of him -- what about me? I have to deal with him every day," according to a French website.

Why apologize?


^

Netanyahu: "Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one"

Really:

...ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.

Ah, but that was in 2002.

Here are additional excerpts:

Today, most of the Israeli nation understands that it is impossible to reach any kind of solution with the Palestinians before the terrorist forces are completely routed, before they lose all hope of ever achieving their goal – which is the destruction of the State of Israel.

But in order to decisively prevail over terror, we must do three things, about which I have been talking for these many months.

The first thing we must do is to complete the removal of all Palestinian fighters, weapons and ammunition from the area.

...The second step is to establish security buffer zones opposite the main Palestinian population centers in order to seal off the free passage of Palestinians into our cities and towns.

Let me emphasize – I am not talking about a fence along the 1967 lines...I am talking about is a physical buffer opposite the Palestinians’ main population centers, the source of most of the terror...

...there is a third step, and it is the most important one of all. We must completely and totally eradicate Arafat’s regime and remove him from the vicinity!

...From all this, it is clear that not only must we not hold negotiations with Arafat, but we must not participate in a regional conference that includes him or anyone representing him.

...not everyone in the world is against us! The great American nation is not only not against us – it supports us, and by a huge majority!

And that is important, because in the final analysis, what determines the position of the administration in the United States is public opinion...We have the ability to sway this public opinion. Because the American people is in general a decent nation that cannot stomach a double standard. The citizens of the United States understand very well that terror is the absolute evil that must be eradicated.

...we are doing something even more serious and dangerous:

We are promising Palestinian terror the greatest prize of all – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

...The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.

...We must not be frightened if the international community does not see eye to eye with us on these matters. Did the international community foresee the danger of the Holocaust? And when it finally opened its eyes, did it do anything to stop it? Did it as much as lift a finger?

Did it see the danger posed to our survival from the atomic reactor in Iraq? And when it did, did it not condemn us when Menachem Begin’s Likud government bombed that destructive facility from the air?

On matters vital to our survival, we have always taken resolute steps, and we have always spoken clearly, even when many others in the world did not agree with us.

Because, ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.

Recalling Rudyard. Kipling, That Is

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

Ian Black Paints Bibi Black

Ian Black, formerly of Jerusalem Post infamity, doesn't like Binyamin Netanyahu.

Here's how he paints him in this article, Israel: Power struggle leads to Netanyahu, hard man in a tough neighbourhood

...Netanyahu - once the enfant terrible of Israeli politics and one of its most fascinating and controversial figures - stands to gain...opinion polls show that the leader of the right-wing Likud opposition remains the Israeli public's preferred choice as prime minister...And given that this is a part of the world where worst-case scenarios tend to come true, the looming crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions could galvanise squabbling politicians to close ranks and go for a grand national unity coalition: cue Netanyahu.

...Few of those who dealt with Netanyahu the prime minister have warm memories of him. "Who the fuck does he think he is, who's the fucking superpower here?" an outraged Bill Clinton asked his aides after his first meeting with the new Israeli leader.

..."Netanyahu believes that the economic sphere is one where we can make quick, tangible progress, create more jobs and generate growth," said [Uzi] Arad. "That may yield the kind of political payoffs that could further political negotiations". But what there is to negotiate about is less than clear. Netanyahu resigned over Ariel Sharon's 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. And he is sharply focused on Jerusalem's Temple Mount - "the most explosive square kilometre on earth," and the danger that the city "will become a Mecca for the world's terrorists".

Update on Netanyahu Visit to Shiloh Bloc

Any West Bank land that Israel fails to settle is land made available for another "Hamastan," said Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday during a tour of Judea and Samaria.

"Any areas we evacuate now will be taken over by Hamas, which is simply a tool of Iran. The only reason this is not also Hamastan, like the Gaza Strip has become, is because the IDF is here," said Netanyahu.

Netanyahu, who will likely be reelected Likud chairman next month, displayed his commitment to settler expansion by then planting a sapling in the unauthorized outpost of Kida, near Shiloh.

"I wish I could plant more than this tree, but that will have to wait," said Netanyahu, as he bent down to tuck earth around the sapling.

Congratulating the young farmers on being true capitalists, in addition to settlers, Netanyahu said that he was reminded of the "early pioneering spirit of Israel."

"I would like to see the maximum possible development, and the maximum possible area kept in any future peace deal," said Netanyahu.

"The current government seems to have give up on much of the territory before they have even begun negotiations."

Netanyahu's decision to visit an illegal outpost was highly controversial, and members of his staff considered canceling the appearance hours before. Likud activists from within the settler movement insisted that he visit the outpost, claiming that it would set the tone for his eventual campaign as prime minister.

Source.

Orbach Explains Bibiphobia

Uri Orbach wrote an op-ed, "The power of Bibiphobia", and stated:-

Ehud Olmert reached an almost zero percent approval rating - a nice achievement after one year in office. Yet among the very few who still support him, particularly notable is Minister Roni Bar-On.

The latter, with the enthusiasm of a fool and the dedication of an experienced attorney, continues to praise his master. When we hear him speak it appears as though the Winograd report's only purpose was to demonstrate Ehud Olmert's abilities when it comes to repairing flaws, engineering collapsing walls, and performing rehabilitation tricks that will turn the country and the IDF into a brand new and wonderful home.

Let Ehud plaster away. Bar-On is so convinced of Olmert's ability to be the national renovator that it makes one feel like forgetting Olmert himself is also the main culprit behind these failures. Just like Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times" who sends a child to break windows and later offers himself up as a glazier, or like a failed dancer who manages to straighten the crooked floor.

Yet following the tempting offer comes the threat: What do you want now, Minister Bar-On says with his thundering voice - to get Bibi and his shady deals? Eh?! You want Bibi?! So says Bar-On, and joyfully returns to work.

The way the "Bibi threat" affects wide media circles is odd and deserving of a psycho-social research. They just hear "Bibi" and they start shaking.

More here.

Tenet & Pollard

I presume you all know my history with Jonathan Pollard.

(If not, go here and here)

Well, George Tenet published his memoirs and this story developed out of it:-

If Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard's release were included in the 1998 Hebron agreement, then CIA Chief George Tenet would have been out of a job, the former intelligence agency head explained in his new book released Monday.

In his book, 'At the Center of the Storm', Tenet discusses several issues, including the US war in Iraq and the global war on terror. Tenet also dedicates a chapter to detailing the events leading up to the signing of the Hebron agreement, and the Israeli demand to have Jonathan Pollard released.

...The drama reached its peak on Thursday, October 22, 1998, the night before the agreement was signed at the White House. The senior American staff, including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was present.

Berger told Tenet that then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put the Pollard matter on the table.

Upon hearing this, Tenet stormed out of the room, telling Berger that he was wrong and that Pollard was not on the agenda, calling the idea ridiculous and insisting that the Pollard issue had nothing to do with the talks taking place at Wye.

According to Tenet, the senior administration staff wanted the deal, but was afraid of his resignation.

Near midnight, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Tenet in his room and told him that if he had something to tell the president regarding the Pollard matter, he should say it now.

After his talk with Albright, Tenet asked for a private meeting with President Clinton.

At the meeting, which took place at 1 am that Friday, Tenet said he told Clinton that if Pollard was released, he would no longer be CIA chief in the morning.

The next morning, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held talks with Clinton on Pollard's release, and even threatened to end the negotiations. Netanyahu also claimed that Clinton had promised to release Pollard and Israel's headlines the next day reported that Pollard would be flown to Israel in the prime minister's jet.

According to the text, then envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, told Tenet that he and Clinton consulted in the bathroom. Ross asked Clinton if he promised to release Pollard. Clinton said no.

Ross, not completely convinced, told Clinton that if he did promise to release Pollard, he must keep his word, saying that this would be too good a deal for Netanyahu to turn down. The next morning, October 23, 1998, then-Israeli Defense Minister, Itzchak Mordechai, tried to pressure Tenet into agreeing, telling him that Israel must have Pollard. Tenet refused to fold.

Nonetheless, Tenet said that Ross had assured him that Netanyahu would not walk out on the agreement, even if it did not include Pollard. According to Tenet, Ross also opposed Pollard's release, since he believed he could be used as a bargaining chip in later deals.

In the end, Netanyahu gave in to American pressure, and signed the Hebron agreement –without Pollard.

Someone wrote me, saying:

Winkie,

I saw the Today Show where Tom Brokaw asked Tenet why it was that he came out so strongly against Pollard but never said a word about Iraq. Tenet could not give a straight answer....just that he worked within and for the administration...[it was good that] Brokaw [exposed] the fact that Jonathan was in jail now for really no reason other than as a pawn in US-Israeli relations.

Someone to Watch/Read

Uzi Arad is close to Binyamin Netanyahu as advisor with semin-mandarin status.

So here's a snippet from his op-ed today at YNet:

Since the "disengagement," dismantling of terror infrastructures is no longer a prerequisite for diplomatic talks, and Israel has come to terms with a Palestinian national unity government that includes Hamas, while it is also prepared to enter talks on a political horizon, namely, on the clauses of a final-status agreement. The renewal of the Saudi Initiative, whose key demand is withdrawal to the 1967 borders on all frontiers, also constitutes the relinquishment of understandings accepted from the time of US President Ford until George W. Bush.

How did it transpire that while the Arabs and Palestinians are sticking to their guns and even increasing their demands, Israel is skipping from one initiative to another while abandoning principles and positions that were deemed crucial only yesterday?

This has several explanations: According to the Leftist approach, for example, Palestinian demands are essentially justified; the Israeli occupation is the mother of all sins, and therefore, any concession or withdrawal is a blessing.

Another position is the enchantment of reconciliation – the belief that aggressive and demanding parties can be placated by giving in to their demands. There's also detachment from reality - ignoring the data and situation, as presented by the intelligence forces – and wishful thinking. Mistakes were also made due to absentmindedness and weakness.

Another common error stems from ignorance when it comes to the rules of negotiation, and primarily from misunderstanding the difficulties entailed in unilateral moves: There are no free meals and there are no free concessions.

And finally, and this should not be concealed, since Taba, through to the "disengagement" and perhaps until today, the ineffective practice of concessions has been carried out for the sole purpose of political survival.

...historically the more Israel moderated its demands, the more the Palestinians hardened theirs. Moreover, it will not happen because unilateralism or the series of concessions were not subjected to mutual concessions, and also because Palestinians have not allowed closure in any former attempts.

...This is not the way to make peace. Right from the start we needed a different Israeli approach, void of the above failures and futile reconciliations and focused on the advancement of Israeli interests rather than sacrificing them.