JOIN IN THE SHABBOS PROJECT TODAY, FRIDAY 11/11 & SATURDAY 11/12/2016. LEARN MORE! OPEN THIS HYPERLINK SUNSET Friday TO SUNDOWN Saturday. https://www.theshabbosproject.org/en/?id=180 Me, you & Jews all over the world uniting to keep one full Shabbat together. 11/12 November 2016.

!!!!

Dear Family & Friends,

Shabbat is a-coming in very early: 4pm so let’s hurry this out for you – especially on International Shabbat Project 2016!

Have a wonderful Shabbat! Hug your children. They’re the best!

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

5.Obama hails ‘excellent conversation’ with Trump at White House –

6.Obama: If Trump succeeds, America succeeds

7.Trump adviser: He doesn’t see settlements as peace obstacle

8.Will Netanyahu let Trump move embassy to Jerusalem?

9.Amona residents prepare for forced eviction

10.The Day After the Election by Alan M. Dershowitz

If you could go back in time to Germany, at what point would you have woken up to realize that the leaders in Germany were not quite right for the Jewish people?

They may have been perfect for everyone else. Obviously the German leaders were perfect for the majority of the population. And our liberal and enlightened German Jews believed that everything would be fine.

Our Jewish brothers and sisters believed that they could live in Muslim countries, too. Then came 1948.

If you could go back in time, when would you have woken up to the fact that you were not safe in any Muslim country?

Credit: Branco.

How many Wikileaks emails must you see before you realize that the Democratic party and its leader Hillary Clinton will not defend Israel?

Have you not yet realized that Obama has gone out of his way to hurt Israel.

He embroiled himself in the Israeli elections in the hope of dumping Bibi for a left-wing Israeli willing to give away Israeli land for peace. For his “legacy.”

The BLM movement is in Hillary’s plans – they are publicly antisemitic.

She has taken money from the most barbaric Muslim countries.

She pushed for the Iran deal which has put Israel in serious trouble.

She has not refuted Obama’s gift of 1.5 billion dollars in CASH to Iran, the most evil of terrorist countries which spends money helping Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel. Iran has camps in Argentina teaching terrorism to Jew haters.

When you look back, when your children look back, at what point would they have realized that there was a moment when you could have stood up for Israel and the Jewish people – all 14 million in a world of 7 billion?

Never forget that the Jewish people, our people, gave the world the most extraordinary, revolutionary, evolutionary ethic ever. That this ethic makes it possible for you to be free in America. This ethic underpins your Constitution.

If you do not stand up for Israel, for the Jewish people. who will?

Do not vote for a party that has no respect for the Jewish people. For those who say that anti-Semites have globbed on to Trump. He has spoken very clearly that he will protect Israel and make Jerusalem the capital.

He is not beholden to any group.

Hillary is.

Diane Weber Bederman is a multi-faith, hospital trained chaplain who lives in Ontario, Canada, near Toronto; She has a background in science & the humanities. Writes about religion in the public square & mental illness on her blog: The Middle Ground: The Agora of the 21st Century. She is a regular contributor to Convivium: Faith in our Community and Canada Free Press

credit: New York Post

For America, and everything that made it America, the results of Tuesday’s election are a welcome and necessary respite – but are far from being a lasting redemption

[Our] elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.
– “Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win”, New York Times, November 8,2016.

Incredibly, this New York Times assessment, predicting an almost certain Clinton victory was posted at 10:20 PM ET on Tuesday, when, in effect, most voters had already cast their ballots. Indeed, it was not until about 5 AM on Wednesday that the paper’s forecasting machinery began to give Donald Trump a greater probability of winning.

Smug and supercilious

Little else could illustrate more dramatically how detached the allegedly “enlightened” social elites have become from the recalcitrant realities in the world around them. Little else could underscore more vividly how the misguided complacency, born of smug arrogance and supercilious superiority, have isolated them from the shifts in the mood of discontent in growing segments of the public, outside their immediate like-minded ideo-intellectual milieu. Worse, it stripped them of any ability –indeed, willingness—to understand them—and even desensitized them to the need to consider them of any weight or merit.

They were so self-absorbed with their own sense of pompous self-righteousness and puffed-up self-importance that they were totally oblivious of an “Other”, which they seemed to be incapable of envisaging. Indeed, although recognizing “the Other” is allegedly the hallmark of their socio-political credo, the only “Others” that these self-anointed paragons of wisdom and virtue can conceive of, are in fact, darker skin-toned versions of themselves.

They were incapable of conceiving that their “progressive” world view of multi-culturalism and moral relativism, in which everything that made America what it is, could be discarded in favor of everything that didn’t, would not have universal appeal for all intelligent life. They were utterly convinced that they embodied “the spirit of the times”, imbued with an unshakeable belief that they were on the “right side of history”—just as ISIS and the Ayatollahs of Iran do.

Intellectual inbreeding in an ideological echo-chamber

In explaining how the Obama administration has managed to enlist the main-stream media to endorse the fatally flawed Iran deal, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications , confessed: “We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say”.

This seems to be precisely what happened during the Trump campaign—particularly in its final weeks. His detractors seized on every piece of information as definitive proof of the coming of his inevitable downfall. Every pejorative item of breaking news was pounced upon as heralding the inexorable demise of his presidential bid. Typical of the misplaced haughtiness this self-reinforcing intellectual inbreeding within a contrived media echo chamber begot, was reflected in a caustic piece written a month before the elections (October 8) by John Avalon, the editor-in-chief of the allegedly “progressive liberal” Daily Beast. Headlined, “All Over But The Shouting: Donald Trump Just Lost The Election”, it informed the readers:

“His numbers were already nose-diving after a disastrous first debate performance, but the tape catching the candidate bragging about sexual assault has alienated key allies and confirms his critics’ suspicions.”

With unassailable conviction, Avalon assured us:

“Mark down the date: October 7, 2016, is when Donald Trump lost the presidency.”

Ouch!!

It would seem that, in contrast to Avalon, the voters understood precisely what I pointed out last week—that the elections were for President, not Pope. Consequently, being a crude (the less charitable might say “lewd”) SOB is not necessarily a definitively disqualifying defect. After all, similar epithets could be attached, not implausibly, to previous incumbents, even heaven forfend, Democratic incumbents—from Clinton to Kennedy.

Rejecting unwanted metamorphosis

As I have written elsewhere, Trump was the creation of Obama and Clinton – a reaction of millions of Americans to the unwanted metamorphosis of their nation. In many ways, he is cut from precisely the same cloth as another phenomenon that pollsters failed appallingly to predict: Brexit. For much like the British rejection of the “Europeanization” of their land, so Trump was a response—albeit a somewhat unrefined one—to what tens of millions of Americans perceived as an attempt to decouple their country from its roots and heritage.

Few could convey the on-going metamorphosis in such biting precision as Daniel Greenfield. In a short essay written a day after the election, he acerbically depicted the concern—indeed, fear—that many Americans felt at the realities unfolding before their very eyes, aghast as they watched the dynamic diversity that characterized their county, rapidly descending into increasingly dysfunctional diffusion.

He wrote: “The tidal force of demographics had made the old America irrelevant. Any progressive policy agenda was now possible because we were no longer America. We [w]ere Obamerica. A hip, happening place full of smiling gay couples, Muslim women in hijabs and transgender actors. We were all going to live in a New York City coffee house and work at Green Jobs and live in the post-national future.”

Beyond “white identity politics”?

Typically, “progressive liberals” are fiercely protective of minority identities, but somehow denigrate, equally fiercely, any sign that the majority may to wish to preserve its identity. Indeed, in what turned out to be an excruciatingly misguided and erroneous assessment of Trump’s electoral prospects, The Atlantic’s staff writer, Conor Friedersdorf, denounced the conduct of his campaign and warned what fate would befall the Republican Party “If the GOP becomes a party of white identity politics” (August 5, 2016). Since then of course, the GOP has won the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate—and looks set to determine the composition of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. So much for Friedersdorf’s prescience.

But of course, in a profound sense, Trump was, purposely or otherwise, invoking identity politics. But his message hit a nerve that went far beyond “white men without a college degree”. It resonated with all those, regardless of gender, race or religion, who identified with the fundamental values and civilizational foundations that made America the exceptional power that it became – i.e. its Anglo-Saxon origins and its Judeo-Christian roots.

Victory of identity over “identity politics”?
In this sense, Trump’s triumph can be seen as a “converse” victory of “identity” over “identity politics—a victory for the vast number of Americans who felt their identity would be permanently jeopardized by the metamorphosis that Obama tried to impose and which a Clinton victory would irretrievably cement.

Greenfield tartly parodies the kind of realities many of Trump’s supporters (even the reluctant ones) recoiled from: “This was Obama’s America…The past was gone… We would become more tolerant and guilty…. It was hot and cold running social justice. The Bill of Rights was done. Ending the First and Second Amendments was just a clever campaign away. Narratives on news sites drove everything…Presidents were elected by Saturday Night Live skits…. Safe spaces were everywhere and you better watch your micro-aggressions, buddy. No more coal would be mined. No more anything would be made….The end of white people. The end of binary gender and marriage. The end of reason…The end of 2 + 2 equaling 4…It was time to pardon an endless line of drug dealers. To kill cops and praise criminals. To be forced to buy worthless health insurance for wealth redistribution to those who voted their way to wealth.…”

So, after decades of being cowed by the dictates of political correctness, it seems as a counter-revolution may just be beginning to take root.

The challenges ahead

It is difficult to overstate the significance of Trump’s victory. For whatever he may, or may not, achieve in the future, it is what he has prevented from happening that is of incalculable importance.

For the Obama-incumbency has been one of the most ruinous in the history of the Republic—socially, economically, diplomatically, as well as in terms of security.

It has left American society more divided than ever, labor participation at the lowest for decades, American influence waning across the globe, a disastrous Iran deal, allies disheartened and abandoned, adversaries heartened and emboldened, much of the world ablaze with violence, a significant portion, of which due to injudicious US policy in recent years. A Clinton victory would only have sustained and accelerated the downward spiral. That this was averted is something for which we should count ourselves fortunate—very fortunate.

However, Trump’s win is no guarantee of improvement. Far from it! A myriad of difficulties and obstacles will be encountered. Overcoming them will be no small feat.

To begin with, there is Trump’s inexperience and lack of familiarity with the mechanisms of government—which hopefully can be partially overcome by a judicious choice of experienced and competent aides and officials who can help navigate bureaucratic obstructionism should such arise.

Many of Trumps stated objectives are, to say the least, controversial. They are likely to arouse stiff opposition in many places within the government apparatus and elsewhere. Dealing with this will require considerable resolve and resourcefulness, and will sorely test the ablest and most committed of administrations.

Refusal to accept defeat?

But beyond these objective difficulties, Trump will face arguably even more harrowing challenges. These will relate to the very legitimacy and authority of his incumbency. Indeed, there are already signs that his defeated rivals do not, and will not, accept defeat. Despite his clear advantage in terms of electors, the popular vote was almost 50:50-with a minuscular advantage (0.2%) to Clinton. This is being seized on by Trump’s opponents as proof as to the invalidity of his presidency, fueling nation-wide protests and refusal to accept his victory.

Elsewhere, rather than acknowledge the dysfunctional defects in their political doctrine, Democrats have looked to lay the blame on the defective nature of Trump’s supporters—attributing their voting either to the basest of motives or their lack of education. By denouncing any call to preserve identity as “bigotry” and social discipline as “fascism”, they are attempting to strip Trump-voters’ preferences of any moral worth, casting them as uneducated, misogynistic oafs. However, as the Washington Post reported, a majority of both White women and college educated Whites voted for Trump.

Thus, ostrich-like, with their heads firmly buried in the sands of denial, Trump’s vanquished rivals obdurately refuse to confront honestly the real reasons for their astonishing defeat –thereby virtually ensuring that it will be repeated, something that will only increase their fury, frustration and befuddlement.

Respite not redemption

These sentiments of fury and frustration will clearly intensify their efforts – bolstered by a hopelessly biased main-stream media, much of the politically-correct academia, an array of celebrity entertainers and threats of violent civil strife—to thwart any chances of a successful Trump incumbency.

This constitutes a considerable threat to his ability to deliver on his pledges, which is why his success in precluding another 4-8 years of a Clinton continuation of the Obama doctrine is a welcome and much needed respite. For America, however, and for everything that made it America, it is far from being an assured and durable redemption.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)

5.Obama hails ‘excellent conversation’ with Trump at White House –

90-minute meeting, first ever between the two, dealt with transition, foreign policy, says President BY Julie Pace Times of Israel Nov.10, 2016, 9:26 pm

‘The two men did not relitigate their differences in the Oval Office’ –

US President Barack Obama & President-elect Donald Trump shake hands during a transition planning meeting in Oval Office at White House on Nov. 10, 2016, in Washington,DC. (Jim Watson/Afp)

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a cordial beginning to their transfer of power, President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump met at the White House Thursday. Obama called the 90-minute meeting “excellent,” and his successor said he looked forward to receiving the outgoing president’s “counsel.”

At the close of the Oval Office sit-down, Obama said to Trump, “We now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed the country succeeds.”

The two men, who have been harshly critical of each other for years, were meeting for the first time, Trump said. The Republican called Obama a “very good man” and said he looked forward “to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.”

Obama blasted Trump throughout the campaign as unfit to serve as a commander in chief. Trump spent years challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, falsely suggesting Obama may have been born outside the United States.

But at least publicly, the two men appeared to put aside their animosity. As the meeting concluded and journalists scrambled out of the Oval Office, Obama smiled at his successor and explained the unfolding scene.

From the White House, Trump headed to Capitol Hill for meetings with House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to discuss the GOP legislative agenda. Ryan, who holds the most powerful post in Congress, was a sometime critic of Trump, was slow to endorse him and did not campaign with the nominee.

Emerging from his meetings with congressional leaders, Trump sketched out priorities for his presidency.

“We’re going to move very strongly on immigration,” he said. “We will move very strongly on health care. And we’re looking at jobs. Big league jobs.”

If Trump makes good on his campaign promises, he’ll wipe away much of what Obama has done during his eight years in office. The Republican president-elect, who will govern with Congress fully under GOP control, has vowed to repeal Obama’s signature health care law and dismantle the landmark nuclear accord with Iran. He’s also vowed to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

First lady Michelle Obama also met privately in the White House residence with Trump’s wife, Melania, while Vice President Joe Biden prepared to see Vice President-elect Mike Pence later Thurs.

Obama and Trump met alone, without any staff present, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters afterward.

“The two men did not relitigate their differences in the Oval Office,” Earnest said. “We’re on to the next phase.”

Trump traveled to Washington from New York on his private jet, breaking with protocol by not bringing journalists in his motorcade or on his plane to document his historic visit to the White House. Trump was harshly critical of the media during his campaign and for a time banned news organizations whose coverage he disliked from his events.

As scores of journalists waited to be admitted to the Oval Office to see Obama and Trump together, they saw White House chief of staff Denis McDonough walking along the South Lawn driveway with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. A handful of Trump aides trailed them.

The show of civility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue contrasted with post-election scenes of protests across a politically divided country. Demonstrators from New England to the heartland & the West Coast vented against the election winner on Wednesday, chanting “Not my president,” burning a papier-mâché Trump head, beating a Trump piñata and carrying signs that said “Impeach Trump.”

In Washington, Trump’s scant transition team sprang into action, culling through personnel lists for top jobs and working through handover plans for government agencies. A person familiar with the transition operations said the personnel process was still in its early stages, but Trump’s team was putting a premium on quickly filling key national security posts. The person was not authorized to discuss details by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to an organizational chart for the transition obtained by The Associated Press, Trump was relying on experienced hands to help form his administration. National security planning was being led by former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who previously worked for the FBI. Domestic issues were being handled by Ken Blackwell, a former Cincinnati mayor and Ohio secretary of state.

Trump was expected to consider several loyal supporters for top jobs, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for attorney general or national security adviser and campaign finance chairman Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker were also expected to be under consideration for foreign policy posts.

As president-elect, Trump is entitled to get the same daily intelligence briefing as Obama — one that includes information on U.S. covert operations, information gleaned about world leaders and other data gathered by America’s 17 intelligence agencies. The White House said it would organize two exercises involving multiple agencies to help Trump’s team learn how to respond to major domestic incidents.

6.Obama: If Trump succeeds, America succeeds

President-elect meets with President Obama in the White House as Trump prepares for transition to power. Arutz Sheva Staff, 10/11/16 18:14 | updated: 20:13

President-elect Donald Trump arrived in Washington D.C. on Thursday, ahead of his planned meeting with President Barack Obama.

The two met in the White House Oval Office, in a long-standing American political tradition, symbolizing the transfer of power. This marks the first time Trump and Obama have met face to face.

https://youtu.be/9gF2mp7AAQQ [This is URL for Trump speaking at Oval Office meeting with Pres. Obama.]

Trump’s running mate and Vice President-elect Mike Pence met with his predecessor, Joe Biden, and First Lady-to-be Melania Trump was greeted by First Lady Michelle Obama.

Rather than the planned 10 to 15 minute get together, Trump and Obama spoke for roughly an hour and a half. President Obama called the conversation with Trump “excellent” and emphasized the need to “work together” to unite the country.

“It is important for all of us, regardless of party, regardless of political preferences to now come together, work together,” Obama said.

“If you succeed, the country succeeds,” Obama added, turning to Trump.

Trump also praised the dialogue, saying that “It could have, as far as I’m concerned, gone a lot longer.”

“We discussed a lot of different situations, some wonderful and some difficulties. He’s explained some of the difficulties.”

President Obama and the new President-elect will hold additional meetings during the transition period before the actual transfer of power when Trump is sworn in on January 20th, 2017.

Below: Trump lands in Washington D.C.

https://youtu.be/G_aSC08KVZo [This is the URL for Trump’s plane landing, with commentary by Wolf Blitzer & other CNN analysts.]

Obama: If Trump succeeds, America succeeds

7.Trump adviser: He doesn’t see settlements as peace obstacle

President-elect will relocate embassy from Tel Aviv: ‘He’s a man who keeps his word’ Jason Greenblatt says president-elect won’t force Israel, Palestinians to negotiate; will move US embassy to Jerusalem By Stuart Winer Nov. 10, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference in Washington, DC Mar. 21, 2016. (Jabin Botsford/Washington Post via Getty Images via JTA)

Stuart Winer is a breaking news editor at The Times of Israel.

President-elect Donald Trump’s top adviser on Israel said Thursday that the incoming US leader doesn’t see Jewish settlements in the West Bank as obstacle to peace with the Palestinians, and predicted Trump would keep his campaign promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem — essentially recognizing the holy city as Israel’s capital.

Successive US administrations have maintained that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and their presence and continued expansion are major stumbling blocks in the path to reaching a peace agreement.

But Trump, Jason Greenblatt told Army Radio, believes Israelis and Palestinians should resolve their differences without the world imposing a peace plan on them.

“Mr. Trump does not view the settlements as an obstacle to peace. I think he would show Gaza as proof of that,” Greenblatt said, referring to Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which included the removal of all Jewish settlements from the coastal enclave.

Rockets from Gaza on Israeli territory continued after the withdrawal, and the IDF has since launched several major military campaigns against Hamas-led groups in Gaza in addition to numerous border clashes.

“The two sides are going to have to decide how to deal with that region, but it’s certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activity should be condemned and that it is an obstacle to peace, because it is not the obstacle to peace,” Greenblatt noted.

“He thinks that Israel is in a very tough situation and needs to defend itself,” he continued. “He is not going to impose any solution on Israel, he thinks that the peace has to come from the parties themselves.”

Nonetheless, Trump, the victorious Republican nominee, would be willing to help should he be asked to, Greenblatt asserted. “Any meaningful contribution he can offer up he’s there to do, but it’s not his goal, nor should it be anyone else’s goal to impose peace upon the parties.”

Many right-wing Israeli politicians have hailed Trump’s ascension as an opportunity to expand settlement construction, and Education Minister Naftali Bennett even said his election meant Israel could officially drop its commitment to the two-state solution.

“Trump’s victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state in the center of the country, which would hurt our security and just cause,” Bennett said Tuesday. “This is the position of the president-elect … The era of a Palestinian state is over.”

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said criticism of Jewish settlements in the West Bank — of the sort heaped on Israel by outgoing President Barack Obama throughout his eight-year tenor — is misguided. “I think the focus that people [place] on settlements is wrong. [The conflict] preceded the settlements by half a century. And when we left Gaza and all the settlements [in 2005], they continued to fire rockets at us,” he said.

Responding to questions about Trump’s declaration that he will move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a campaign claim made by previous presidential hopefuls but never acted on — Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, said he believes the president-elect will follow through on the promise.

During the campaign, Trump called Jerusalem “the eternal capital” of Israel and said he was “100 percent for” moving the embassy there.

Congress passed a law in 1995 mandating the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, but allowed the president a waiver. Each president since then has routinely exercised the waiver, citing the national security interests of the United States, despite repeated campaign promises. For Trump to break with decades of precedent would put Washington at odds with nearly all United Nations member states.

“I think if he said it, he’s going to do it. He is different for Israel than any recent president there has been, and I think he’s a man who keeps his word. He recognizes the historical significance of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, unlike, say, UNESCO,” Greenblatt said.

Last month the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) approved a controversial resolution that ignored Jewish and Christian ties to the Temple Mount. The decision came a week after a similar resolution was approved by the body and elicited angry responses from Israel, several world leaders and even the body’s own director-general.

As for his own future, Greenblatt, a real estate lawyer, acknowledged he would be happy to accept a diplomatic position on behalf of Trump in the region.

“It is a little too soon to tell,” he said. “I’d be honored and privileged to serve in that kind of a role; it would be really an incredible opportunity, and a blessing, but a little too soon to tell.

On Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) called on Trump to keep his promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Hotovely said in a statement that she “would like to reiterate Israel’s deep appreciation of President-elect Trump’s declared intention to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.”

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

8.Will Netanyahu let Trump move embassy to Jerusalem?

Moshe Feiglin feels that vacillating Israeli leaders could prevent Donald Trump from helping Israel attain sovereignty in Judea & Samaria.

By Yoni Kempinski, 10/11/16 12:50

Former Likud MK and founder of Zehut party Moshe Feiglin said that he is happy that Donald Trump won, but was not surprised, as he had predicted a year and a half ago that he would win both the primaries and the election.

However, he feels that we are in a “very dangerous situation”; if the new president calls Netanyahu and asks to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, he may discover that the Israeli Prime Minister wavers on this issue, and this may affect Trump’s regional moves.

Feiglin felt that Trump might then call Putin, who is sitting on our northern border, and tell him to make some sort of settlement on the Golan Heights when he sees the Israeli leadership’s reluctance to maintain Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem & in Judea & Samaria.

9.Amona residents prepare for forced eviction

A decade after violence marred the demolition of 9 homes in Samarian town, residents say they won’t leave willingly as confrontation looms.

Arutz Sheva Staff, Nov. 10, 2016 22:05

Evacuation of Amona in 2006 – photo by Nati Shohat/Flash 90

The town of Amona in Samaria is scheduled to be destroyed by December 25, and the residents and their supporters in the Campaign to Save Amona are preparing to resist the evacuation if the town is not legalized by law before then.

Tens of thousands of supporters are expected to come to Amona to help the residents resist being expelled from their homes by force.

If no solution is found by December 25th, the town will again bear witness to forced evacuations, a decade after the eviction of nine homes in Amona was marred by violence as thousands of police removed demonstrators. Witnesses blamed police brutality for the large number of injuries, roughly 300, which included Knesset Members who came to join demonstrators.

Groups from the Campaign to Save Amona will hold training sessions this coming Saturday night to prepare supporters for the evacuation day, such as teaching them how to navigate the terrain around Amona.

The campaign headquarters said: “The politicians have been dragging their feet. Bibi deals in procrastination instead of showing leadership and finding a solution to the problem. Meanwhile, we are running out of time and we are preparing for the evacuation with all the means at our disposal.”

“Thousands have already registered and expressed their willingness to come to Amona and to protest the destruction and the injustice that the Israeli government plans to carry out. We hope that that bitter day will not come, and that the government will carry out the will of the electorate and regulate Amona instead of destroying it and renouncing the settlers.”

A meeting took place at noon between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Ministers Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu), Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home), and several legal advisers in which pressure was placed on Bennett not to raise the Regulation Law for discussion in the ministerial committee.

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblitt has said that if the regulation law is brought up at the committee next Sunday the High Court will refuse the state’s request to postpone the evacuation of Amona by seven months.

Bennett said that he is determined to bring the law up for discussion despite the pressure. Bennett opened a meeting of the Jewish Home faction on Monday by saying that the Ministerial legislation Committee will vote on the regulation law on Sunday if the court has not given an answer to the state’s request to delay the destruction by then.

With the world’s attention focused on the U.S. presidential election, some attention must be devoted to the problems we will continue to face the day after the election, regardless of who is elected. Here are some of these problems.

1. The world will continue to move away from the center and toward the extremes on both the right and the left. In many parts of Europe — from Poland to Hungary to Greece — neo-fascist parties are strengthening their influence in their governments. In the United States the “alt-right” has been considerably strengthened during this election.

The hard left is also increasing its influence in some part of Europe and on many university campuses. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the left. In many universities, the absurd concept of “intersectionality,” which has become a code word for anti-Semitism, is dominating discussions and actions by the hard left.

The center is weakening. The empowerment of extremes poses great dangers to the world. The hard right and the hard left have more in common than either has to centrist liberals and conservatives. They both hate America, distrust government, demonize Israel and promote anti-Semitic tropes.

2. Following the election President Obama may try to tie the hands of his successor, regardless of who it may be. During the lame-duck period, when Presidents can act without political accountability, he may foolishly send the Israel-Palestine conflict to the United Nations. This would mean the end of the peace process, because the Palestinian would be dis-incentivized from entering into the kinds of direct negotiations without preconditions that the Israeli government continues to offer, and that is the only realistic road to peace. The only hope of stopping this counterproductive move would be for the President-elect to insist that her or his hands not be tied by the lame-duck president.

3. The problem revealed by FBI director Comey’s ill-advised statements over the past four months will not end with the election. Comey is a good man, but he has demonstrated an inability to control himself and his agents. The problem of unlawful FBI leaks has become pervasive. It must be addressed by the new administration. Replacing Comey will not be enough, the entire culture of the FBI must be changed and it must be restored to its rightful position as the silent investigative arm of the Justice Department. Indeed, even more fundamental structural changes are now required. The entire Justice department, of which the FBI is one component, has become too politicized. In most other western democracies, there is a sharp division between the Minister of Justice, who is a political aide to the president or prime minister, and the Director of Public Prosecution, who is a civil servant completely removed from politics. Only the Director of Public Prosecution decides who to investigate and who to prosecute. The political minister plays no role in such decisions. But in the United States we merged these two distinct roles into the job of Attorney General. This must change if our system of justice is to be de-politicized.

4. This election has exacerbated the long-standing problem of criminalizing policy differences. We are quick to confuse differences in policy with charges of criminal behavior. During this election, both sides accused the other of criminal conduct. I have long railed against this development, whether it involved accusations against Democrats like Hillary Clinton or Republicans like Congressman Tom Delay and Governor Rick Perry. The criminal law must be reserved for willful, deliberate and clearly defined crimes. We are moving away from that understanding and toward a dangerous expansion of the concept of crime in the context of political differences.

5. Finally, the healing process must begin the day after the election. Lincoln’s words should be our guide: “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” It is unlikely that either the winners or the losers will be able to avoid malice and extend charity following this most contentious of elections, but it is essential that the loser accept the result and that the winner be gracious. Both Richard Nixon and Al Gore provide somewhat different models of appropriate responses.

This election revealed that there are deep divisions within the American electorate. Some of these divisions are reasonable and indeed desirable. These include differences over economic policies, foreign policies and other political issues. But this election revealed that there are divisions across impermissible lines: racial, ethnic, gender, religious, class & a willingness to resort to violence. These divisions will be much harder to heal. But the process must begin on the day after the election.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction. An earlier and somewhat different version of this article appeared in the Boston Globe.