Gail Winston Winston@winstonglobal.org Gaza War Diary 1 Sun. Dec. 11, 2016 Day 1094 1 3am

Dear Family & Friends,

Amona does not deserve to be destroyed. Proof of Arab ownership has not been ascertained. The Supreme Court does not do that. They accept the what they’re told by those who claim to represent the Arabs who own the land. But, by what law? Ottoman? British? Jordanian? The Police & other security services should be examining the alleged papers produced by the Yesh Din & Peace Now NGOs who are funded by anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Governments in Europe, Asia, S. America & N. America. Instead, they’re going through training exercises to evict Jews from the homes they built. This is NOT the way to insure Israel’s deterrence against Islamic Jihad. It will NOT lead to peace either.

I see a gorgeous full white silvery moon tonight through my roof window!

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

6.Top religious-Zionist rabbis criticize Bayit Yehudi for ‘abandonment’ of Amona 7.John Kerry at Saban Forum—Misrepresenting Two-Statism 8.66% Jewish majority in Judea, Samaria & “Green Line”by Yoram Ettinger
9.Bolton to Obama: Don’t support anti-Israel resolutions 10.Israel receives ‘historic’ first delivery of 2 advanced F-35 jets

11.’Expect Israeli strikes on Russian arms shipment to Syria-Hezb’Allah’

12.What Finally Extinguished Netanyahu’s Burning Hatred for Bennett

1.’Evacuating Amona could harm relations with President Trump’

Former MK Elyakim Haetzni warns that evacuating Amona just as Donald Trump is taking office could adversely affect US-Israel relations. By Benny Toker, 07/12/16 19:30

Elyakim Haetzni – Flash 90

Former MK and publicist Elyakim Haetzni warned of the possible political ramifications of evacuating Amona in an interview with Arutz Sheva.

“In the past we’ve seen demolition in the Ulpana project & the Draynoff houses, but there was recovery [in those cases].” he said. “Here, however, an entire town would be erased & this could have a negative impact, especially in light of the new US administration. Our relationship with the new administration would be formed in the context of the destruction of a town in Binyamin.”

Haetzni said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu must take dramatic steps to show his commitment to the Jewish communities of Judea & Samaria, in order “to counter the effect of erasing an entire community. The government claims that it is doing this because it has no choice & not because it has malicious intent like [former Prime Ministers] Sharon & Olmert & I want to believe that.”

He called on the government to clarify to the Israeli people & to President-elect Donald Trump that the evacuation of Amona is a unique situation that does not reflect the government’s policies & for the government to adopt the recommendations of the Levy report that Israel has the right to build in Judea & Samaria.

He said that the government should “begin to build” & that it should “abolish” the letter former President George W. Bush sent to Ariel Sharon – reneged on by Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama for whom even that was too much – stipulating that the US was not opposed to Israel keeping the so-called “settlement blocks.” Haetzni said that the letter forced Jews in Judea & Samaria “into ghettos.”

‘Evacuating Amona could harm relations with President Trump’

2.Chief culprit is the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is today’s most harmful factor affecting the Jewish state her its values. Concerning Amona, the courts favored the petitioners over the Jewish residents, only because they are Arabs.

By Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Arutz Sheva 11/12/16 02:22 Head of Yeshivat Har Bracha and a prolific author on Jewish Law, whose works include the series on Jewish law “Pininei Halacha” and a popular weekly column “Revivim” in the Besheva newspaper. His books “The Laws of Prayer” “The Laws of Passover” & “Nation, Land, Army” are presently being translated into English. Other articles by Rabbi Melamed can be viewed at: www.yhb.org.il/1

Last week, I dealt with the issue of clarifying the mitzvah of ‘eshet yefat toar‘ and the inherent moral ‘tikkun‘ (improvement) it embodies: on the one hand, as opposed to the conventional legal situation in the world where it was permitted to do anything with prisoners of war, the mitzvah of ‘eshet yefat toar‘ represented an enormous improvement; on the other hand, the Torah teaches us that it was a transgression permitted ‘bediavad’ (after the fact) & seeing as ‘aveira goreret aveira’ (one sin leads to another) it was liable to cause conflicts in the family & result in bearing children who are rebellious (Tanchuma Ki Tayzeh 1).

Regarding this, our Sages said: “The Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat flesh of animals about to die yet ritually slaughtered (a doubtful prohibition), than the flesh of dying animals which have perished (a definite prohibition)” (Kiddushin 21b). In this way, the Torah gradually elevates a person until he reaches a complete ‘tikkun‘.

In contrast, the members of the media who ridiculed the Torah’s mitzvot, and the women members of Knesset who petitioned the High Court against the Chief IDF Rabbi’s appointment, defamed the Torah. Besides slandering the word of the living God with their remarks and actions and the tradition of their ancestors who sacrificed their lives to guard it – no less severe, they harmed the welcome moral influence of the Torah in ‘tikkun olam’.

Arrogance and Superficiality

Their behavior is a direct result of their arrogant and superficial worldview which, out of good intentions, offers the world “new religions” and “moral solutions”, that in practice, cause destruction and devastation. Consequently, in order to help the poor, one movement offered the world the “religion of communism” whose followers denounced property rights, initiated murderous wars, and created an evil, dictatorial regime.

Correspondingly, in order to strengthen the rights of the individual, another movement offered the world the “religion of liberal democracy” whereby, regardless of a country’s national character or social circumstances, come what may, the democratic system is expected to always bring about peace and prosperity – and thus, out of blind devotion to the “religion of democracy”, America helped Khomeini establish an evil regime in Iran, and caused havoc and wars in every country they attempted to offer assistance (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.).

At the same time, inwardly, the “religion of freedom and egalitarianism” caused the breakup of the family and community, decreeing loneliness and misery on countless numbers of people, demonstrated by the constant and alarming decrease in demographics.

The values ??in whose name they speak, such as justice, brotherhood, equality and freedom are sacred values whose foundations stem from the Torah, but when they emerge out of a superficiality rooted in arrogance and contempt for other values ??and cultures, as well as ignoring the infinite complexity of human life, they cause immense suffering to countless numbers of people.

It is precisely the Torah that is intended to guide all of us through the complexities of life, teaching us to choose well within a complicated reality.

The Fault of the Legal Establishment

Under normal circumstances a libel suit should have been brought against those who slandered the Torah & Rabbi Krim for allegedly not respecting moral values. But to whom can one appeal? Indeed, the entire legal establishment is contaminated! The Supreme Court judges accepted the petition on the grounds that presumably the allegation that Rabbi Krim supported attacking women during wartime was true.

They should have rejected the petition out of hand for one of two reasons: A) it is not a matter for the court to intervene in administrative decisions, as long as there is no criminal allegations. B) There is no feasibility of truth in the actual petition itself. After all, at no time in history was there ever a Torah commentator who claimed that the taking of an ‘eshet yefat toar’ was a good thing, and it’s illogical to presume that precisely Rabbi Krim would all of a sudden say it was a mitzvah from the Torah. Instead, the judges agreed with the petitioners, accepting the libelous slander that perhaps the Torah actually says so, and consequently, a rabbi could give such a directive.

Having not rejected the petition, they became partners in the slander, similar to what we have learned concerning those who hear loshon ha’ra (evil speech) that they are also considered sinners. For it’s not only the mouse that is a thief, but also the hole encouraging him to enter. The lawyer representing the government whose job it was to defend the Chief IDF Rabbi’s appointment, muttered some nonsensical arguments demonstrating ignorance, disrespect, and mistrust of the Torah and rabbis.

The aim of the petition was to humiliate the laws of the Torah and its adherents, and to show everyone that the secular law is above the Torah, and since the legal establishment volunteered to be part of this, the primary blame lies with them.

The Case of Amona

Also with regard to Jewish settlement in the community of Amona, the legal establishment acted similarly. Ignoring the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz (the commandment to settle the Land) and the vision of its redemption in Torah, the Prophets, and Jewish heritage, from the very beginning the courts gave priority to the flimsy claims of the petitioners, which even if they do exist, not once did any of their family members ever purchase these lands, or settle them. The only advantage the petitioners have over the settlers is that they are Arabs, whereas the settlers are Jews; consequently, the court ordered the demolition of their homes.

Harm to the Jewish Identity of the State

In a continuous process, the legal establishment has gnawed away at the country’s Jewish identity. Let’s now recall their main decisions and orders in this issue:

1) In a series of decisions the courts weakened the importance of Shabbat, permitting increasing public desecration of Shabbat (cinemas, shopping centers in outlying areas, etc.);

2) Despite the Knesset passing the “Foundations of Law” statute, whereby in a case of any legal question undecided by Israeli law, the court must decide in accordance with the values ??of Israel’s heritage – in practice, the Supreme Court depleted this law from all content;

3) courts harmed Jewish family values by recognizing adoption of children by same-sex couples;

4) they recognized Reform conversions performed outside of Israel;

5) the courts recognized in practice (de facto) civil marriage ceremonies conducted outside of Israel, including same-sex “marriages”;

6) They harmed the status of the Hebrew language as the official national language of the country by nearly equating Arabic to Hebrew;

7) they prevented the disqualification of the Balad party and anti-Zionist candidates for Knesset, and this, in opposition to the opinion of the Elections Committee who relied upon the Basic Law of the Knesset prohibiting a party that negates the Jewish identity of the state to run for election;

8) the court system forced the participation of women singers and actresses in official and semi-official ceremonies, without taking into account the position of halakha and the religious Zionist and haredi communities.

Harm to the Rabbinate and Religious Courts

1) In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court intervened in the discretion of municipal Chief Rabbis regarding the provision of kosher certification;

2) they obligated the religious courts to decide according to secular law in monetary matters;

3) prohibited national religious courts from serving as arbitrators acc. to the Arbitration Law;

4) established courts dealing with family issues, designed to compete with the religious courts.

Harm to the Importance of Yishuv Ha’aretz

For over 150 years, a national struggle has ensued between the Jews and the Arabs over the Land of Israel. In order to redeem and settle the Land, the ‘Keren Kayemet L’Yisrael’ was established, and afterwards, the State of Israel. However in a gradual process, the Supreme Court has hindered the ability of the State of Israel to fulfill its mission.

1) The Supreme Court prohibited the government from allocating state-owned land for settlement exclusively by Jews.

2) Prohibited giving incentives to Jewish communities in the Galilee and Negev (“making the Galilee and Negev Jewish”), thereby invalidating the ideal which accompanied the Zionist movement from its inception.

3) Even with respect to the lands owned by the ‘Keren Kayemet L’Yisrael’ which were purchased exclusively with Jewish money, as a result of deliberations in the Supreme Court, the then Attorney General Mr. Mazuz, ordered not to give further preference to Jewish settlement.

4) As a result of petitions by leftist organizations, the Supreme Court hastened to intervene, demanding the evacuation of Jewish outposts in Judea and Samaria, while breaching the rules of deliberation obligating a legal process of clarification of ownership of the land before a District and Magistrates court.

5) The courts prohibited the state from crop-spraying to shower pesticides on illegally-planted plots of land by Bedouins in the Negev, despite this being a proven method of restraining their seizure of state-owned lands.

6) As a result of pressure from the courts, the Attorney General obligated the state to divert the route of Nahal Hevron in the northern Negev at the cost of 30 million shekels, claiming the sewage that the Palestinian Authority spilled into it, inconveniences the illegal Bedouin outpost ‘Um-Bitin’ located next to the path of the stream.

7) In the latter part of his first term, the courts prohibited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from closing the ‘Orient House’, claiming that his government was a ‘provisional government’; on the other hand, they deferred a similar petition against the peace talks in Taba at the end of Ehud Barak’s tenure.

Harm to Israel’s Security

1) The courts prohibited the shaking method of interrogation of suspects by the Shabak (Secret Service), including cases of “ticking-bombs”.

2) They abolished the procedure of “human shields”, when arresting terrorists, a method that had saved the lives of numerous soldiers.

3) The court placed severe restrictions on the IDF, tying their hands in the harming of terrorists about to carry out an attack;

4) The courts disqualified a law – despite being passed in the Knesset – allowing the incarceration of ‘hard’ terrorists for a period of two weeks without seeing a judge, despite the security needs for such a procedure in order to obtain information from them;

5) In opposition to the opinion of the defense establishment, the Supreme Court instructed the dismantling and relocation of sections of the ‘security fence’ and settlement’s security fences in several locations, and also the opening of roads and removal of roadblocks, in full knowledge that this would likely cause a security risk;

6) In a series of decisions, the courts and the legal establishment forced the IDF to enlist women soldiers in combat units, in opposition to the opinion of professional committees.

On occasion, the mere fact that the Supreme Court starts hearing a petition leads governmental agencies to cancel their plans. For example: the Supreme Court held discussions on petitions brought by leftist groups against reducing the supply of gas, electricity, and other goods to Gaza, and subsequently, the then Attorney General Mr. Mazuz, ordered the government to fold up its plans.

Strengthening those Loyal to the Nation and the Land

This short overview is as much as necessary to determine that the legal system is currently the most alienated and most harmful institution in Israel in its affront of Jewish and Zionist values.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that within the legal establishment there are also many positive aspects: it acts in the field of ‘derech eretz’ which precedes Torah, and its very existence helps in keeping law and order, and allows the normal functioning of social and economic frameworks.

It should also be pointed out that we, members of the religiously observant community, are also guilty for the current situation, by not offering a proper alternative to the legal system. I hope to expand on this issue in my next column. In the meantime, let us thank those lawyers, judges and advisors who, out of a deep-seated loyalty to the values ??of Torah, the nation and the Land, attempt to do their jobs within the existing legal system, thus paving the beginning of the path to correcting the situation.

This article appears in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper, and was translated from Hebrew. Other interesting, informative, and thought-provoking articles by Rabbi Melamed, including all his books on halakha and Jewish thought in Hebrew, and a few in English, can be found at:
http://en.yhb.org.il/

Chief culprit is the Supreme Court

3.State aiming for new delay in demolishing Amona by Tovah Lazaroff JPost.com 12/11/2016 05:56

Knesset approves settlement bill in first reading

Settlements bill to be pushed off until Trump inauguration

A Jerusalem rally in support of the outpost is planned for Tuesday.

‘THERE WILL be war over Amona,’ the graffiti reads at the outpost in the Binyamin region of Samaria in the West Bank. (photo credit:MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

The state is expected, possibly as early as Sunday, to ask the High Court of Justice to postpone the demolishing of the West Bank Amona outpost by one month.
The High Court had previously ordered the outpost’s demolition by December 25, and it has rejected previous requests by the state to postpone it. The one-month delay would move the demolition date to January 25, five days after US President-elect Trump takes office.

The state will likely argue that time is needed to find a relocation site for the 40 families who live in the outpost, given that past proposals have fallen through or will not be ready in time. The latest plan could involve relocating the families to the nearby Ofra settlement.
The Amona families have resisted all relocation plans and have insisted that the Knesset pass a law that recognizes their homes as legal. The High Court has ruled they were built without permits on privately owned Palestinian property.
The Knesset on Wednesday passed the first reading of the settlement regulation bill, which if it becomes law would retroactively legalize some 4,000 settler homes on private Palestinian property, and would offer compensation to the landowners.

[To see & hear You-Tube: Google article’s title: “State aiming for new delay in demolishing Amona”

Duration Time1:10

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

Israeli legislators advance revised bill to legalise settlements

(Israeli legislators advance settlement bill; Amona resident on importance of settlements ‘we’re not occupying; we’ve returned to our ancient homeland!’)
But at the request of the Kulanu Party, the legislation excludes outposts which have outstanding court demolition orders, such as Amona.
Right-wing lawmakers who support the bill hope its swift passage, and the victory this would represent for the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, will sway the Amona families to voluntarily leave their homes.
They had hoped to bring the bill to a third and final reading by this Wednesday, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled trip to Azerbaijan that day is likely to throw a monkey wrench in those efforts.
Netanyahu would prefer to see the legislation come to a final vote only after US President Barack Obama has left office.
He fears that otherwise its passage could persuade Obama to support a UN Security Council resolution against West Bank settlements.
A delegation of senior Palestinian Authority representatives is scheduled to meet with State Department officials in Washington on Monday to raise the issue.
On Thursday, State Department press office director Elizabeth Trudeau said her government is “deeply concerned” by the bill. “We view this as… paving [the way] for the unprecedented legalization of these outposts deep in the West Bank. Thousands of settlement housing units – these are illegal under Israeli law. We believe this would be profoundly damaging to prospects for a two-state solution,” Trudeau said.
The United Kingdom, which is also a permanent member of the Security Council, also spoke out against the legislation.
Minister for the Middle East Tobias Ellwood said that the legislation “would be illegal under international law & once again calls into question the Israeli government’s commitment to a 2-state solution.”
In Geneva, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein on Thursday urged Israeli legislators to vote against the measure. “I strongly urge lawmakers to reconsider their support for this bill, which if enacted, would have far-reaching consequences and would seriously damage the reputation of Israel around the world,” the Jordanian diplomat said.
This would be the first time that the Knesset enacts a law with territorial implications for the West Bank, beyond east Jerusalem, Zeid said. He is particularly concerned, he added, by statements from Israeli politicians that the bill is the first step toward annexation of Area C of the West Bank.
“This openly stated ambition should alarm all those interested in seeing respect for international law, and all those who wish for a lasting peace for all the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine,” he said.
Under the Oslo Accords, Area C is under Israel civilian and security control.
At the Amona outpost, activists are making preparations to resist the attempt by the state to destroy the homes. On Thursday, an emergency message was sent out warning of a possible evacuation as early as Saturday night.
But by late Friday afternoon another message was circulated explaining that security forces planned to wait until after the High Court had responded to the state’s latest appeal for a delay.

Simultaneously, the Amona families are working to sway lawmakers to place the outpost back in the settlement regulation bill before it returns to the Knesset for its second and third readings.

4.Politics: Political preparations for ‘Chrismukkamona’ By Gil Hoffman JPost.com 12/09/2016 12:16 Thanks to politics, the evacuation of Amona will go ahead with the blessing of right wing parties.

It is very rare that Hanukka starts on either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.
The first light of the holiday has been lit on Christmas Day only five times in the past century: In 1918, 1921, 1959, 2005 and 2011.

This year will be the first time since 1978 that Jews will light as Christians are celebrating Christmas Eve. Before that it happened in 1940 and before that in 1902. It is not due to happen again until 2027, and then in 2073.

Netanyahu & Bennett. (Photo Credit: Reuters,Marc Israel Sellem)

Both holidays are known for spreading light, unity and joy. Interfaith families will have it especially good this year, because they can celebrate both holidays together in what has become known as Chrismukka.
It is even rarer that Hanukka and Christmas happen on the same day as a violent evacuation of 40 families from an outpost in the West Bank. But barring unforeseen circumstances, that is the most likely scenario in two weeks, when Amona is set to be evacuated by December 25.
This year, there will not just be Chrismukka. There will be Chrismukkamona.
There will be joy in Jewish and Christian homes throughout the world. But there will be sadness in Amona, where 40 homes are set to be destroyed.
What will make that fateful day even worse for the residents of Amona is knowing that the evacuation will be happening with the reluctant blessing of the heads of the three right-wing political parties: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud, Education Minister Naftali Bennett of Bayit Yehudi, and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman of Yisrael Beytenu.
How did this happen? How has the Right sanctioned the evacuation of an outpost whose residents had no idea was built on privately owned Palestinian land when they moved there? The answer, as usual, is politics.
Sources close to Netanyahu said he already feared his government was in danger due to the prospects of a violent evacuation from Amona last May when he negotiated the expansion of his government.
Netanyahu tried to make a deal with Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog, knowing that even if Herzog’s party joined his government without Bayit Yehudi leaving the coalition, the right-wing faction would exit when Amona was evacuated. He would have still had a government but he would be under constant pressure from the Right.
That is one of the reasons Netanyahu jumped and wrapped up a deal in a matter of hours when Liberman agreed to join the coalition.
When Netanyahu gave Liberman the Defense portfolio, he received an unwritten agreement that when it comes to settlements, the two party leaders would be on the same page.
That has not always been true with Netanyahu and Bennett, who are constantly watching their backs as they try to reach out to the same constituency on the Right.
Over the last several months, both Netanyahu and Bennett have switched sides on how to handle Amona and the controversial “settlement regulation bill” that would retroactively legalize close to 4,000 homes in Judea and Samaria.
Both Netanyahu and Bennett were concerned that an especially violent evacuation with Jew fighting Jew and children crying could bring down the government. With such scenes, Bennett would have been pressured to leave, which he does not want to do.
To prevent that from happening, Netanyahu and Bennett met together many times in an effort to find a solution for Amona.
Liberman, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, and Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit were part of the effort.
Initially, when a campaign on the Right got all but four Likud MKs to endorse the settlement bill, Bennett was opposed. He admitted that there was no chance such legislation would make it by the High Court of Justice and sought other solutions.
But when the campaign that fiercely attacked Bennett got to him, he not only endorsed the bill but led efforts to pass it.
Netanyahu wavered between warning that it could get him put on trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to strategically enabling it to advance through the meaningless initial stages in the legislative process.
Netanyahu acquiesced to Bennett’s request to advance the legislation, while constantly looking for better solutions that could pass legal hurdles that neither the settlement bill nor Amona could. Netanyahu and Bennett resumed working together.
On Monday, instead of a meeting of heads of parties in his coalition, Netanyahu held one-on-one meetings with the heads of the parties in the coalition in an effort to reach an agreement.
When Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, the chairman of Kulanu, continued to put his foot down against a clause in the settlement bill that could have saved Amona, Bennett gave in, knowing that the prospects of getting 4,000 homes legalized justified losing 40 in the eyes of his constituency.
That led to the process of starting over legislating the bill without the controversial clause. It was approved in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation that night, and passed its first reading in the Knesset plenum on Wednesday night by 58 to 51 vote.
Netanyahu boasted that there would be many Amonas saved thanks to sacrificing one. Bennett compared the vote to a political revolution.
But both Netanyahu and Bennett know that the bill is still not the solution, because the High Court will disqualify it. They are continuing to work with Mandelblit and Shaked to find a solution that would really work.
Currently, the bill is set to be advanced in committee next Monday and ready for its final readings in the Knesset two days later.
But the vote is unlikely to happen that day.
The delay might be advertised as designed to wait out for the Trump administration to take over from outgoing President Barack Obama. Liberman called for waiting with the bill on Sunday at the Saban Forum in Washington.
But the real reason is they want to continue to find a better legal solution. It would also be better politically for all three parties if the Amona evacuation happens while the settlement bill is still hanging in the air.
The violence of the settlers would be seen as selfish, potentially harming a long-term solution for 100 times as many homes.
But try telling that to the people of Amona.

When Chrismukkamona comes, they will be doing anything but celebrating.

[Gail Sez: What would you do if it was your home, Gil? Who was being violent in Feb. 2006?]

5.Will soldiers refuse to carry out Amona evacuation?

With less than two weeks left until scheduled eviction, some soldiers are pledging not to take part. By Yedidya Ben-Or, Arutz Sheva 12/12/16 12:18

9th Brigade declares opposition to Amona evacuation – Facebook/screenshot

As the IDF and Israeli police continue their preparations for the evacuation of Amona, a growing number of soldiers have indicated they are unwilling to participate in the mass eviction.

The Supreme Court has ordered the 42 families from Amona removed from their homes no later than December, acceding to a suit filed by a left wing organization claiming the homes were built on private Arab land.

Israel’s Supreme Court is not an investigating court – it hears both sides and rules. The land in question was gifted by Jordan’s monarch, when that country was an occupying power, to cronies. Except for one plot, they have not come forth and are not identified. The Israeli government helped build the homes and it was done in good faith without prior knowledge of the land issue. The regulation law will allow for compensation in such cases, but only where there has not already been a court ruling.

Earlier this month a Facebook group was opened for service members opposed to the planned evacuation.

The group has already amassed a large collection of photographs testifying to opposition by units across the army to the eviction and the intention of soldiers to refuse orders should they be instructed to take part in the operation. Due to strict army rules on public expressions against carrying out orders, the images show unit symbols, uniforms, or notes rather than images of the soldiers themselves.

An IDF spokesperson condemned the group, calling it a violation of army regulations.

“The IDF condemns and prohibits any expression [in favor of] refusing orders and takes this very seriously. The IDF is the army of a democratic state and will obey the civilian leadership and carry out any mission given to it in accordance with the law.”

Before the Gush Katif expulsion, Rabbi Avraham Shapiro, head of Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem and former Chief Rabbi, called to refuse orders to expel Jews, saying the IDF was formed to fight Israel’s enemies.

Related Stories

· Long live Amona, Israel’s bulwark

· Right-wing activist: I believe Amona will be saved

· Watch: Amona residents protest outside of Kahlon’s house

· ‘Netanyahu wants to right the wrong, but he doesn’t know how’

· Amona leaders meet with Jewish Home MKs

· Compensation proposal for Amona residents expected soon

· Otzma Yehudit leaders attack Jewish Home over Amona

· Likud minister: Amona evacuation ‘much ado about nothing’

· Hundreds of youth converge on Amona

Will soldiers refuse to carry out Amona evacuation?

6.Top religious-Zionist rabbis implicitly criticize Bayit Yehudi for ‘abandonment’ of Amona

By Jeremy Sharon JPost.com 12/11/2016 14:02

State to ask court to delay Amona evacuation

Rabbis Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Aryeh Stern, Haim Shteiner, Elyakim Levanon and David Hai Hacohen were all party to the declaration, issued on Sunday.

Some of the most senior religious-Zionist rabbis have implicitly criticized the Bayit Yehudi Party for not including the Amona settlement outpost in the settlement arrangements bill, declaring: “There is no place for compromises over the Land of Israel.”
Rabbi Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Aryeh Stern, Rabbis Haim Shteiner, Elyakim Levanon & David Hai Hacohen were all party to the declaration issued on Sunday by the Derech Emunah rabbinical association.

The criticism comes after the government decided to remove Amona from the settlements arrangement bill. The proposed legislation was approved in its first reading last week. If given ultimate approval by the Knesset, it would retroactively legalize almost 4,000 settler homes built on private Palestinian property in the West Bank.

Bayit Yehudi Mks. (Photo Credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

Amona was excluded from the bill so as to not to deliberately circumvent High Court of Justice rulings that ordered the outpost demolished and its 40 families evacuated by December 25.
In their declaration, the rabbis proclaimed, “The Land of Israel in its entirety belongs to the Jewish people since God’s oath to the forefathers,” and argued that the Jewish people have never relinquished its rights to the land or abandoned its hopes to return.
“This land was stolen from us by the hand of non-Jews… and so all those peoples who conquered it and settled it with non-Jews are thieves. We are the true owners, and any other claim is lies with nothing to stand on,” they wrote. “The uprooting of settlements from the land is a sin and a crime which has no justification.
These deeds are accompanied by thievery and oppression of entire families, men, women and children who settled with the permission of the government and gave decades of their lives to building a good life in the land.”
The rabbis concluded by stating: “There is no place for compromises over the Land of Israel.
Compromises are considered to be ‘a failure to acknowledge His land,’” a Talmudic reference to the negative consequences of disowning or abandoning the Land of Israel.
Bayit Yehudi was spurred into backing & fiercely lobbying for a legislative solution to Amona’s legal problems after 25 Likud MKs called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to advance and pass the settlements arrangements law.
Despite the approval of the bill in its first reading – which would represent a massive breakthrough for the settlement movement – Bayit Yehudi still faced opposition from elements within its electorate over abandoning Amona, sentiment underlined by the rabbis’ declaration on Sunday.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, chairman of Derech Emunah Rabbi Baruch Efrati stridently opposed the way the bill had been achieved, comparing it to a form of bribery.
“You can’t bribe a judge to give a ruling even it is a just one, and you can’t use a bribe to legalize settlements when it means destroying another settlement,” he said.

Efrati said the principle of “the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel” was at stake, and that he believed the religious-Zionist community to be strong in solidarity against Amona’s destruction. “We all think that an injustice has been done here. You can’t stand by and watch the destruction of people’s homes.”

7.John Kerry at Saban Forum—Misrepresenting Two-Statism

???????Oslo failed not because Israelis built crèches, kindergartens schools across pre-1967 lines, but because Palestinian-Arabs blew up Israeli cafes, buses & malls inside those lines Dec. 9, 2018Contact Editor

Dr. Martin Sherman served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org). Born in South Africa,he has lived in Israel since 1971.

Raise your hands… how many of you believe in a two-state solution, believe two states is critical? …Okay, it’s the vast majority of people here. How many of you don’t, are willing to say so? There’s one hand up… — Secretary of State John Kerry, at the 2016 Saban Forum, asking for a show of hands from the audience in support of a two-state agreement.

Last week, the annual Saban Forum took place, as usual, in Washington in early December — albeit in what appeared to be a somewhat diminished format relative to the past two years.

Clear political slant

The two day program comprised only four items: Interviews with Israel’s Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, Egyptian foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry and (via satellite) Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with the valedictory slot being allotted to an interview by Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic, with outgoing Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Although over the years, the Saban Forum has hosted participants with a wide range of divergent opinions, it has typically had a discernible political slant in its line-ups of speakers and moderators. This has tended to favor perspectives that reflect Democratic, rather than Republican, positions on US policy issues, and the views of two-state-proponents, rather than those of two-state opponents, with regard to the Israel-Arab conflict. Thus, even when two-state opponents have had the floor, their moderator/interviewer has invariably been a strong two-state proponent.

This distinct partisanship (pro-Democrat /pro-two-statism) was starkly on display for Kerry’s appearance at this year’s Forum (his fourth successive one since becoming Secretary of State).

Kerry himself is a dogmatic two-stater, having pursued this elusive goal despite mountains of accumulating evidence as to its practical infeasibility and moral undesirability. His interviewer, Jeffrey Goldberg, widely dubbed as Obama’s court journalist, and arguably no less a two-state enthusiastic than Kerry himself, was hardly an antagonistic interlocutor.

Jarring non sequiturs?

Kerry thus blithely brushed aside Goldberg’s observation that the 18-24 month deadline, set by Kerry himself in May 2013, had long expired — after which, he warned, it would be too late to achieve a two-state resolution.

Instead of addressing the question posed, he launched into a sweeping historical tour d’horizon of Zionism — from the first Zionist Convention in Basel, through the Balfour Declaration, and Israel’s Independence, to the Six-Day War…which, he gushed, is “the greatest story ever told.” Then, in a somewhat jarring non sequitur, he warned ominously, that, despite the stirring account of Zionist achievement he himself had just given, things were “moving in the wrong direction.”

Then, still avoiding the question as to the significance of the long-passed expiration of his own stipulated deadline for the viability of a two-state resolution of the conflict, he pivoted to the Iran deal, admitting that, although he cannot assure us that the Iranians will not violate the terms of the agreement, he can assure us that “in [this] case every option that we have today is available to us then.”

This, of course, leaves us to ponder yet another jarring non sequitur.

If the US (and the other members of the P5+1 countries) previously balked at exercising these formidable “options” against an impoverished, non-nuclearized Iran, what possible reason is there to believe that these options will be exercised later, against an Iran far more enriched economically, and empowered militarily?

‘Do you support a two-state solution?’ is merely code

This is the kind of inane intellectual licentiousness, not moored to any semblance of disciplined thought or reasoned relationship between doctrinal tenets and observed outcomes, that has come to characterize much of the liberal Left’s political credo in recent decades. Accordingly, the politically correct has eclipsed the factually correct, and allegedly “good intentions” override any recalcitrant realities that may cast doubt on their feasibility.

Nowhere is this unfortunate phenomenon more evident than in the discourse on the two-state approach to the Mid-East conflict. Nowhere is it given a more prestigious platform than in the Saban Forum. Nowhere was this more blatant than the manner in which Kerry addressed the issue in his Forum appearance this year.

Faced with the prospect of the rapidly diminishing – indeed, vanishing – relevance of his, and his administration’s pet project, Kerry turned to the audience for its reaffirmation. In an effort to demonstrate that all rational beings would endorse the self-evident wisdom of, and imperative for the two-state formula, he exhorted: “Raise your hands … how many of you believe in a two-state solution, believe two states is critical…?”

Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the forum and the merciless dictates of political correctness, a “vast majority” duly raised approving hands.

But this is wildly misleading — because “Do you support a two state solution” is merely code for another far more sinister question – the question Kerry should have asked.

The question Kerry should have asked

After all, the call for a two-state “solution” necessarily entails the call for the establishment of a Palestinian state. But there is little to no reason to believe that such a state will be anything other than what past precedent suggests it will be: yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, that sooner, rather than later, will become a bastion for Islamist terror groups on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv; abutting a teetering Jordanian monarchy, menaced by ascendant Islamist elements in the east, and an increasingly jihadi-controlled Sinai in the south.

After all, when all the genteel, politically correct veiling has been torn away, endorsing a two-state formula reduces to nothing other than endorsing the establishment of an entity that, in all likelihood, will reflect the very negation of the values invoked for its inception; the very values the Saban Forum would presumably purport to cherish; an entity whose hallmarks would be religious intolerance against any non-Muslim faith; gender discrimination against women and girls; brutal persecution of homosexuals; and the ruthless prosecution of political dissidents.

So what Kerry should have asked the audience was the following: “Raise your hands …how many of you believe in the establishment of yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv? How many believe that the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny is critical…?”

If the question were framed that way, the way it should have been framed — to reflect political reality rather than political correctness — I venture to wager the result would not have been “a vast majority” of approving raised hands…

“…assurance West Bank won’t turn into Gaza”

Kerry does insist that he is alive to the problematic nature of the “weak and divided Palestinian entity,” and that he is not naïve as to the difficulties this poses. He asserts:

It [an Israeli turnover of power] has to happen with the assurance that you’re not turning the ‘West Bank’ into Gaza…we all understand Israel’s security. I’m not suggesting that you want to have a situation like Gaza where you can dig a tunnel and you have the ability to build missiles in a fake factory and fire them against Israel. We all understand that challenge.

Sadly, conceding/acknowledging the existence of a problem, even articulating its existence, is not the same as contending with it, and certainly not solving it — even though many left-leaning Liberals appear to believe this to be the case.

Conversely, denying/ignoring the existence of a problem, even refusing to articulate its existence, is not the same as contending with it, and certainly not solving it — even though many left-leaning Liberals appear to believe this to be the case.

Regrettably, Kerry commits both these transgressions at the Saban Forum.

Indeed, apart from hinting at some wildly complex multi-lateral/multi-national security configurations (of which far simpler versions have failed miserably and regularly elsewhere) he gives no hint as to how one might provide Israel and Israelis “with the assurance that you’re not turning the West Bank into Gaza…”

Of course, it might be a smidgen more reassuring if the US showed how it might ensure that Syria would not turn into…well, Syria; or Libya not turn into Libya; or Iraq not turn into Iraq; or even Gaza not turn into Gaza, before it asks Israel/Israelis to “bet the farm” on the chance that it now has some new miracle “snake oil” that would do the trick in the“West Bank.”

“…Oslo deal didn’t happen for a number of reasons”

In trying to explain Palestinian disgruntlement with the situation that has evolved since the signing of the Oslo Accords, Kerry suggests: “When Oslo was signed in 1993, the vision was that over the next year and a half , Area C…which is 60 percent of the West Bank … would be transferred to the Palestinian control… Well, it didn’t happen for a number of different reasons. We won’t go into that now…”

“Didn’t happen for a number of reasons”??? “We won’t go into that…”???

Really??

This might be a good time to remind folks that the reason that the Oslo process came to a screeching halt was the gory Palestinian-Arab terror that ripped through Israeli cities across the length and breadth of the country…leaving thousands murdered and maimed. It was not because Israelis built crèches, kindergartens and schools across the pre-1967 Green Line, but because the Palestinian-Arabs blew up Israeli cafes, buses and shopping malls inside the pre-1967 Green Line.

Yet Kerry insists, almost exclusively, on focusing on the former, and totally ignoring the latter — thus ensuring that his analysis will be both fatally flawed and disastrously defective. For unless one does go into the reasons for the failure — indeed, the futility — of the Oslo Process, there is little chance of addressing them…and virtually none of redressing them.

Palestinian destruction, not Israeli construction

Thus, when Kerry bewails the massive increase in the Jewish population in the “West Bank” as some sort of “mitigating factor” for Palestinian violence, he seems totally unmindful of the chronology of the events that took place.

After all, the gruesome wave of carnage instigated by the Palestinian Arabs began almost immediately after the commencement of the Oslo Process, before any significant “settlement activity” took place in its wake, clearly indicating that it was Israeli concessions, not Israeli intransigence, that ignited the violence.

It was not Israeli construction beyond the pre-1967 lines, but Palestinian destruction inside those lines that comprised the epicenter of the problem that confounded the ill- conceived Oslo Process.

Unless these inconvenient facts are confronted honestly, there is scant chance of contending with their ramifications — and for formulating policy that can contain the violence that flows from them.

Yet, rather than face the recalcitrant realities squarely, Kerry attempted, disingenuously, to sidestep or circumvent them. He thus tried to resurrect the disproved and discarded delusion of a “New Middle East,” with the promise of regional peace and prosperity being unlocked only once some agreement based on far-reaching and perilous territorial concessions by Israel is reached.

This is an absurd position to adopt. For it implies not only that the Arab world is unable to avail itself of much of the benefits Israel could offer from alternative sources, such as the US, EU, China & Korea, to name a few, but that Arab countries would purposefully put their own development on hold for the sake of their Palestinian “kinfolk,” for whom they have demonstrated the most appalling indifference in the past.

The one thing about which Kerry is right.

Two-state rejectionists are morally obligated to propose a viable alternative, which not only addresses the crucial problems that two-statism inevitably entails, but also those that such rejection will equally inevitably entail.
Kerry is, however, quite right about one thing. Rejection of the two-state paradigm is not a stand-alone decision. Indeed, two-state rejectionists are morally obligated to propose a viable alternative, which not only addresses the crucial problems that two-statism inevitably entails, but also those that such rejection will equally inevitably entail.

In particular, this calls for a comprehensive approach on how to deal with the large Palestinian-Arab population, resident in the territories that the two-state paradigm would assign the envisioned Palestinian state.

As followers of this column will know, this is something I have written about extensively and regularly in the past. Accordingly I would urge readers to revisit my many references to the “Humanitarian Paradigm”, calling for the generous funding of voluntary relocation/rehabilitation of non-belligerent Palestinian families, out of harm’s way, in third party countries, free from the control of the cruel corrupt cliques who have led them from disaster to devastation for decades.

This is the only non-coercive – or at least, the only non-kinetic – policy alternative that can ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the Jewish nation-state.

As the two-state formula begins to fade into irrelevance, grasping this unavoidable truth is becoming increasingly urgent and imperative.

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

8.66% Jewish majority in combined area of Judea, Samaria & “Green Line” by Yoram Ettinger
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71853

———- Forwarded message ———- From: <imra@imra.org.il> To: imra@imra.org.il
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM

66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and the “Green Line”
by Yoram Ettinger 11 December 2016
66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and the “Green Line”
At the end of 2015: 6.7MN Jews, including 300,000 who are Jews according to the law of return, but not according to the Halachah….
1.75MN Arabs in Judea & Samaria
1.75MN Arab in the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel (which includes about 160,000 Christian Arabs & 120,000 Druze, who are not Arabs & 280,000 Bedouins, half of whom identify with the Jewish State, including military & national service).
A 66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria & the “Green Line,” highlighting an upward Jewish demographic trend (fertility & migration wise) & a rapidly Westernized Arab demography, especially in Judea & Samaria.
================
For speaking engagements & media interviews: YoramTex@gmail.com

9.Bolton to Obama: Don’t support anti-Israel resolutions

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton slams Obama’s Israel policy, warns public Obama may turn anti-Israel before leaving office. By Eliran Aharon, 12/12/16

In an interview with Dr. Joseph Frager, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the OJC, former UN Ambassador John Bolton explained his policy regarding Israel, as well as his opinion on US President Barack Obama’s policy on the subject.

Bolton described the US policy on “peace in the Middle East” as being “bipartisan” and requiring both sides to directly discuss a solution agreeable to both of them. He also said any attempt on the part of non-locals to force an agreement on the two sides would likely backfire, making peace less likely and more difficult to achieve.

“We’ve got a president here who sadly has the worst governmental to governmental relationship with the state of Israel since the modern state was created in 1948,” Bolton said. “Right now we’ve got a president in the post election period before his term is up who faces no political consequences & who could well take steps that violate this 50 year bipartisan agreement that it’s not for the US or anyone to impose what the final peace terms will be between Israel & the other parties in the Middle East.”

He also encouraged Obama to vote against the new anti-Israel resolutions being drafted in the UN, and not fall into the trap of abstaining or voting in favor.

“Voting for these resolutions…its something we urge the president not to undertake. There are those out there who want to destroy the state of Israel and harm American interest in the region… I take this to be a real and palpable danger, not one that’s gotten the coverage it deserves,” he continued. “We want to underline here today…[people from] various different perspectives fear this outcome. We want to alert people to the threat that we’re facing, and urge everybody who values the only functioning democracy in the middle east, who values the US Israel relationship, who values the importance of peace and security in that critical region of the world, to let the president know we want him to uphold fifty years of bipartisan foreign policy and not deviate from it in the closing days of his presidency.”

First two fighter jets are expected to arrive in Israel Monday • Israel is the first country outside the U.S. to receive the planes • “This is a historic moment for you, for the world, and for the region,” says American pilot on one of the planes. By Shlomi Diaz

The $90 million F-35 is a one-seat attack plane with stealth capabilities

Two F-35 fighter jets are expected to land at the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel Monday, where they will be integrated into the Israeli Air Force’s Golden Eagle squadron.

The military on Thursday evening relayed a message from one of the American pilots flying one of the planes to Israel, who said, “This is a historic moment for you, for the world, and for the region to receive a plane like this.”

The F-35 is widely considered the most advanced warplane in the world today. Israel has already purchased 33 additional F-35s, which cost $90 million each and are set to be delivered over a period of several years, with the last one expected to arrive by late 2021. Israel also has the option of purchasing 17 additional jets.

Aside from the two F-35s already on their way, three more are scheduled to arrive in April and four more will be delivered next summer, giving Israel a total of nine F-35s by the end of 2017.

Six months ago, an IAF delegation comprising pilots, airborne mechanics and administrative support personnel traveled to the U.S. to train on the new jet and become familiar with its maintenance.

While the first aircraft are equipped with American systems, within four years Israel will have integrated its own components.

Manufactured in Texas by aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is a one-seat attack plane that can also be used for reconnaissance. The model Israel is currently in the process of receiving is the F-35I. In the future it will receive the F-35B, which has unique short take-off & vertical landing capabilities.

The plane is equipped with the most highly advanced electronic warfare and computerization systems, along with sophisticated radar systems that help it identify targets and attack them from great distances. The plane’s maximum speed is Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour), and it has an operational combat range of 2,220 kilometers (1,379 miles). It is armed with an automated 25 mm Gatling cannon and can carry eight tons of ordnance, such as air-to-air missiles, air-to-sea missiles and more. It also has stealth capabilities, meaning it can be invisible to enemy radar.

Several countries have already purchased the F-35, but Israel is the first country to receive the plane. The next country in line is Turkey.

U.S. officials tell The Wall Street Journal: Another round of Israeli airstrikes could target a new Russian transfer of Yakhont advanced anti-ship missiles in the near future • Russia moving more quickly than previously thought to deliver S-300 surface-to-air defense systems to Syria • CIA Director John Brennan in Israel to coordinate policy. By Shlomo Cesana, David Baron, Daniel Siryoti & Israel Hayom staff

At the same time, The New York Times reported Friday that the Yakhont missiles have already been delivered to Syria’s armed forces. Israel has repeatedly reinforced, with words and actions, its stated red line: that it will not allow the transfer of “game-changing” weaponry to Islamic terror groups such as Hezb’Allah. Israel has also relayed messages that it is not seeking a confrontation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, but will act against transfers of weaponry through his territory.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s last-minute trip to Russia on Tuesday apparently did not change the Russians’ intentions to also deliver the advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria. According to the Journal, U.S. officials believe that Russia is moving more quickly than previously thought to deliver S-300 surface-to-air defense systems to Syria. U.S. officials told the paper the S-300 system, which is capable of shooting down guided missiles & could make it more risky for any warplanes to enter Syrian airspace, could leave Russia for Syrian port of Tartus by the end of May.

Together, the S-300 anti-aircraft & anti-missile system & the Yakhont anti-ship system, would pose a formidable threat to any outside intervention in Syria, based on the international Libya model. The anti-ship missiles would be a serious threat to the Israeli navy, as well as the facilities above Israel’s newfound underwater gas reserves. The S-300 could threaten Israeli military & civilian aircraft flying Israeli airspace & not just over Lebanese & Syrian airspace.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia has sent a dozen or more warships to patrol waters near its naval base in Syria, a buildup that U.S. & European officials see as a newly aggressive stance meant partly to warn the West & Israel not to intervene in Syria’s bloody civil war. Russia’s expanded presence in the eastern Mediterranean, began attracting U.S. officials’ notice 3 months ago, represents one of its largest sustained naval deployments since the Cold War, according to the Journal.

The paper reported that Russia currently has 11 ships in the eastern Mediterranean, organized into three taskforces, including destroyers, frigates, support vessels and intelligence-collecting ships. Another three-ship group of amphibious vessels is headed to the region. Russia’s navy chief confirmed that warships from Russia’s Pacific Fleet had entered the Mediterranean for the first time in decades, and that the Taskforce might be reinforced with nuclear submarines, as the country starts building up a permanent fleet in the region. The group includes the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev, two amphibious warfare ships called Peresvet and Admiral Nevelskoi, and a tanker and a tugboat.

“The Taskforce has successfully passed through the Suez Canal and entered the Mediterranean. It is the first time in decades that Pacific Fleet warships have entered this region,” Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. 1st Rank Roman Martov told RIA.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meanwhile told Lebanese TV station al-Mayadeen on Thursday that Moscow had not backed down from its contract to supply S-300 systems to Syria.

“We are not signing any new contracts, but we will complete the old ones, especially with regards to aerial defense systems,” Lavrov said. In what could be perceived as a message to Israel, he said, “Those that aren’t planning on acting aggressively against sovereign nations should not have any reason to fear this.”

The unofficial response from Israeli government officials to Lavrov’s statements amounted to saying that actions will be the deciding factor & not declarations. A senior government official noted that the deal between Russia & Syria had been signed in 2010 & was delayed multiple times, despite numerous Russian statements that it would be carried out.

“We relayed the message [to Russia]. Bringing weapons to Syria destabilizes the area & carries the risk of seeing them transferred to Hezb’Allah,” a government official said.

In a sign of the growing tension in the region, CIA Director John Brennan arrived in Israel Thursday & met with the top officials in Israel’s defense establishment, with a central focus on the developments in Syria. It was Brennan’s first trip to Israel since assuming his position two months ago. The CIA chief went straight into a meeting in Tel Aviv with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, a senior Israeli official told AFP.

Channel 10 TV said Ya’alon reaffirmed during the talks that Israel “will not permit the transfer of weapons” from Syria to Hezb’Allah in Lebanon. According to local press reports, Brennan’s visit is aimed at coordinating U.S. & Israeli positions over the escalating crisis in Syria, specifically as international diplomatic momentum between the U.S. & Russia gathers for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

According to the reports, the U.S. is concerned that Israel will act independently to strike any advanced arms shipments in Syria it believes may be headed to Hezb’Allah, potentially scuttling the international diplomatic maneuvering.

12.What Finally Extinguished Netanyahu’s Burning Hatred for Bennett By Yossi Verter, HA’ARETZ

T. Belman. Yesterday, I asked a few friends what happened that the Government finally passed this momentous Bill? This article answers that question but from a Left wing perspective.

The crisis over the evacuation of Amona has achieved the impossible, bringing together PM Netanyahu & Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett. There’s far less unity in Zionist Union, though.

Few remember, but legislation to expropriate Palestinian land & legalize unauthorized outposts came up for a vote in the Knesset four and a half years ago. Exactly the same bill& , then as now, it was submitted by MKs from the National Religious Party (known these days as Habayit Hayehudi). Then, too, the prime minister was Benjamin Netanyahu, and he threatened sanctions against ministers and deputy ministers who breached coalition discipline. Back then, he threatened to fire anyone who supported the bill. This week, acting through coalition whip MK David Bitan, he punished MK Benny Begin (Likud) – who voted against the bill and the party line – by temporarily removing him from the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.
Why is now different from then? The occupied territories are the same territories; the international community is also the same. But Netanyahu is no longer the same Netanyahu. In June 2012, the NRP was small, on the verge of extinction and headed by Zevulun Orlev, a bland if likable politician who frightened no one – least of all the person who threatened to annihilate the Iranian nuclear project. In his second term as prime minister, Netanyahu felt sufficiently confident to dispose of the unconstitutional, immoral and harmful bill (harmful, above all, to what’s known as the “settlement enterprise”).

Netanyahu was then head of a classic right wing-center party, before it was hijacked by the far right and the settlers. His government included Ehud Barak, Begin, Gideon Sa’ar, Moshe Ya’alon, Dan Meridor, Moshe Kahlon, Michael Eitan, Limor Livnat and Silvan Shalom.

It’s not by chance that the only one of that group who still holds a ministerial portfolio is Finance Minister Kahlon. He fled his home party and now, as head of Kulanu, occasionally blocks extremist moves targeting the Supreme Court.

Orlev was succeeded a year later by Naftali Bennett, under whom the former NRP became a key player in the right-wing constituency. The battle between Likud and its sister party for the hearts and minds of the right-wing electorate became the essence of Netanyahu’s political existence. Hostilities intensified, fueled and fanned by the primal resentment that Netanyahu and his household feel for Bennett and his party colleague Ayelet Shaked. (Check out the next story: there’s a twist in the plot.)

The climax occurred in the 2015 election when, by means of sophisticated wiles, Netanyahu infiltrated the heart of the bastions of Habayit Hayehudi’s constituency & grabbed 5 or 6 Knesset seats for Likud. That sequence of events has since dictated his political, diplomatic, public & media moves.

That was also the genesis of the prime minister’s support for the bill currently sullying [??!!] the face of the Knesset & the country. It’s not surprising that the only Likud MK who mustered sufficient courage & displayed intellectual integrity to acknowledge the truth is one of the names on the list above: Benny Begin.

Likud MK Avi Dichter, for example – a former Kadima MK who even ran for that party’s leadership, as well as one of the 6 former Shin Bet security service chiefs who starred in Dror Moreh’s documentary “The Gatekeepers” in which Dichter preached the need to build trust with the Palestinians – toed the line all the way. His courage and integrity evaporated for fear of the voters’ revenge in the party’s primaries.

Thus, as part of the absurdity that characterizes the ruling party in the current Knesset, Bitan – certainly with Netanyahu’s agreement – announced that he was ousting Begin from the constitution committee for now. Cynicism is unbounded: on the eve of the 2015 election, Netanyahu, appalled at Likud’s list of candidates, implored Begin to return to the Knesset in a guaranteed slot. He needed the ideologue of conscience as a fig leaf for the empty bunch that made it into the top 30 slots – and of whom Bitan is a prime example. Bored at home, Begin acceded to the request.

Now Bitan, for whom the terms “conscience” & “ideology” are mere gibberish, is the one who punished Begin.

Formally, only the whip & faction head has the power to impose sanctions on wayward MKs. But there’s also such a thing as common sense. Can’t Likud absorb Begin’s vote without humiliating him? Politically, it doesn’t even serve the party’s interests. There are still Likud voters for whom Begin remains a symbol and who feel nauseated at the antics of the party’s lawmakers in parliament. The penalty meted out to Begin could well drive them into the hands of Kahlon, or Yair Lapid, or those of a new rightist party in the next election.

As someone once said: When you chop chips, trees fly.

Row, row the boat

People rubbed their eyes in disbelief: Netanyahu entered the Knesset chamber on Monday afternoon & sat down, not in his place at the head of the cabinet table but next to Education Minister Bennett & struck up a long, smile-filled conversation with him. On Wednesday, after the outpost legalization law passed its first Knesset reading, they shook hands. Before the cameras. They were all smiles.

There’s still no love lost between them, but it’s undeniable that at this juncture they are in a honeymoon phase. The saga of the bill and the onrushing evacuation of the outpost at Amona has left them both in the same boat. Instead of churning in opposite directions, they now find themselves rowing together toward a political safe haven.

The evacuation of a Jewish settlement in the West Bank – Netanyahu’s first in his 10-plus accumulated years as prime minister – will be registered under both their names. Neither of them will be able to make political hay from the other’s plight. In the past three weeks, they spent scores of hours together, mostly in private, in an attempt to resolve the problem of Amona and the other thousands of residential units whose legal status is identical. The effort drew them closer, notwithstanding all the qualifications and the ephemeral nature of political love affairs like this.

The ever-suspicious Netanyahu was convinced that Bennett was out to topple the government over Amona, and that after the election he would team up with Lapid in order to keep Netanyahu from becoming prime minister again. “I tell you, in the next election Bennett will go with Lapid,” Netanyahu told Likud ministers during the past few months.

In their meetings, Bennett told him it wasn’t so. “I don’t want to dismantle the government,” he told him last Saturday evening. “I entered politics to change things & now wield influence in education & the judicial system. But I am ready to dismantle the government if no overall strategy is found.”

They looked into the whites of each other’s eyes and reached a decision: Amona is out, “regularization” of settlements is in. If the legislation is rejected by the High Court of Justice, they are already working on another legal approach that will exempt the other thousands of homes from a similar fate. They are being aided by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, who buckled under Netanyahu’s pressure.

Two years ago, in November 2014, Netanyahu boasted in a Knesset speech that he had achieved great things for the country without having to evacuate any settlements. You can now strike that from the record. Amona will be evacuated, within 2 weeks at most. Netanyahu will emerge safely from this crisis, which threatened his coalition. Even Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Uri Ariel & MK Bezalel Smotrich – both from the extremist Tekuma faction of Habayit Hayehudi – are with him, Netanyahu notes (using his favorite phrase: “on board”). The most horrific scenario of all, losing seats to the satellite party, has been erased. Lapid, who promised party colleagues during the past year that “Amona will cause the break-up of the government” will have to continue to remain patient.

Netanyahu left the lofty sentiments to Bennett, who, with throat choking, delivered pathos-ridden declarations on Facebook & in the Knesset about the historic importance of the outpost-legalization law, as though for the settlers it were the Balfour Declaration, 2016-style. The High Court will decide whether it’s Balfour or bluffer.

It’s important for Bennett to present the package, which includes the dismantlement of Amona, as a second “1977 upheaval” – his Facebook reference to Likud’s first-ever Knesset victory – in order to offset the gloomy impact of a possible violent evacuation. He forgot that the person who came to power in 1977 was Menachem Begin – who gave the Egyptians the Yamit settlement in northern Sinai and demolished all the settlers’ homes there.

Bennett managed himself pretty well in this affair. The plan enjoys broad support among the settlers. The Amona settlers reject it, but that’s their problem. They had two years to leave peacefully, without subjecting their young children to the trauma of black-uniformed police officers entering their homes, with mounted horsemen outside, along with the attendant screaming and forcible evictions. Their leader, Avichai Boaron – who didn’t do well enough in the Habayit Hayehudi primaries to enter the Knesset – is preparing his next run in the primaries at their expense. He has no real troops, only the media that’s fussing around him.

What Finally Extinguished Netanyahu’s Burning Hatred for Bennett By Yossi Verter, HAARETZ

13. UNESCO: The death penalty for Tel Aviv residents Dr. Mordechai Kedar

UNESCO’s decision on the Temple Mount made historic headlines, but their decision on Tel Aviv’s Bauhaus architecture areas is lethal. 20/10/16 14:21

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Honest disclosure: The writer owns an old Tel Aviv apartment which he inherited from his parents.

Many Tel Aviv apartment owners and dwellers know that for years there has been no progress made in putting into effect what is known as T.M.A. 38 (the Hebrew acronym for The National Outline Plan that regulates zoning and development) in that city.

Thousands of residential structures in the coastal city were built according to appallingly low standards during the previous century, and are certain to become death traps in the case of a serious earthquake of the type that occurs in Israel every few decades. Most were built without reinforced concrete “safe rooms” for protection against rockets, the type of rooms which tend to be needed in the area every so often. A strong earthquake or a rocket attack that hits them will turn these Tel Aviv buildings into graveyards for their residents. Sad, but true.

On a more mundane note, most of these old buildings have no provision for parking in a city where parking is at a premium. They are built on narrow streets, which will turn into death traps in case of emergency. Infrastructure has rotted, the sewer system is outdated, the pipes leak, the city is aging and more and more areas are turning into slums. The only thing keeping the average age down is the number of young people who rent these apartments after the death of their owners (such as my parents, may they rest in peace) while mice and cockroaches multiply exponentially.

Then along came the lawmakers and opened an avenue for urban renewal. They called it T.M.A. 38, a law in aid of those wishing to refurbish existing buildings, strengthen their foundations, improve their physical condition – or take them down and build new ones, complete with underground parking. Each new or renewed apartment would receive a “safe room,” thereby transforming these homes from potential tombs to protective shields for their residents.

What could be more important than this plan? What could be more important than the lives of these apartment owners and their tenants?

UNESCO knows the answer. In it comes, the organization that proved this week that its entire approach is anti-Jewish by passing a revolting and delusional statement about Jerusalem. It proclaimed the 4000 Bauhaus buildings in Tel Aviv a “white city” (white? are they color blind by any chance?) and a World Cultural Heritage Site of the kind that it is crucial (to whom?) to preserve unchanged – a proclamation preventing urban renewal, strengthening the construction and building those “safe rooms.”

By doing this, UNESCO has declared that the lives of Tel Aviv residents and their ability to survive earthquakes and attacks are less important than the external appearance of their dwellings, most of which are actually quite ugly because of their age, peeling plaster and hodge-podge additions like porches and air conditioners added haphazardly to their outer walls over the years.

They claim that many of the buildings were constructed in the Bauhaus style, and therefore must be preserved forever and ever to the end of time – exactly as they are now. Lovely. Why, however, not dictate terms to the urban renewal architects and insist that if they destroy one of these homes, they must ensure that the new home built in its place is in the same style? The only difference would be that the old building had three or four storeys, and the new one will have six or more storeys, so that selling the additional apartments can pay for the renewal as well as the underground parking lot. Is that a problem? Will that destroy the sacred Bauhaus style?

On the contrary, the 80-year-old Bauhaus buildings are covered with crumbling plaster, which is either falling off or turning dark and ugly from absorbing the coal and dust of decades. The new buildings – in the Bauhaus style, of course – can be coated with materials that will keep them white and shining for years. Not only that, but the planners can be forced to build hidden air conditioning units so that there will be no more thickets of air conditioners covering the outer walls of the buildings.

There are those who claim that there are not enough schools for the added population the higher buildings will attract. They are mistaken. The people who will find it possible to purchase these new apartments will not be young couples, so that there will be no need for new schools. If the population remains mostly young unmarried tenants as it is today, there will be no flood of children who need more classrooms than there are now.

The detractors then say that the whole idea is economically motivated and that the safety issues are a smokescreen. So let the guys who run Tel Aviv’s municipality bring experts to calculate the point at which the renewal project is economically viable but not excessively profitable and let that be the amount of building expansion allowed. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

And now for my advice. I call it the “malbenim (oblong blocks) program.” A malben is an oblong shaped group of homes surrounded on all four sides by streets. The idea is to destroy and rebuild all the houses in a given malben, build an underground two storey parking lot along the entire area under the malben with several entrances and exits for pedestrians and drivers – and above-ground a group of modern buildings combining apartments, offices, stores, restaurants and green spaces of any size. This malben will provide for homes, workplaces and entertainment and allow people to live a short distance from both, helping urban transportation immeasurably, reducing air pollution and enhancing the quality of life.

The builder should be told that he will be hired to do the job if he finds a way to widen the surrounding streets as much as possible, even if some of the land of the malben is needed to achieve that goal. (If this plan has been presented by someone else before me, I apologize.)

The main thing that must guide Tel Aviv’s municipal leaders is the life of the ordinary Tel Aviv residents, who count for much more than the decisions of an openly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish organization such as UNESCO, to whom Israeli lives are expendable.

The thought of the remnants of the city’s residents who might survive an earthquake and war must serve as the compass directing municipal decisions, and any victim of the delay in implementing T.M.A. 38 will be on the city council members’ consciences, along with anyone who causes any kind of delay from an outer source.

Every step necessary must be taken so as to encourage Tel Aviv’s apartment owners to begin the process of urban renewal. “Whoever does not go forward runs backwards” as we all know, and Tel Aviv is going backwards at a rapid pace due to the delay in implementing T.M.A. 38.

Translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Arutz Sheva Op-ed and Judaism editor.