Arlene Kushner
For some time now I've been observing a slow move to the right -- to a nationalist position that defends our legitimate rights -- within the Israeli populace and within the Knesset. A bill that passed in the Knesset last night, after vigorous and lengthy debate, is evidence that this is so:
The "Boycott Bill" passed with 47 in favor and 38 opposed. This in spite of the fact that Ehud Barak's Independence party chose not to participate and that many members of Shas were attending a wedding. National Union, which is not part of the coalition, voted with it. Prime Minister Netanyahu did not participate in the vote (and declined to say why), but did not move to block the bill. Knesset speak Ruby Rivlin (Likud) supported it by bringing it into the plenum.
The hero of the day is Coalition Chair Ze'ev Elkin (Likud), who sponsored and actively promoted the bill.
~~~~~~~~~~
The new law permits citizens of Israel to bring civil suits against persons and organizations that call for boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control. It also prevents the government from doing business with companies that initiate or comply with boycotts.
"This bill defends the State of Israel," said Elkins. "We have no right to ask our allies to do the same, if an Israeli citizen can do as he wishes.
"The law says that if you harm me [with a boycott], I have the right to ask for damages, and if you boycott the State of Israel, don't ask for benefits."
~~~~~~~~~~
The bill was actually weakened when the clause that would have made boycotts a criminal offense was removed.
As it stands, it should -- in my opinion -- have been such a no-brainer (duhh!) as to have passed close to unanimously. Not unanimously, of course, as the Arab and far-left parties would not support this. But why did Barak's party, which is part of the coalition, refuse to support it? "because of fundamental problems the bill has in relation to freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech? A boycott? Said MK Yohanan Plesner (Kadima), "I will fight for my political rival's right to express his opinion with a boycott." Give me a break! Plesner maintained that this bill may be unconstitutional.
MK Yariv Levin (Likud) responded that Plesner was seeking a way to "sabotage the legislative process and sabotage the will of the majority." He pointed out, with regard to the charge that the bill may be unconstitutional, that Israel doesn't have a constitution. (There are Basic Laws.) The question of it being "unconstitutional" would be brought to the courts -- and would thus be an attempt to use the courts to subvert a Knesset vote.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bulletin: We knew it was coming, but it certainly didn't take long: The very leftist Gush Shalom has just filed a petition with the High Court regarding this law.
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein will defend it. Apparently before the bill was brought before the Knesset, the Ministry of Justice made adjustments in its wording to help ensure its legality. I will not belabor the finer points here now.
This will be a long drawn out procedure and represents a most serious issue here in Israel -- the possibility of a left-leaning court over-riding legislation passed by a centrist-rightist majority within the Knesset.
MK Levin, now thoroughly enraged, says, "The High Court has no authority to disqualify laws. This whole procedure is an anti-democratic step initiated by a minority that has failed the true public test – the test of elections."
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel is now headed toward a confrontation with Lebanon (Hezbollah) with regard to the maritime border between the two countries.
Because they are technically at war, a maritime border has never been agreed upon between Israel and Lebanon. A maritime border had been agreed upon between Israel and Cyprus last year, and in 2007 Lebanon concluded an agreement with Cyprus. Now Lebanon has submitted to the UN a line to the south of what Lebanon itself had agreed upon with Cyprus, and that additionally contradicts what Israel and Cyprus had agreed upon.
Israel is currently moving to submit to the UN a map indicating the demarcation of its northern maritime border with Lebanon. Action is necessary because according to maritime law, if one country makes a claim and it is not countered, that silence is considered acquiescence.
Israel's goal is to establish a boundary according to international maritime law; Israel's proposed line was drawn up with the help of international legal experts.
Israel has made it clear that her rights will be defended. Lebanon has made similar declarations.
~~~~~~~~~~
What's at stake here, of course, is access to areas that may contain lucrative gas fields. The major finds, the Leviathan and Tamar, are well south of the disputed area, but there may be other fields as yet undiscovered.
Back in January, Netanyahu anticipated the possibility that Israel's off shore gas fields would become a "strategic objective that Israel's enemies will try to undermine."
But there is another potential issue as well: Hezbollah needs to maintain an issue that can be used to justify conflict with Israel.
In a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs briefing on the issue, Jaques Neria has written:
"Hezbollah already boasts an amphibious warfare unit trained in underwater sabotage and coastal infiltration. Its ability to target shipping -- and possibly offshore oil and gas platforms -- was exposed in the war with Israel in 2006..."
It is almost a certainty that Lebanon would be held responsible for Hezbollah actions, as Hezbollah is part of the government at present.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, Haaretz came out with a report, which I'm seeing cited elsewhere now, that Obama supported the Lebanese position on maritime borders. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Lieberman, and Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon have all explicitly stated that this is not the case.
This is Caroline Glick's version of matters, in "The Path to the next Lebanon war":
"...guided by its appeasement ideology, the Obama administration has refused to take sides. It urged Israel to submit its counter-claim to the UN – where it can bully Israel into accepting arbitration of the dispute by the inherently anti-Israel UN.
"More generally, by refusing to take sides, the US is in fact siding with its enemy Iran and Iran’s proxy Hezbollah against its ally Israel.
"According to media reports, the Obama administration claims that by acting in this manner, it is seeking to prevent a flare-up of hostilities. That is, the administration believes that if it shows Hezbollah its good will by treating Israel’s honest claim as equal to Lebanon/Hezbollah/Iran’s false claim, it will appease the latter into not waging a war of aggression against the former."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=228892
Once again, and ever more, it is essential for our government to stand strong, most especially in the face of Obama's appeasement.
~~~~~~~~~~
OK. Let me turn here to the subject of Glenn Beck -- conservative American political commentator, and radio host, whose rise to fame came via his Fox News show, cancelled last month. I was present yesterday when Beck addressed the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee, chaired by MK Danny Danon (Likud).
In many quarters on the right, Beck is considered the best thing to have happened to Israel since falafel. Unquestionably, in a media climate that oozes anti-Israel bias, Beck's whole-hearted -- and, he says, unconditional -- support for Israel is greatly welcome. He should be treated by us with the utmost in hospitality and cordiality.
I would suggest, however, that a level-headed approach to what he says is in order, and that adulation is not.
By way of example: Beck made an allusion yesterday to having been inspired by Ruth in the Bible. And shortly thereafter material came into my in-box with the subject line regarding Beck: "Your God is my God," which were Ruth's words. But Ruth is considered the quintessential convert. When she said it, she meant it literally. Beck, on the other hand, is Mormon, and last I heard he's not converting. Nor am I suggesting he should. What I am suggesting is that enthusiasm for what he says be just slightly tempered.
~~~~~~~~~~
Beck delivered a good message yesterday. In brief, he said that in fighting for Israel we must "think out of the box," by simply telling the truth. This is not what the media do -- the media tell people what they want to hear, or what they think they're supposed to be saying (or, I will add, what suits their political agenda). We need to stop playing that game.
What is more, he says, it's possible to move past the traditional media sources today via the Internet -- going directly to the people.
All of this resonates most positively with me, as my readers will understand.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the course of speaking, however, he mentioned that when he sees people on the street here, he doesn't notice if they're Israeli or Palestinian. Actually, he doesn't know many Palestinians or Israelis, but it doesn't matter, because people are people and they're the same everywhere. It's the leaders who foment trouble -- the Arab leaders who seek to destroy Israel (and he's straight on that score!). But the people, they just want to live their lives, and raise their children.
And that, my friends, is where he lost me. That's a left wing, politically correct position. And it's a very erroneous one. All people are most assuredly not the same.
Either Beck said this because he "doesn't get it," as one journalist wrote. Or, as others have suggested, he was simply trying to be "non-political" in his stance. But if this is the case, then he's failing to take his own advice about telling the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Various members of the Knesset who sit on the Committee had their opportunity to speak. MK Arieh Eldad (National Union) was the only one to take on what Beck said regarding all people being the same. Eldad, who served as a physician and burn specialist before turning to politics, told two stories. I share one, in which he was particularly involved. Many of us have heard it before, but it makes the point beautifully.
Some years ago, a woman in Gaza was badly burned by her own family for some infraction that compromised the family honor. She was brought to Soroka hospital and there Jewish doctors saved her life -- without thought to the fact that she was an Arab. She returned to Gaza, but had to come back to the hospital every so often for follow-up. Having been back and forth several times, she assumed she could move past the security check easily. But she was stopped, and was found to be wearing a belt with explosives. She was intent on going into the hospital and blowing up the very doctors who had saved her life. Why? Her family told her that this is how she could redeem herself and the family honor. She'd be dead, but she'd be "forgiven."
All people are not the same.
~~~~~~~~~~
Beck's other message, which is welcome, is that Israel is not alone.
By way of proving this, he's coming back to Israel on August 24, leading a mission called "Restoring Courage." The event is scheduled to be held at the Davidson Center -- an archeological site at the south wall of the Temple Mount. He's bringing people from the left and from the right who represent a host of countries. Political figures will be coming -- including presidential candidates.
Additionally, there will be 700 remote-viewing centers set up, so people can see what's happening in Jerusalem. People will be encouraged to reach out to each other and join together to watch.
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, it looks as if the "peace process," which has been sustained for some time on life support equipment, may be taking its last gasp. The Quartet has met but was unable to come up with a plan to bring the parties back to the table. Are we surprised?
The members of the Quartet themselves were so at odds as to how to proceed that they could not come up with a statement at the end of their meeting. Needless to say, these differences merely reflect the huge differences between the positions of the PLO and Israel.
See more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-mideast-mediators-to-discuss-old-new-problems-in-gloomy-israeli-palestinian-peace-process/2011/07/11/gIQATshR8H.html
~~~~~~~~~~
At long last, an article that tells you what I, having consulted with legal authorities, have been telling you for some time now:
Writing in Haaretz, Yonaton Touval says:
"...amid growing confusion over how the international community should respond to the Palestinian bid for United Nations recognition, it is high time to dispel some basic misconceptions about September.
"...the UN will not vote on recognition of a Palestinian state. The reason is simple: It can't. According to international law, only states can recognize other states. The UN, by contrast, is an international organization and is therefore not mandated to grant official recognition to states."
Touval explains precisely how confused the situation is, and then advises:
"The international community should do its utmost to spare the Palestinians an awkward (and potentially explosive ) letdown at the UN this September."
The entire article is well worth a read:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/ignore-the-impossible-go-for-the-probable-1.372065
No comments:
Post a Comment