RUTHFULLY YOURS

Most Israelis will be relieved when Barack Obama leaves the White House. Although few are brimming with confidence about either of the candidates to replace him, Israelis will not miss much about Obama: the eight years of constant friction with a four-times-elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu; severe and obsessive public criticism for such actions as building homes for Jews in supposedly proscribed parts of Jerusalem, and the like.

There is also concern that the lame-duck Obama will take a pernicious parting shot at Israel from the United Nations.

As John Hannah notes in a Foreign Policy article on restoring America’s role in the world, the next U.S. president should:

… make sure the Israeli prime minister is among the first foreign leaders received at the White House and leave no doubt that the days of public backbiting and “distancing” from America’s most important and capable Middle Eastern ally are over.

But public frictions, and even harmful diplomatic moves, are not the worst of Obama’s “legacy” for Israel.

Far more serious is the deteriorating security environment he leaves in his wake.

Israel’s Channel 2 has reported that the Israel Defense Forces are “in a panic” as Russia increasingly fills the Middle East vacuum that Obama’s policy has left. Particularly worrisome is Russia’s deployment of its highly sophisticated S-300 and S-400 antiaircraft systems in Syria, and of its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, in the Mediterranean.

The Algemeiner website, summing up the Channel 2 report, says the Russian systems in the area are already:

… dramatically hampering the way the Israeli Air Force and Navy are able to operate.

Both these branches of the IDF, according to Channel 2, were used to flying and sailing wherever and whenever they saw fit, with no real threat to their movement. But since Russia began to intervene in the Syrian civil war … things have changed.

The Jerusalem Post notes:

[T]he mobile S-300 and S-400 batteries are capable of engaging multiple aircraft and ballistic missiles up to 380 km. away, putting significant parts of Israel in their crosshairs.

And although Russian president Putin is not seen as having any special animus toward Israel, a former Israeli Air Force commander told the Post:

[W]e must keep in mind that conflict with Russia could happen … [Israel] would have no other choice but to destroy the S-300s.

Meanwhile, Israeli military-affairs analyst Alex Fishman reports on the rapid proliferation of mass-destruction weapons in the region:

Deterrence reached its peak in 2013 when the American administration threatened to attack the Assad regime should it continue to attack its citizens with chemical means.

After making a highly publicized threat, of course, the administration backed off — and it’s been downhill since then. A UN report in August said chemical weapons use had spread in the fighting in Syria, and a UN report in October said the Syrian government was “still carrying out attacks with toxic gas.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The upcoming conference coincides with mounting tensions in Fatah, the result of internal bickering and growing discontent with Abbas’s autocratic rule.

Since its founding 50-some-odd years ago, the secular Fatah faction and its leaders have brought nothing but disaster, not only to Palestinians, but to other Arabs as well.

The business of Fatah is relevant to the entire international community, including Israel. Why? Because Fatah dominates the PA, which is supposed to be Israel’s peace partner and which is funded and armed by the US, EU and other international donors.

Hamas will continue to exploit Fatah’s corruption in order to gain more popularity among the Palestinians. The truth, however, is that neither Hamas nor Fatah has fulfilled repeated promises to improve the living conditions of the people.

Abbas and his old-guard cronies will continue to clutch onto power and resist demands for real reforms. And they will continue to blame Israel, and everyone else, for the misery of their people, misery they themselves have wrought.

Barring last-minute changes, the Palestinian Fatah faction, which is headed by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, is scheduled to hold its Seventh Conference in Ramallah on November 29. This will be the first gathering of its kind since August 2009.

The upcoming conference coincides with mounting tensions in Fatah, the result of internal bickering and growing discontent with Abbas’s autocratic rule. Some 1,300 delegates to the conference will be asked to vote for two of Fatah’s key decision-making bodies — the 23-member Central Committee and the 132-member Revolutionary Council.

If my title seems counterintuitive, let’s concede from the start: not everyone does love Israel now.http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2016/11/everybody-loves-israel/

There’s still a Palestinian Authority that actively encourages Palestinians to murder Israelis; there’s still an Iran that periodically threatens to finish the Holocaust; there’s still a very active boycott-Israel movement in Europe and on American college campuses. And there is still and always the United Nations, with its unparalleled half-century record of hostility toward Israel and wildly disproportionate list of standing resolutions targeting the Jewish state.

As for the United States, the current president’s relations with Israel and its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been anything but loving. Barack Obama has viewed the Jewish state almost exclusively as a regrettable holdover from the era of European colonialism and an occupier of land properly belonging to the embattled and oppressed Palestinian Arab population. Despite the president’s boasts to the effect that he “has Israel’s back,” and despite the recent renewal of military aid (albeit delivered with an air of chilly regret), he has hinted in the past at compelling Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, and many Israelis worry that a lame-duck Obama may feel freer to take unilateral action against them.

Not just anti-Israelism but outright anti-Semitism is on the rise. For European Jews in general, the encircling atmosphere of hostility, often instigated by Muslims but tolerated or excused by elites, seems to worsen year by year. Jacques Canet, the president of La Victoire synagogue in Paris, reports that the France’s Jewish community—still the third largest in the world, though rapidly diminishing—feels threatened to the point where “Jews in Paris, Marseilles, Toulouse, Sarcelles feel they can’t safely wear a kippah outside their homes or send their children to public schools.” The number of French Jews emigrating annually to Israel has steadily risen from 1,900 in 2011 to nearly 8,000 in 2015, with no end in sight; additional thousands are making their way elsewhere. No less grim is the picture in the United Kingdom, where the Labor party, in Douglas Murray’s wordsy—“the party of Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair”—has been taken over by “forces aligned with naked anti-Semitism.”

The examples multiply. All in all, then, we may grant that in many quarters, an anti-Israel—and anti-Jewish—mindset remains a palpable presence on the political and social scene. But there is also good news: elsewhere, and not in obscure corners but in world capitals, a transformation of attitudes is under way. Far from being the pariah of the Middle East, Israel is fast becoming the region’s golden child, courted and caressed even by some of its most important and once-implacably hostile neighbors. The change has certainly registered in Israel itself, but so far has been largely ignored by Western media.

More than three years ago, in a column entitled “Why Israel Will Rule the New Middle East,” I wrote these sentences:

Israel . . . is set to dominate the region like never before. . . . Indeed, instead of plotting Israel’s destruction, its Arab neighbors could find themselves courting Tel Aviv’s favor the way the United States and Europe courted OPEC in the 1970s and 1980s.

At the time, I was thinking primarily about the game-changing implications of Israel’s recently discovered offshore energy resources (about which more below). And indeed those resources, one of the most massive discoveries of the past several decades, do play an important role in the new view of Israel, especially on the part of its neighbors in the eastern Mediterranean.

But that is hardly all. Perhaps most strikingly, the change in attitude has little or nothing to do with any shifts in Israeli policy regarding the one issue that’s assumed to be paramount in the world’s judgment of the Jewish state: namely, its relations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process,” Israeli settlements in the territories, Palestinian statehood, and Gaza, not to mention his outspoken criticisms of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, might have seemed geared precisely to inflame rather than placate international opinion. Yet it is under his adroit tenure in office that the shift in his country’s favor has accelerated.

Lebanon’s newly-elected president vowed to “liberate Lebanese territories occupied by Israel” in his first speech following his appointment.

Retired general Michel Aoun, 81, said no effort would be spared in Lebanon’s effort to “defend itself against an enemy who aspires to control our land, water and natural resources,” a reference to natural gas fields located in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel.

Lebanon has claimed the gas fields extend into its water territory.

Aoun secured the presidency earlier Monday after winning the backing of 83 of Lebanon’s 128 Members of Parliament, including the crucial backing of Hezbollah and the Shiite bloc, ending a two-and-a-half-year deadlock, including 45 failed attempts to elect a new president.

Despite the largely ceremonial role the country’s president plays, critics fear Aoun’s appointment will be further victory as it solidifies Hezbollah’s national role and tips the balance in favor of Tehran in the ongoing regional conflict between Sunni and Shiite rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“The selection of General Aoun as a President of the Lebanese Republic may seem to please the country on the surface after two years of constitutional void, but it places an ally to Hezbollah in the highest office of the land,” Tom Harb, Secretary General of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution told The Foreign Desk.

The World Council of the Cedars Revolution is a Washington-based NGO comprised of Lebanese nationals living outside the country and dedicated to freedom and democracy in Lebanon.

“Aoun will have to appoint Hezbollah and allies to the cabinet and to the command of the Lebanese army,” Harb said.

The deadlock was broken earlier this month when former Prime Minister and leader of the Lebanon’s Sunni bloc Saad Hariri who heads the “Future Movement” agreed to end the political stalemate and back Aoun for president.

Hariri, who will reportedly be appointed prime minister, was the first choice of Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Richard Kemp was Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Balkans and Northern Ireland and was head of the international terrorism team for the UK Joint Intelligence Committee.

Flying in the face of the long-standing US bilateral policy of rejecting these borders, there is increasing concern that President Obama’s parting shot at Israel might be to either endorse such a resolution or fail to veto it. Such actions would have incalculable consequences – not least a flare-up in violence and the prospect of global sanctions against Israel, which would rightly be unable to accept such a resolution.

Depending on his audience, President Abbas claims to desire a two state solution. But his actions speak louder. How can it be possible to bring about peace with a country or a people that you constantly vilify and attack? Hatred of Jews and denial of their rights permeate PA speeches, TV shows, school-books, newspapers and magazines.

Murderous terrorists are glorified by naming football teams and sports stadiums after them. They are incentivised to violence by salaries and payments to their families – funded of course by the American and European taxpayer.

[Arab Jew-hatred] has caused Britain up to the present day to sometimes fail to condemn Arab aggression against Israelis, and to find excuses for their violence. All in the name of appeasing the Arabs and their supporters in the Muslim world and even at home.

[Britain] can be intensely proud that Britain alone embraced Zionism in 1917. And it was the blood of many thousands of British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers that created the conditions that made the modern-day State of Israel a possibility.

Even 99 years after the world-changing Balfour Declaration, we still have our work cut out for us in supporting the Zionist project, which owes so much to the unequalled historic backing in Great Britain.

“This Mandate [for the Jewish national home] must be carried out not nervously and apologetically but firmly and fearlessly.” – Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.