September 2, 2012
First, please, see my article, up today on American Thinker. It takes on JStreet's advocacy of the "two state solution," but can be utilized in critiquing that "solution" beyond what JStreet says:
I wrote yesterday about tensions emerging in the US-Israel relationship, and noted some hot words that allegedly passed between PM Netanyahu and US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, on the issue of Obama's policy on Iran. There have since been some denials of this report (second hand: of the "I spoke to the PMO's office and was told it never happened" variety).
While I cannot verify with certainty the veracity of that report, I would like to move beyond it to a statement (this one verifiable) by a US official that certainly exposes the light between the US and Israel:
Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey made a statement indicating that while Israel could delay Iran's nuclear program, it could not stop it. Then he said:
"I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."
Complicit? Complicit? The clear sense meaning of this is being associated with or participating in a wrongful act. This is how Dempsey sees the matter? And how Obama has Israel's back?
Why is it that the Obama administration would prefer not to be associated with any Israel military action against Iran? Do they hope to avoid Iranian retaliation against their installations? Or to assure voters that they had nothing to do with it? Or both?
A senior Israeli government official cited today in the JPost, who called Dempsey's words "strange," further said:
"These comments are also a bit strange because they were said in a week when the IAEA released a report that seems to confirm all of Israel's concerns, and during a week where the international effort to isolate Iran and subject it to international pressure took a severe blow with the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran."
I hope all those who still think Obama is pro-Israel are paying attention.
I also recommend an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, "Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama: The US is harder on its ally than on Iran's nuclear program."
The 50 families of Migron have been moved out. The Court deadline was Tuesday, but in a not-unexpected move, the police and IDF came today to do the evictions. Some families went ahead of time voluntarily. What resistance there was by residents was of a peaceful nature, not violent.
Some teenagers from neighboring communities came into the community, challenged border guards and climbed up on the roof of a home and refused to come down as an act of resistance. You can see pictures of this here: Fifty Families Uprooted: the Day's Photos
The fact that the Migron residents made a decision to go quietly does not mean for a moment that they respect the judgment that was issued against them. They issued a statement, written before the actual evacuation, that read:
"This week, the forces of destruction sent by Netanyahu, Begin and Ya'alon, will rise on Migron to destroy it.
"The residents of Migron feel betrayed and pained by this move, and protest the miserable, unnecessary devastation about to happen here.
"The residents of Migron never have, and never will, cooperate with the razing of their community. We call on everyone to protest and decry the terrible destruction condoned by the Likud government.
"To all those who seek to harm us, we say: We will not break and we will not yield. Today everyone already knows – the story of Migron will end with at least two new communities."
Well, I hereby protest and decry what has happened here. I concur with Rabbi Mordecai Rabinovitch, a resident of Migron, who refused to accept the eviction notice served on him, and said:
"This is a clearly immoral act, even if it is backed by a High Court of Justice order. I don't know what a 'peaceful evacuation' means..."
If there is any "good" news here, it is that a crisis was averted because of the action of one very angry minister of the government who decided to act when he learned that the caravans to which the Migron residents were to be moved were not ready. It is to his credit that the residents have been moved, instead, to a residential school property in the community of Ofra until their new caravans can be completed.
As to the residents' reference to "two new communities," I assume this alludes to Netanyahu's schizoid promise to keep building, even as he doesn't fight for the rights of communities that already exist. One new community, certainly, will be Givat HaYakev, where the former residents of Migron will ultimately be settled.
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!