04/8/15

National Security Question? Ask Someone Else, Says White House

By: Caleb Howe
RedState

RedState has learned this week that when Deputy White House Press Secretary for National Security Shawn Turner leaves this Friday, it is probable that he will not be replaced for that position. Instead, a source tells us they will most likely [be] offloading his duties to NSC spokesperson Bernadette Meehan’s office.

Turner has routinely been point man for the press regarding the President’s positions on intelligence, foreign policy, border security, military pay and benefits, and military and CIA interrogations. He previously served as Director of Public Affairs, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The Obama administration has been under fire from the beginning of his first term for the President’s views on foreign policy as well as his, and his team’s, inexperience. With major screw-ups like Benghazi, Ukraine, the reset button, and just this week, caving on the Iranian nuclear deal deadline, one would think that having a press secretary prepared to articulate the President’s national security views would be a no-brainer. But the Obama administration has been out-thought by the no-brain crowd once again.

It seems the administration’s need to surrender extends not only to national security policy, but even to the apparently daunting task of talking about national security policy.

While turnover in Washington is the rule, the fact is that this position has been filled, and has had an office at the white House. That will no longer be the case. That means there won’t be someone on the premises who has the job of Deputy Press Secretary of National Security. The timing, hot on the heels of the Iran “deal” and other security gaffes (like Hillary’s entire tenure at State), is especially notable.

Putting distance between the President and the actions of the government under his leadership is certainly nothing new. How many times has he found out about a major issue by “watching the news”? Now it seems he can catch National Security Policy briefings on C-SPAN, too. And won’t it be convenient for Hillary Clinton to not have to associate her continuance of Obama policy with an actual White House spokesperson.

But hey, having other agencies do the talking has gone great so far. Just look at the resounding successes of Jen Psaki and Marie Harf. And of course, we still have the always forthcoming Josh Earnest and the rest of the most transparent administration in history. Right?

03/12/15

John Kerry’s ‘Nonbinding’ Agreeability with Iran Demonstrates our Conspiracy-Incompetence Maxim

Gulag Bound

Never ascribe to only conspiracy, that which may also be incompetence,
and vice versa.

Or, said another way…

Never presume that conspiracy and incompetence are mutually exclusive,
without due evidence.

[email protected]

BECAUSE, CRUSADES: Kerry, State Department Agree That any Iran Deal Would Be “Non-Binding”

By The Tower

Over the past two days, both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki have admitted that the current nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran is “non-binding.”

Speaking at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Kerry said that the deal is not “legally binding.”

“We’ve been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now.”

Kerry made his remarks in the context of addressing what he called the “misconceptions” contained in the open letter released earlier this week that was signed by 47 Senators.

In an exchange with reporters at yesterday’s daily State Department press conference, Psaki was asked how the deal could be non-binding if the United States does not trust Iran. The video is embedded below the transcript.

QUESTION: The problem is is that you’ve stressed over and over again this is not about trusting, right? This is about verifying. But then you’re saying that these are political commitments but not necessarily binding. It would seem to me that if this wasn’t about trust, you would want them to be binding, not political commitments, which are your word. That’s what a political —

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we’re talking about specifically how pieces —

QUESTION: Political commitment just means “I will do this.”

MS. PSAKI: It is not that. We’re talking about how specifically pieces would be agreed to between the parties. In terms of the implementation of it, I’m sure we will talk about that at the time we would have an agreement.

QUESTION: Since I don’t understand then what a political – as I understand a political commitment, it means a person or a political entity saying, “I will do this; I commit to doing this.” How is that not anything other than giving your word?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Brad, if we get to the point where we have a framework, where we have an agreement, I’m sure we will have a discussion about how things will be implemented.

QUESTION: I’m just asking for the concept of political commitment. What does that mean, beyond giving your word?

MS. PSAKI: I just gave you additional examples of how that has been implemented and how it has worked in the past.

QUESTION: The Iranians have talked about this, whatever it is, that if anything happens, that it being – the idea that the UN Security Council would at least endorse it if not enshrine it in some kind of a resolution. Is that something that you think would be useful?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get ahead of how this would be implemented at this point in time.

QUESTION: So —

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done between now and then.

Last week, Armin Rosen of Business Insider reported that the non-binding nature of the deal was “one of the more curious yet least commented-upon aspects” of the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

In October, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran that would avoid the Senate altogether. That means that the deal would technically be an “executive agreement” in which the president reaches an understanding with a foreign government that doesn’t require any changes in US law — rather than a treaty, which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate and could supersede certain laws.

The trouble is that Congress has passed numerous sanctions bills relating to Iran. And while Obama has the right to grant sanctions waivers under certain circumstances, he doesn’t have the power to just take them off the books by decree.

“An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that.”

There is strong bipartisan support for Congressional oversight of any nuclear deal reached with Iran, both within Congress and among voters. The non-binding aspect to the deal is a way to bypass that oversight.

[Photo: Senate Foreign Relations Committee ]

Crystal Clear

Arlene from Israel

In case you still had doubts about Obama’s positions regarding jihadi terrorism, I provide here just one more instance that makes it clear how eager he is to deny what is in front of all our faces.

Two days ago, in the course of an interview with Matthew Yglesias of Vox.com, the president referred to the Islamic jihadis who shot up the kosher store in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attack as “vicious zealots” who “randomly” shot “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

The “vicious zealots” are not identified as Islamists. (They never are so identified by Obama, are they?) As he sees it, the choice of a kosher deli was just a coincidence. And the shooting victims were merely “a bunch of folks,” and not Jews, specifically.

Mind blowing, really.

You can see the video in which he says this, here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/09/obama_legitimate_for_americans_to_be_concerned_about_violent_zealots_who_randomly_shoot_people_in_paris_deli.html

~~~~~~~~~

Ah, but there is more that illustrates how Obama perceives matters – or purports to perceive them at any rate. It is “legitimate,” he says, to be concerned about these vicious zealots and to devote resources to dealing with them, just as a big city mayor acts to cut crime.

This too indicates an obfuscation of the genuine underlying problem that we are confronting: that problem being the ideology of radical Islam. Dealing with street criminals is not parallel at all. This analogy serves to underplay the seriousness of what is threatening the free world right now.

Lastly, I mention this, more for a laugh than anything else. Obama says it is good to allocate resources to dealing with these “zealots,” but it is important to also devote attention to “future threats” such as “global warming.”

Is this man for real? I am certain that all of my readers across the east coast of the US have spent inordinate amounts of time this winter worrying about the imminent threat of global warming. (Actually, satellite data indicates there has been no global warming for about 20 years.)

~~~~~~~~~~

A great deal of energy was expended following these remarks by Obama, in attempts to justify what he meant.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest, for example, explained that: “the individuals who were killed in the terrible tragic incident were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”

This is pathetic sophistry. No, the victims of the massacre were not singled out by individual identity. But does anyone imagine that the terrorists’ selection of an establishment where kosher food is sold, on a Friday afternoon when Jews would be shopping for Shabbat preparations, was just random? Is there anyone even half-way honest who truly believes that the fact that it was Jews who were killed was purely a random happening?

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki also dealt with this. She was asked the question: “Does the administration believe that this was…an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

She replied: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

The questioner persisted: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists, is he? Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)? …I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say this was a targeted attack.”

Her response: “I don’t have more for you…it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191210#.VNtbBpv9nIU

~~~~~~~~~~

After the attack at Hyper-Cache, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, “How can we accept that in France, we still hear about the death of Jews? How can we accept that people are killed because they are Jewish?”

What I ask is how we deal with this: that the French prime minister was able to accept an ugly reality, while the American president and those who speak for his administration dance around it?

I see this state of affairs as alarming.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, Prime Minster Netanyahu continues to make it clear that he intends to speak to Congress and the American people about a matter that is existential for Israel. He will speak in Congress, because the Congressional role may be important, and he will speak before March 24th. (He has clarified this in response to suggestions that the venue of the talk or its timing be changed.)

You can see a short video of his statement here (all emphasis following is added):

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23451

“At a time when there are those who are dealing with protocol and politics, a bad deal is being put together in Munich that will endanger Israel’s existence.”

“Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue. Not in Israel, nor in the United States…

“I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with [U.S. President Barack Obama], but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.”

~~~~~~~~~~

“Disagreements over Israel’s security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the Left and from the Right and American presidents from both parties.

“None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States. In fact, over time, our relationship grew stronger.

[He refers here to some major US-Israel disagreements over time.]

“But we do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival. This is a regime, Iran, that is openly committed to Israel’s destruction. It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.
“This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields. Equally, I know that the president appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Bibi is diligently seeking to separate out the political accusations from genuine security concerns. And yet, those opposed to what he has to say (read, those supporting the Obama administration) continue to try to delegitimize his efforts to speak out on Iran by accusing him of playing politics, making the matter partisan, etc.

Once again, I urge that if you are in the US, you contact your elected representatives in Congress. Tell them that Iran’s threat to Israel is not a partisan matter. Encourage them to listen to what Israel’s prime minister will be saying on March 3. And most especially, urge them to support the Kirk-Menendez bill.

For your Congresspersons:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

For your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the accusations made early on, regarding the Netanyahu talk in Congress, is that it was planned without (it was claimed) prior notification to the White House. This was said to be a serious lapse of protocol. Well…I thought I’d take a minute to look at how Obama observed protocol when he was here here in Israel.

As Aaron Lerner of IMRA describes the situation:

”Back on 21 March 2013 President Barack Obama declined to address the democratically elected Knesset and instead chose to speak to a crowd that was screened by the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to preclude Israelis who did not share Mr. Obama’s outlook on Arab-Israeli affairs. The White House termed this selected group ‘the People of Israel.’”

Ruby Rivlin, who was then Speaker of the Knesset, called the situation “worrying”:

”Three American presidents have spoken on the Knesset stage, as well as [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat and leaders from Europe. President Obama should speak to the people of Israel through its elected representatives.”

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Rivlin-slams-Obama-for-not-visiting-Knesset-307083

Obama only focuses on protocol when it suits him.

~~~~~~~~~~

Zahava Gal-On, head of the far left Meretz, had hoped to prevent the broadcasting of Bibi’s speech here in Israel, on the grounds that it constituted electioneering, two weeks before the March 17th election.

Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has said, however, that there is no reason to block Israeli media outlets from carrying the speech, which “has a very clear news value…;” is “substantially related to the prime minister’s work, so that one cannot say it enters the realm of electioneering;” and “will deal with important matters relating to Israel’s foreign policy and which hold interest for the public.”
~~~~~~~~~~

As to what is going on regarding the negotiations with Iran, let’s take a look at the latest:

John Hannah, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes (emphasis added):

”Iran appears to be working systematically to advance all three of the elements essential to its nuclear weapons program: 1) the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade (by developing more powerful centrifuges); 2) a nuclear explosive device…; and 3) a delivery vehicle (the ballistic missile program). The Iranians have been using the breathing space provided by the interim deal to improve parts of their weapons program that aren’t yet quite up to snuff. In terms of sheer technical capability, Iran will be in a better position to breakout to a bomb in the aftermath of the interim deal than before it took effect.

“The pretense that this process was about compelling a rabidly anti-American theocracy that has been at war with America for four decades to surrender permanently its nuclear weapons ambitions is now out the window. In its place, what remains is the quixotic pursuit of some form of grand bargain, a rapprochement that – while leaving the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place – will somehow work over time to tame the Islamic Republic.

“We see today an Iran on the march throughout the region, plotting terror attacks in the Western Hemisphere, and actively seeking to advance key elements of its nuclear program in the middle of a negotiation whose very purpose is to end that program.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/how-congress-became-the-fall-guy-for-obamas-iran-deal/

This title presents its own commentary. Read it, my friends, and weep, or, far better stand up and scream bloody murder.

~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the following comment after emerging from a closed-door briefing on the status of negotiations with Iran (emphasis added):

“It’s evident that these negotiations are really not P5+1 negotiations anymore. It’s really more of a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Iran.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191195#.VNtxp5v9nIV

This has been obvious for some time to anyone who has been watching closely. But now it’s being said publicly. And this is scary as hell. Do you realize how much power this gives Obama? And how critical it is that Netanyahu address the Congress?

The way I see it, those P5 + 1 powers that are not actively participating in negotiations have abdicated their solemn responsibility to be involved. I know that France, at least – and perhaps others as well – has been discontent with the Obama position, which is seen as too lenient.

~~~~~~~~~~

And let’s see just how lenient the US is. As Omri Ceren provided a review of the situation two days ago:

“As always there are two things at stake: process and substance. Process is about the technicalities of the next few months: when are scheduled talks, what are deadlines for various agreements, etc. Substance is about what will ultimately be acceptable to the parties: the structure of the deal, centrifuge capacity, plutonium-production capability, etc.

“The American stance on process is that there’s a March deadline for a political agreement and a June deadline for a technical agreement. The stance on substance is that the West will trade phased sanctions relief for Iran meeting confidence building benchmarks.”

On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had given a speech laying out the conditions he would consider acceptable in negotiations. It took a bit of time for careful translation to proceed. This is the heart of what Ceren reports regarding the Ayatollah’s positions:

(1) Process – rejects political agreement – “I do not favor remarks that we should agree on some principles and later on details. I dislike it when they say that there should be a deal on general principles at one stage and then we can talk about details. Given our experience with the other side, they will use this as a tool for repeatedly making excuses regarding details. If they want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations. This is not logical.”

(2) Substance – rejects phased lifting of sanctions – “[T]hese are all meant for taking away the weapon of sanctions from the hands of the enemy. It is good if they can do this. However, the sanctions must literally be taken away from the hands of the enemy. The sanctions must be lifted. This kind of a deal [is favored]. Otherwise, if they achieve no success in this regard, the Iranian nation, statesmen, the honorable government and others have numerous ways and they must certainly take this path in order to nullify the weapon of sanctions.”

“So,” writes Ceren, “while it’s technically true Khamenei pressed for ‘progress,’ what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how talks should move forward. And while it’s technically true he embraced a ‘fair’ deal, what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how a deal should be structured.”

Khameni has been widely quoted as saying no deal is better than a bad deal, and that for him, a good deal means one that is good for his nation. In other words, he is not predisposed to compromises. He wants what he wants.

~~~~~~~~~~

Fast forward one day. When Jen Psaki, our good old State Department spokesperson, was asked about the March deadline, she responded:

“Yes it is a goal, it remains a goal, but the secretary has been very vocal about that. We’ve never called it a deadline. We’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.”

The problem with this is that the date has been consistently called a deadline by US spokespersons. For example, on January 28th, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said, “…the president has made clear the importance of the end-of-March deadline…”

What we see, then, is that while Iran may be inflexible, Obama’s desire to seal an agreement is so strong that he will be unendingly flexible.

~~~~~~~~~~

I’m going to end here with a good news story of no particular consequence except for the fact that it is charming, and, I think, says something heart-warming about how we operate.

Last week, a mobile intensive care unit of Magen David Adom was driving from Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem when something hit the vehicle’s windshield and fell to the ground. Paramedic Nati Haron got out to investigate and found a baby fruit bat that had been knocked unconscious by the impact. He fed her sugar water and she regained consciousness.

“I looked at her, and she looked back at me. I tried to release her twice in the Ma’aleh Adumim area, but I saw she couldn’t fly. I took her home and called the zoo.”

The Jerusalem Biblical Zoo took her in, and she is being cared for until she recovers, at which time she will be released back into the wild.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Health/Israeli-paramedic-saves-life-of-baby-fruit-bat-after-painful-windshield-collision-390668

Credit: Magen David Adom

01/6/15

Frenetic Pace

Arlene from Israel

Where to begin in these days of turmoil, both at home and abroad?

I think I’ll start at home, with the weather. A major winter storm is due to start here within hours. It is predicted that the north, Jerusalem, and high places in Judea and Samaria will see considerable snow between now and Friday. In other places there will be torrential rain, hail, thunderstorms and flooding.

Credit: gopicpix

As long as I don’t lose my electric power, I’ll keep writing.

~~~~~~~~~~

From snow, to heavier issues regarding the Palestinian Authority:

The US State Department has criticized Israel’s declared intention to withhold collected taxes from the PA because of Abbas’s application for membership in the ICC. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki delivered one of her typical, vastly irritating statements: “We’re opposed to any actions that raise tensions. Obviously this is one that raises tensions.”

Translation: “Yes, I know the PA did something deplorable, but be nice. We don’t want to make them angry now, do we?”

Well, actually, yes, I think we do.

~~~~~~~~~~

I had alluded recently to the fact that while we are about to withhold PA tax money, the PA owes the Israel Electric Company enormous sums of money. And now, lo and behold, the Israel Electric Company seems to have come to its senses. Or, perhaps more accurately, I should say that they’ve been given a tacit nod from the government that allows them to take a necessary and sensible position.

Israel Electric Company CEO Eli Glickman has now sent a letter to Israel’s security chiefs, letting them know that there may be a certain amount of “unrest” in PA-controlled areas because a decision has been made to limit the supply of electricity in those areas. That is because the PA and the Palestinian-Arab controlled Jerusalem District Electric Company owe the Electric Company 1.7 billion shekels (well over $400 million). The PA buys the electricity from IEC and then sells it to PA-controlled municipalities.

Glickman has written that, “the debt imposes a heavy burden on the company’s cash flow…” and IEC “as a supplier of an essential service that is committed to all its customers, is obligated to begin working in the coming days to collect [outstanding funds]” either by limiting supply of electricity or refusing to connect new customers.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4611713,00.html

At last!

Please do note that service will be reduced, not curtailed. And I am quite certain that nothing has been initiated that would affect service during the predicted storm.

~~~~~~~~~~

It must be pointed out that the failure of the PA to pay this bill is not an indication of a simple lack of funds, but rather of a highly inappropriate utilization of funds. There is, for example, the matter of “salaries” paid to the terrorists in Israeli jails (with the amount of the salaries higher for those who committed more heinous crimes).

And then, of course, there is the enormous corruption in the PA, so that, while the Palestinian Arabs receive the highest amount per capita in international funding of any group, a good deal of that money seems to “disappear.”

Please see, “The 10 year klepto-dictatorship of Mahmoud Abbas”:

“Like any dictator, [Abbas is] corrupt. His predecessor, Yasser Arafat, was accused of embezzling billions of dollars of money meant for the Palestinian people, with US officials estimating the man’s personal nest egg at between one and three billion dollars. In line with his role model, after whom he named his own son, Abbas has continued this ignominious tradition.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-Holds-Barred-The-10-year-klepto-dictatorship-of-Mahmoud-Abbas-386752

~~~~~~~~~~

What must be asked, however, is why the Israeli government is not simply turning over to the Electric Company the money that is being withheld, so that a good part of the money owed by the PA for electricity would be covered.

The fact that this is not the case suggests that the government knows now that the money is being held only temporarily as a gesture, and that ultimately it will be given to the PA. Or that there is at least the possibility of this decision being made, in response to international pressure.

~~~~~~~~~~

The PA application for membership in the ICC does not require the US to act – beyond, perhaps, closing a PLO office temporarily. But, according to recently passed US legislation, no funding may be provided to the PA if “the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.”

Both Israel and members of Congress are watching the situation closely.http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-ask-congress-to-stop-funding-pa/

~~~~~~~~~~

When reports came out very recently indicating that non-governmental Israeli organizations might be the ones to pursue charges against the PA in courts outside of Israel, my thoughts went immediately to Shurat Hadin. And here you are:

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Shurat-Hadin-readies-war-crimes-complaints-against-Palestinians-386670

“Shurat Hadin said it would be sending copies of the ready-to- file complaints to Abbas, Mashaal, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and many others so that they could see directly what they will face if they go beyond signing the Rome Statute and take the final step of filing war crimes complaints against Israelis.”

They’re fantastic.

~~~~~~~~~~

International lawyer Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has now drafted “Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords.”

http://jcpa.org/ten-points-breach-palestinians-oslo-accords/

Credit: inthelastofdays

It is the considered legal opinion of Ambassador Baker that (emphasis added):

In “petitioning the UN, the International Criminal Court and international organizations to recognize them and accept them as a full member state, and by their unification with the Hamas terror organization, the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation.

“This, together with their attempts to delegitimize Israel among the international community and their attempted actions against Israel’s leaders, has served to frustrate any possibility of realization of the Oslo Accords, and as such the Palestinians are in material breach of their contractual obligations.”

“…according to the accepted and universally recognized laws of contracts and international agreements, a fundamental breach enables the injured party to declare the agreement void and is freed from any further obligations pursuant to the agreement or contract. Therefore the fundamental breach of the Oslo Accords by the Palestinians is indicative of their conscious decision to undermine them and prevent any possibility of their implementation. As such they have rendered the Accords void…Israel has the legitimate right to declare that the Oslo Accords are no longer valid and to act unilaterally in order to protect its essential legal and security interests.”

A very important legal opinion. But fairly meaningless if Israel does not act accordingly.

~~~~~~~~~~

Matters have not been exactly peaceful here in the political sphere, aka the “political circus.” A few highlights:

There were some irregularities discovered in the voting in the Likud primary, which were challenged by Tzipi Livni. After some re-counting was done, she found herself just 55 votes shy of taking the (realistic) 20th slot from Avi Dichter. She says she is not giving up yet. There have been some other readjustments of slot assignments according to the recount. But I will not report on details until it is all final.

Netanyahu made a statement regarding campaign plans for the Likud that involved some future legislation that would change electoral procedures. But this is campaign talk. If and when such legislation is proposed, I will write about it.

~~~~~~~~~~

For some many days the Herzog-Livni duo, according to the polls, was either slightly ahead of Likud or neck and neck with it. Now polls are showing Likud pulling ahead. Predictions are that a right-wing religious coalition might be composed of as many as 69 mandates.

At present, neither the newly founded party of Michael Ben-Ari nor that of Eli Yishai is shown to make the cut-off (3.75% of the vote)for getting into the Knesset.

Shas is, unsurprisingly, showing at only a fraction of its current strength. A similar drop in mandates is showing for Yisrael Beitenu (Lieberman) and Yesh Atid (Lapid).

A word about Lapid here: He has admitted on IDF radio that he went into the Finance Ministry, “a bit power drunk…we should have listened to advice more.” He sure was power drunk, and he did damage in the process. Perhaps he thinks making this confession will square him with the voters, but I do not.

Moshe Feiglin has announced that he is leaving Likud. His plans are a bit vague. Either he’ll start a new party (we need another party, yes?), in which case he recognizes that he will not be in the Knesset next time around. Or he’ll join with another nationalist party now, in hopes of securing a realistic place on a list. Ben-Ari has invited him; it is not clear to me at all if Feiglin has sufficient voter influence to bring Ben-Ari’s party into the Knesset.

New people are joining parties at a rapid clip – including from the broadcasting world and the entertainment world. Let’s see who makes the cut once lists are announced. Up-coming soon is the Habayit Hayehudi primary; not every party determines its list via primary.

~~~~~~~~~~

I close with this upbeat opinion piece by Guy Bechor: “The Arab oil era is over.”

“As the Gulf states are left with no money to spend and are experiencing internal shocks, the era of destructive Arab power is coming to an end; the Israeli mind and innovation era, on the other hand, is just beginning.

“The most dramatic news in 2014 almost went unnoticed: The United States lifted the restrictions on American oil exports, and as of the first day of the new year it has begun exporting oil to the world.

“No one believed this would happen so fast, but the US is already the world’s biggest oil manufacturer, bigger than Saudi Arabia, thanks to the oil shale technology which changed the world of energy…

“As the year 2015 begins, we are facing a new world: A world of a revolution of information, mind, personal strength, innovation and inventions. And in this world, Israel is a real princess…

“Israel is becoming a close friend of countries which were distant in the past but are close today, like India, Japan, China and South Korea. They too understand that those who are not innovative and lack a creative mind will just not be. And in this field, Israel has a lot to offer them, just like they have a lot to offer in return.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4611200,00.html

As I hear the wind howling outside my window, I am able to smile.