Wednesday, January 16, 2013

In The News

Who Is Naftali Bennett And Why Is His Party Climbing So Fast In The Israeli Polls?

Few Americans have heard of Naftali Bennett. But the 40-year old former software entrepreneur and his right-wing political party, The Jewish Home (Habayit Hayehudi), is taking the Israeli political scene by storm
Bennett’s party currently has three seats in the Knesset (parliament). But his support is surging. Some recent polls suggest Bennett and his team could end up with 12 or 13 seats after the January 22nd elections. Some polls, however, suggest Bennett’s team could win as many as 15 to 18 seats, emerging as Israel’s third — or possibly second — largest party.

Bennett is married to a secular Jewish woman. He’s the father of four young children, all under the age of eight. Religious. Zionist. Served in one of Israel’s most elite army combat units, Sayeret Matkal. Went into business. Created a software company that he sold for millions. Served from 2006 to 2008 as Netanyahu’s chief of staff before breaking off and charting his own political path, to the right of his mentor. Served as the director of the Yesha Council, the governing body of the Jewish settler movement on the West Bank, from 2010 to 2012. Says Netanyahu is too willing to compromise with the Palestinians, too willing to create a Palestinian state, which Bennett vigorously opposes. “I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state,” he says of the Palestinians. Last year,Bennett – and his top deputy, Ayalet Shaked, 36 (described as “the new secular face of religious Zionism” by the Times of Israel) — unveiled a plan to unilaterally annex much of Judea and Samaria (aka, the West Bank), make it officially part of the State of Israel, and give the Palestinians autonomy in their daily affairs.

The Western media is beginning to pay attention. The New York Times ran a profile of Bennett in December headlined, “Dynamic Former Netanyahu Aide Shifts Israeli Campaign Rightward.” Last week, the UK Guardian ran an in-depth interview with him.
lengthy profile in The New Yorker this month is worth reading. Manhattan liberal elites — along with Tel Aviv liberal elites — are stunned by Bennett’s rise. Author David Remnick argues that the Israeli electorate is moving sharply to the right because they are exhausted by the conflict with the Arabs; disillusioned with the peace process; increasingly convinced the Palestinians will never make peace; anxious about the instability and anti-Israeli hostility in surrounding nations like Syria, Egypt and Jordan; worried about the Iranian nuclear threat; and convinced that the Israeli left has no fresh ideas and no dynamic leaders. Is he right? I’m not a big fan of left-wing publications like The New Yorker, and I certainly don’t typically see eye to eye with Remnick, but I found it interesting to view Israel through their eyes.

Why is this story significant? See below:

According to the report, the U.S. is particularly concerned over the growing strength of the Habayit Hayehudi (The Jewish Home) in the polls and over the fact that there is hardly talk about negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as part of the election campaign.
The U.S. is concerned, according toChannel 10, that Bennett's strengthening will cause Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in turn, to strengthen the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

As for the American concern over Bennett, Netanyahu is reportedly planning to keep Bennett out of his coalition in favor of parties that would likely be more favored by Obama, such as Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid and Tzipi Livni's Hatnua.
A senior Likud official told Arutz Sheva on Tuesday that Netanyahu has indicated in private conversations he would prefer to form a coalition Lapid and Livni and that he "fears a strong Bennett", because his party will make it difficult for him to make diplomatic moves.

In other words, the U.S. is concerned that the presence of Bennett could push Israel towards policies which strengthen Israel (rather than weaken) and may push back against U.S. influence in Israel's decisions. This will be an interesting development to follow.

In today’s day and age where double standards reign supreme, Israel perpetually finds itself on the receiving end of criticism and condemnation above and beyond what any other world democracy (and, if we look to the UN’s member-states, a good portion of the world’s dictatorships) has ever had to endure. Indeed, the Jewish State is on the defensive, forever being expected to prove herself and explain why she has the right to exist. The frightening part is that the provocateurs from which Israel defends itself are not only Islamists bent on its destruction, but also Westerners whose worldview is mired in moral relativism, guided by propaganda, and crippled by the misguided notion of political correctness.

Take, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood. From the nascent stage of the Arab Spring the group was characterized by many, including National Intelligence Director James Clapper, as a largely moderate, “secular” organization. Of course the term secular is laughable considering the Islamist group’s very moniker bears the word “Muslim.” It is doubly so considering the it is also the grandfather of all jihadist groups including but not limited to al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.
But alas, the Brotherhood, which allegedly sought to usher in a new era of democracy and tolerance in the Middle East, succeeded in staking its claim across much of the region: Egypt elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi to be the country’s president; Muammar Gadhafi was ousted in Libya only to be replaced by Brotherhood progeny, al Qaeda; and Brotherhood proxies are circling Assad’s Syria and King Abdullah’s Jordan like a vulture. This is all bad news for the West and worse news for Israel.

It is no mystery that since his ascension, Morsi has already put an unsettling frost over what was once a cool peace between Israel and Egypt. It is no mystery that his spiritual adviser, imam Yousef al Qaradawi is a rabid anti-Semite, and it is no mystery that Morsi is rumored to be soon coming to the White House for a meeting with the upper echelons of American government.
This is the same Morsi who in 2010 referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” and “descendants of apes and pigs” and encouraged his fellow Arab nationalists at home to “nurse” their progeny on Jew-hatred as a means to furthering the destruction of the Jewish State.
“We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews,” Morsi declared in a speech that is now making its rounds across the Internet. “[Egyptian children] must feed on hatred; hatred must continue…the hatred must go on for Allah and as a form of worshiping him.”

 Anyone who has followed the Muslim Brotherhood knows that Morsi’s vitriolic comments and world view are entirely genuine and completely in line with the Brotherhood manifesto, which is, not coincidentally, equally in sync with all Islamist ideology.

Remember this story?

Also see:


WVBORN56 said...

If you want to be further discouraged :) read the comment section on the article about the Kentucky Sheriff. The left's deluded thinking and tactics of demonizing the right while effective is so frustrating. They portray everyone on the right as moronic, hillbillies, inbred, etc. They can't argue the substance of the issues so the resort to personal attacks, name calling and making fun of their opponents. It would appear they have gotten stuck in the junior high time warp! :(

Scott said...

WV - it all depends on the publication though. Most of the articles I am reading on the subject have comments that are very encouraging; I believe a lot of people feel as we do. However, if you see related articles in liberal outlets (NYTimes, etc), you'll see the typical delusional comments no where near grounded in reality).

And you are very accurate with the "stuck in junior high" thing. Also always notice the total lack of facts in these discussions, which they never ever pay attention to. They always fail to recognize that violent crime is always worse in the places that have the most gun control (Chicago, NY, DC etc.) and the least violent crime where you can have open carry or concealed weapons. Not to mention the increase in violent crime in countries who have banned guns. All one has to do is to look at the facts, a concept that is foreign to the communist/totalitarian lovers/

WVBORN56 said...

Sadly they ignore the facts Scott. As you have said this about control of people not control of guns. I just hope we exit stage right via the rapture really soon. Hopefully it is prior to the complete implementation of a tyrannical government.

I feel sorry for the conservatives who do not know the Lord. It is going to be beyond devastating for them when the the bride departs for our wedding feast.

Gary said...

Dear WV:
Maybe the implementation of a tyrannical government won't happen until we're gone.

WVBORN56 said...

Yes Gary that is what I am hoping. Because when America falls we will be the last bastion of hope for freedom in the world. I believe that Jesus comes back as in the days of Noah, when people are eating, drinking and giving in marriage which implies that He returns when it is still business as usual. When America falls I doubt it will be business as usual. The rapture could be what triggers the economic fall around the world. Many countries including ours are already a house built on cards. It won't take much to bring on a complete collapse.

Off to church to work with 5th and 6th graders. I'll check back in later this evening.

Dave Down Under said...

In a way I'm rejoicing at the prospect of gun reform. It means liberty and freedom for any would be innocent people who could be killed in the future. Probably something the church should be rejoicing at; liberty and freedoms for the people from those who would endanger their lives.

Not every stick that snaps in the dark is the enemy. Just so not every law that your president brings out will be necessarily bad.

In love

Scott said...

Liberty and freedom? Do people who are victims of home invasions get this freedom and liberty? Or should they be forced to obey those criminals who invade their homes or cars?

Take a brief look at history and see how much "freedom and liberty" those people who's guns were confiscated got. (hint: think Cambodia, China, Russia, Poland, etc etc etc - history is full of this story. And contrast that with America (in the past anyway) - who arguably had the most freedom for gun ownership.

Now. Compare and contrast.

Freedom and liberty as a result of draconian gun laws?

Really? You HAVE to be kidding.

WVBORN56 said...

Dave sadly it does not work that way. These laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The states here in the USA that have strong gun laws they have more crime than states with few gun laws. Those are the facts. These laws cost more lives.

Dave Down Under said...

Yes I know WV. My point is with the church. Like every other American the church defends the constitution passionately, but maybe the devotion is a little lop sided at the expense of caring for those who can't defend themselves while staring down the barrel of a shot gun at the habds of the mentally ill and the crimanlly minded. Has the church been petitioning for the freedoms of these people by asking the government to do something about the senseless violence? Or has Obama had to act from shooting after shooting and silence from the church?

I get the impression from you all that you'll defend your rights and freedoms at any cost, including the cost of innocent lives at the hands of the mentally ill, or so it seems to me. I see no debate as to the sensibilities of removing fire arm access from the mentally ill and criminally minded. All I see is you all defending your own rights and upholding your freedoms at all costs. Nothing else matters. Owning a gun is top priority!

Can you see what I mean?

By the way Scott, we have the tightest gun laws in the western world, but I can't rememer the last time we had a school shooting if at all!

amy said...

dave down under...I agree with you. We are gun owners and we think we have the right as Americans to own firearms for protection, for hunting and even just for sport. HOWEVER, I see nothing wrong with banning "assualt weapons" (If you read the fine print of the law, hand guns are not included in it btw) or requiring background checks. The proposition on the table is NOT going to take your guns away..its going to LIMIT the guns you can purchase and own. Its not going to prevent you from owning a gun, its going to REQUIRE you to have a back ground check. Just my opinion...and people DO have differing opinions, Chirstian brothers and sisters have differing opinions on this matter and that is OKAY. Doesnt make me stupid or anyone else stupid or ignorant, its simply our OPINION.

Mike said...

With all due respect DDU.....these 'school shootings' are a MAJOR propaganda move by the government to CAUSE the 'sheep' to believe that guns need to be taken away (yes, CAUSED). I wont get into the proof of that, but there is more than sufficient. If you look at the actual statistics, since guns were taken in Australia, violent crime has 'school shootings' because they dont need to. But the SECOND you remove the RIGHT to defend from the citizens, there are two groups who have government, and two, the criminals!

It is absolutely fact that any and every society who has gun restrictions, or any STATE who has gun control, has a MUCH higher incidence of gun related violence.(look at Switzerland, the last one left).

My response to amy...again, with ALL due respect....this term 'assault rifle' the propaganda term for 'ugly looking semi-automatic' is PURE propaganda....if people would do their homework and learn what all these firearms are, and what the labels the PTB have called them to get the sheeple to become passive...they would be amazed!

People need to realize that MOST firearms are semi means that when you pull the trigger, it fires. Period. THAT is semi-auto. Your hand gun, your rifle, any gun that requires you to pull the trigger.....That is NOT an automatic weapon....a repeat fire, 'pull the trigger and it keeps firing' weapon. OK...I will give you your opinion of those....however, I will still defend to the death the owning of those.....but that is not my point.

I will say this DDU....yes, I agree that we need to do something about making sure that the mentally ill cannot, and do not, have any possibility to owning firearms.....but NOT at the expense of MY freedom....MY freedom to be prepared to defend myself, and defend others....FROM those who will threaten me and mine, and removing MY RIGHT to bear arms.

We as the USA, have been given the responsibility to defend our laws. That is biblical. The minute we roll over to the propaganda, and politically correct crap, is the minute we can put the chains on. This is much different than biblical Roman Empire, or even every other government on earth today.

OK...thats my rant for the day....and all the caps are not meant to is only meant as emphasis on specific thoughts...;) (I never want to come across as offensive, just want to make a very passionate point)



Alice said...

Hi Dave... I recently read this article and thought I'd share it now. It's written by an Aussie.

For me personally, I know, as the article above states, that criminals don't obey gun laws. That, coupled with a tyrannical government and a president who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, has convinced me this is VERY serious and worth fighting.

Amy...maybe someone here can explain this better than me, but it's my understanding that the problem with banning "assault weapons" is that there is no clear definition of what one is (they cant agree), AND the definition changes daily. Not good. And if you think about it, isn't every gun an assault weapon?

Alice said...

Thanks, Mike! While I was typing away, you explained that much better than I did and said exactly what I wanted to say!

Alice said...

Correction: not sure why I thought that article's author was an Aussie - it doesn't say that. Sorry about that!

Watcher said...

The point people fail to see is any gun ban .. simply disarms the innocent. If the criminals could possibly be disuaded by a law, then u could jus make murder illegal and solve it all in one fail swoop. The 2nd amendment was put in place for the sole purpose of allowing the people to keep the gov. in check. The people need assault rifles in that sinario for the same reason militaries do. We all know why they must unarm the population and noone can begin to say it is to save lives.
If lives was an issue would we have abortion? If the issue was lives and u had something that indesciminately kills millions more per year than guns, wouldn't that be where the focus would be? who is calling for a ban on motor vehicles? Cars are responsible for more deaths per month then guns are all year.
The agenda is control. Once we are controlled world wide we will follow orders or die .. the mark can be enforced.
But everyone knows this ... the whole make it illegal and it will go away is just a dream.

Ally said...

Hi all but esp DDU,
A. The American Church for the most part , stands for absolutely nothing, not even Jesus :'(
B. Because you live on a continent surrounded by water and don't have permeable borders like the USA AND dint truly understand our culture AND have swallowed the corrupt media pile if steaming horseradish, it is very difficult to understand why this is such a hot topic here. I dint have time to explain right now but find a couple of holocaust survivors in your neck if the woods and ask them. Or a Cambodian who lived thru the Khemer Rouge. Believe me, when they tell you there stories, your hair will standon end and you will understand

Dave Down Under said...

Appreciate your input everyone and hope to see you all in heaven soon.

Many blessings

Mrs.C said...

"By the way Scott, we have the tightest gun laws in the western world, but I can't rememer the last time we had a school shooting if at all!"

"If at all"? Goodness, would think you'd remember this? It was a pretty big deal in the land down unda...

"The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002."

Caver said...

This is nonsense.

The shootings are the crisis being used to justify a larger aim, the disarming of the country. Its the first chip off a block that will continue to be chipped away.

No assault weapons have been used, its semi automatics and they have been around almost 120 have large capacity magazines.

That is the smoke screen, not the issue.

The 2nd Admendment and the resultant widespread ownership of guns is the one reason we have not and could never be taken down. We have the largest standing army in the world, and best equipped.

It is this ability to defend ourselves, and go on the offensive if needed, that is really being defended. It all falls under the cute and easy identity of Constitution, 2nd Amendment, and right to own guns.

These arguments are for the blind...You going to ban all things used for committing murders? Well, of all the weapons used, rifles of all types and descriptions are used the least of all categories.

Shotguns kill more ever year...

Hammers are used to kill more every year....

Knives are used to kill more every year.....

Hands and feet are used to kill more every year....

This is but a good crisis to be used for a hidden agenda, for the blind, IMHO. Its a straw-man for the sheep.

Shucks, water kills more every year than rifles....single shot, revolvers, pump actions, leavers, semi autos, and automatics. You going to take away water, hands and feet, knives, and hammers too?

And stop banging on our constitution, it made us free and gave the world a whole new concept of freedom and individual rights. Its the chipping away of it that is putting us back in jeopardy.

One final point....a point nobody wants to address. In EVERY instance, every one.....
when gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.
When gun ownership goes down, violent crime goes up.

You MUST debunk that simple fact for your restrictive argument to hole moisture, much less water.

Anonymous said...

Let's take it a bit further . If exec orders are allowed to change one amendment, what prevents him from using them on another? For example, free speech only allowed in private home, freedom of religion, only if you practice this way and this religion.
America was not to be run by one man!

Benjamin said...

Leaving the proposed weapons and ammunition bans aside (which are not going to solve the gun violence issues in the US), I find a number of the executive orders issued yesterday troubling, if in a more subtle way.

A summary of the orders is available invarious places online (I found this one on Hal Lindey's site) and the following are very concerning from the perspective of further invading privacy rights and civil liberties generally:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

God bless you all.

Waterer said...

Dear Bros and Sisters,

We should speak the truth but we we should speak it in love. This is an Internationsal site not just an American site.
Sometimes we are very determined to straighten people out who are NOT hearing or reading the same things as we are.There is alot of passion on The whole gun control issue and especially the executive order means of attaining tight control. It is disturbing to say the least. But let's remember the Internationial piece.
This comment section feels like ALOT of piling on DDU ,when strong opinions are shared with almost challenges in them.
On another topic, did anyone see the article about the Egyptian Mother with many children who was charged in an Egyptian court with 15 yrs of prison for she and her children for converting to Christ.
These are real issues too which no guns in the world will fix. We war NOT against flesh and blood...
This is the flip side of very good argumants made here for the importance of an armed citizrnry. There are many places in the world where our agreement in prayer is needed constantly. Let's unite in prayer for all in danger and persecution. as well as praying as those Americans among us for our country.

I believe in keeping our Constitution but if we were speaking about the first Amendment and not the second some of us would want ALOT of rstrictions put in place over violence and sexuality in our media..
We are citizens of Heaven first and Americans second.