Iran threatens the Syria ceasefire effort

Posted January 17, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - Syria war, Iranian proxies, Russia - Syrian war, Syria ceasefire
Tags: , , ,

Iran threatens the Syria ceasefire effort, American Thinker, Heshmat Alavi, January 17, 2017

(Please see also, Mystery blasts in Damascus: Syria accuses Israel. “DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources disclose that the regime has reached an awkward crossroads. The Russians have taken charge of the Syrian war and no longer bother to consult with the Syrian president or Iran on its conduct. They are deeply immersed in preparing the Syrian peace conference they are sponsoring which is scheduled to open at Astana, Kazakhstan on Jan. 23.” — DM)

Following nearly six years of bloody warfare and an atrocious takeover of Aleppo by the Russia-Iran-Assad axis, the world has finally reached a relatively reliable settlement in this war-ravaged country. Unfortunately, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to this yet shaky and fledgling settlement.

Russia, replacing the United States, has become the main counterparty involved in the ceasefire talks with the Syrian opposition and its ally, Turkey.

Considering the lame-duck season between November 8th and January 20th before the new U.S. president-elect takes the helm at the White House, these efforts to establish a lasting ceasefire — and hopefully tangible peace — in Syria need to be respected by the international community. This is especially true since the Syrian opposition have blessed this campaign, directly engaging Russia and Turkey.

The new Russia-Turkey relationship has also led to actions against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) targets in Syria.

“Turkish warplanes and artillery have struck Daesh targets in Syria, killing 22 of the group’s terrorists, while Russian aircraft hit terrorists near the Daesh-controlled town of al-Bab,” reports indicate citing Turkish military officials.

In addition to Turkey, the Syrian opposition also enjoys the support of a majority of its neighbors and Middle East countries, all believing Assad’s departure is key to reach a true political solution for this crisis that has taken the lives of nearly half a million and displaced over 11 million Syrians inside the country and abroad.

The dilemma, however, lies in the fact that Iran and its slate of proxy groups are erecting barriers in the path of establishing true ceasefire and peace conditions. Tehran is in full-speed mode to disrupt the entire process, as the mullahs in Iran seek nothing but the Syrian opposition’s all-out annihilation and to completely repaint the country’s social fabric in favor of Assad, ultimately maintaining his regime in power.

The Lebanese Hizb’allah, perhaps the main Iran-backed proxy entity, is feeling the heat following the latest developments in relation to Syria. Hizb’allah desperately relies on a land route from Iran to northern Lebanon to maintain the ongoing flow of support from Tehran.

“Sources in Lebanon told the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Arab that Hezbollah has rejected the Russia-Turkey-mediated ceasefire agreement for the Syrian civil war,” algemeiner reported.

The Lebanese Hizb’allah, known to be fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad as its army has dwindled during the years, is furious over the fact that Ankara has demanded all foreign fighters depart Syria even prior to any discussion of a possible diplomatic solution.

To add insult to injury for Hizb’allah, and Tehran for that matter, is the fact that Moscow has discussed Ankara’s demands with the mullahs, meaning that the Kremlin supports the measure and is seeking an all-out diplomatic solution. This is completely against Iran’s domination and destructive policy to derail the peace process.

Such a turn of events would be the final nail in the coffin for Iran as it continues to rely on foreign recruits and the Hizb’allah to provide the ground forces necessary in Syria.

This is especially significant considering the fact that dissent inside Iran regarding the regime’s participation in the war in Syria is growing.

“On December 16th, 2016, the fans of Foolad Khuzestan B F.C chanted slogans against the dictator Assad in support of Syrians and the people of Aleppo during the football match,” opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) website reported.

The NCRI is a conglomerate of Iranian opposition organizations, including the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), advocating democratic regime change.

Videos posted on the internet show demonstrations inside Iran demanding the regime stop meddling in Syria and plunging billions to shore up the faltering Bashar Assad regime, and actually think of the Iranian people’s needs and demands.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has comissioned the Revolutionary Guards to pursue his lethal policy in Syria, resulting in horrific death and destruction across the Levant.

As long as the IRGC and its proxy militias, including the Hizb’allah, remain on Syrian soil, this country will never witness peace and tranquility. The IRGC is a major threat to any campaign to bring an end to the mayhem devastating this land.

The IRGC deserves to be designated as a terrorist organization, being Iran’s main leverage to export terrorism abroad.

It is also high time for the international community to call for the very eviction of Iran, the IRGC and all of Tehran’s proxy elements from Syria.

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

“Never Trump” Republicans Whine that Trump may say “Never Them”

Posted January 17, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Never Trumpers, Trump appointments
Tags: ,

“Never Trump” Republicans Whine that Trump may say “Never Them”, Power Line, Paull Mirengoff, January 16, 2017

David Nakamura of the Washington Post reports:

They are some of the biggest names in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administrations who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve their country again.

But their phones aren’t ringing. Their entreaties to Trump Tower in New York have mostly gone unanswered. In Trump world, these establishment all-stars say they are “PNG” — personae non gratae.

Their transgression was signing one or both of two public “Never Trump” letters during the campaign, declaring they would not vote for Trump and calling his candidacy a danger to the nation.

One letter, with 122 names, was published by War on the Rocks, a website devoted to national security commentary, during the primary season in March. The other, with 50 names, including some repeat signatories, was published by the New York Times during the general-election campaign in August.

Now, just days before Trump is sworn in as the nation’s 45th president, the letter signers fear they have been added to another document, this one private — a purported blacklist compiled by Trump’s political advisers.

(Emphasis added)

Am I being too harsh in thinking that the moaning of such “all-stars” is pathetic? If you are on record that Donald Trump’s candidacy is a danger to the nation, how can you expect Trump to offer you a job? Both letters are extraordinarily harsh.

It’s possible that Trump nonetheless might offer a position to a signatory either because Trump is forgiving or because the signatory’s service is badly needed. But to expect him to do so, and to the complain to the Washington Post that he probably won’t, seems presumptuous.

It’s also a bit jarring, at least to me, to learn that folks who viewed Trump as beyond the pale want to work for him right out of the gate. Why not wait for him to show that he’s not a danger to the nation?

Words have meaning. “Never” doesn’t mean “not until he wins.”

I’ll go one step further. Folks who, like me, were not “Never Trumpers” but who harshly criticized candidate Trump shouldn’t feel aggrieved if they don’t get considered for a job in the administration. Words have consequences.

However, Nakamura’s reporting suggests that Team Trump might offer positions to some in this category. Maybe there’s hope for the hard core Never Trumpers down the road.

Nakamura sniffs:

The president-elect has virtually no experience in national security and foreign policy, and his transition team could presumably benefit from the broadest pool of applicants for the influential appointive positions in the State Department, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security.

The broadest pool would include President Obama’s team. Should Trump consider its members? I don’t think so.

Similarly, I see nothing wrong with excluding from consideration folks who hold Trump and his policy positions in the contempt expressed in the “Never Trump” letters. I doubt that the new president will be unable to find highly qualified people for the jobs in question without dipping into the pool of 150-plus Never Trumpers. Nakamura doesn’t present evidence that he will.

Instead, he continues:

But the purportedly blacklisted figures report to their jobs at Washington law firms and think tanks in a state of indefinite limbo as their colleagues, some working in the same offices, are flirting with potential administration jobs.

Okay. Now I have to call this “pathetic.”

I know a few of the people who signed at least one of the offending letters, and I respect them. In fact, I respected everyone who signed because all of them showed the courage of their conviction.

I assumed that all of them knew there might be consequences and were prepared, and maybe even proud, to accept them. Not all of them, it turns out.

Shows how naive I am.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Rouhani: Trump’s talk ‘propaganda,’ he can’t cancel Iran nuclear deal

Posted January 17, 2017 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Rouhani: Trump’s talk ‘propaganda,’ he can’t cancel Iran nuclear deal – Middle East – Jerusalem Post

ByREUTERS
17 January 2017 16:19

“I am optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal… the deal is good for the United States but he doesn’t understand,” says Iranian president of Trump.
Trump and Rouhani

 Trump and Rouhani. (photo credit:REUTERS)

DUBAI – Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that he was optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal Tehran signed with world powers, and said that US President-elect Donald Trump cannot unilaterally cancel the accord.

“The president elect has shown he is not happy about the nuclear deal, calling it the worst deal ever signed. This is only propaganda. I don’t think he can do much when he goes to the White House,” Rouhani said in a news conference on the anniversary of lifting of international sanctions against Iran.
“I am optimistic about the future of the nuclear deal… the deal is good for the United States but he doesn’t understand,” Rouhani said in comments broadcast live on state television.

With Trump’s inauguration due on Friday, officials who follow Iran closely have said they are waiting to see what stance Trump takes on the deal, which also lifted international sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Trump has called the agreement, one of the Obama administration’s flagship achievements, “the worst deal ever negotiated.” He has, however, backed away from the assertion that he wants to “rip up” the deal, saying more recently that he would “police that contract so tough they (the Iranians) don’t have a chance.”

That raises the question of how he would react if Iran continued to test the deal’s boundaries. Twice since the pact was implemented in January Tehran has gone over a 130-tonne limit on its stock of heavy water, prompting limited criticism from the United States.

Iran has also argued that the United States has failed to provide the full sanctions relief called for by the deal, a charge Washington denies. Tehran has, however, stopped short of triggering a dispute-resolution mechanism created by the deal.

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘US defense secretary-designate wanted to strike Iran in 2011’

Posted January 17, 2017 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Israel Hayom | ‘US defense secretary-designate wanted to strike Iran in 2011’

Former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, was denied by Obama administration, which feared a strike would derail secret nuclear talks • Mattis slated to serve as defense secretary in Trump administration.

Israel Hayom Staff
James Mattis will serve as next U.S. secretary of defense

 Photo credit: Reuters

In the summer of 2011, after Iranian-supplied rockets had killed 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, the commander of U.S. armed forces in the Middle East at the time, sought to retaliate against Iran, but was denied by the Obama administration.

Mattis, who — pending congressional confirmation — will serve as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, proposed a strike inside Iranian territory, according to former senior U.S. officials speaking to The Washington Post this week.

The plan, according to the officials, was to make it clear to the Iranian government that providing rockets to its Shiite proxies inside Iraq would no longer be tolerated. Mattis reportedly suggested a nighttime strike against a power plant or oil refinery on Iranian soil.

According to The Washington Post, President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the Iraqi occupation he was trying so desperately to end. Many White House staffers, meanwhile, reportedly feared the plan risked starting a war with Iran, a country Obama wanted to seek a detente with.

“There were clearly White House staff who thought the recommendations he was making were too aggressive,” then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, told The Post. “But I thought a lot of that was, frankly, not having the maturity to look at all of the options that a president should look at in order to make the right decisions.”

In addition to rockets, Iran’s Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, supplied its proxies with deadly explosive devices designed specifically to tear through U.S. armored vehicles. The Quds Force is believed to be responsible for more than 500 U.S. deaths in Iraq.

The heated discussions in 2011 over how to respond to the Iranian rockets went on for weeks. In the end, Mattis was authorized to take action inside Iraq against the leaders of the Iranian-backed militias.

Senior White House officials said the American military response effectively deterred the Iranians and slowed the rocket attacks. Only 10 Americans died in Iraq during the last five months of 2011.

“It was a very tough, tough period,” a former senior White House official said. “And it was a very tough response.”

Mattis and some of his supporters, however, felt the American response demonstrated that the Obama administration was unwilling to take the fight directly to the Iranians, even when they drew American blood.

“The American response solved the immediate problem of Iranian-backed attacks, but was not sufficient to deter Iran from further challenges to the U.S. military throughout the region,” one senior U.S. official involved in the deliberations told The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, whether it was known to Mattis or not, the Obama administration likely denied the strike request because it was secretly negotiating with Iran on its developing nuclear weapons program at the time; and it was feared that hitting Iran would likely derail the talks.

The secret talks with Iran would eventually fall apart regardless, while 54 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq in 2011.

Ultimately, according to the Washington Post report, Mattis’ advocacy and aggressive style alienated Obama and his administration. Mattis was relieved of his command five months early, convinced his dismissal was for not running in step with the White House, friends and former colleagues said.

Now, as defense secretary under Trump, Mattis will play a different role. He may be compelled to act as a check on an inexperienced president’s instincts, The Washington Post suggested.

Shortly after Trump tapped him to lead the Pentagon, Mattis asked Michele Flournoy, the front-runner for the defense secretary job in a Hillary Clinton White House, to consider serving as his deputy.

His courtship of Flournoy suggested a bias for continuity over radical change and underscored his determination to be an independent voice in White House policy debates, The Washington Post said.

Flournoy ultimately decided that her differences with the president-elect were too deep to accept the position. Several weeks later, Mattis was still searching for a deputy.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iraqi Writer: We Need Global Fatwa Denouncing Islamic Extremism

Posted January 17, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Fatwa, Islamic extremism
Tags: ,

Iraqi Writer: We Need Global Fatwa Denouncing Islamic Extremism, MEMRI, January 16, 2017

(The title seems to be misleading. The fatwa does not appear to refer to all Islamic extremism and “denounces as infidels all Muslims who kill their fellow Muslims or [the Muslims’] allies whose blood is protected and who may not be killed [according to the shari’a].” To which “allies” of the Muslims does the fatwa refer? Christians? Jews? Hindus? Atheists? — DM)

In an article he published in the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Iraqi writer and journalist Khalid Al-Kishtainy called to issue a fatwa against terrorism agreed-upon by Islamic scholars worldwide, which will be widely distributed on the media and in public places and taught in religious and educational facilities. He wrote that the responsibility to eliminate Islamic terrorism and the ideology that underpins it rests with the Muslims alone, and that only persistent efforts in this direction will yield the required results.[1]

qishtainiKhalid Al-Kishtainy (image: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London)

“On December 21, [2016], the general secretariat of Saudi Arabia’s Senior Clerics Council issued a fatwa that denounces as infidels all Muslims who kill their fellow Muslims or [the Muslims’] allies whose blood is protected and who may not be killed [according to the shari’a]. [The fatwa proclaims] that whoever does so commits one of the gravest violations, which cannot be justified in any way, and is barred from entering Paradise. This is a clear message, but sadly it did not gain the distribution and the attention it merited. The fatwa was issued [precisely] at a time when I was thinking about, and calling for the issuing of a global fatwa of this kind, because the terror of Muslim extremists has grown into a monster whose shadow looms over the entire [world], threatening all human societies. Not a day passes without us hearing news of a catastrophe [caused by this terror]; no Islamic country, and no country that is intervening in an Islamic country, is spared [these terror attacks].

“The terror of Islamic extremists has become a well-known [scourge], and therefore requires a resounding response. The other [non-Islamic] countries [of the world] have tried to take various measures in order to monitor these extremist Muslims, hunt them down, raid their hiding places and arrest their leaders and supporters. However, reality shows that these efforts have been futile, since supporters of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and their ilk have multiplied and spread [across the world]… Their main weapon is their deviant beliefs… and we must fight them using the same weapon [i.e., religious ideology]… [To this end] we need a global fatwa, agreed upon by all Islamic scholars from all Islamic countries and sects. They must issue a notable ruling that will be distributed in all mosques, schools, prisons, educational facilities and armies, and posted in public places. Teachers and clerics will read it out and explain it from the mosque pulpits and on television, radio, the internet and on [social] networks. It is important to persist in these efforts – for [only by] stubbornly reiterating [the message], again and again, will we attain the desired results.

“We must purge the diseased minds of these baseless and fraudulent beliefs. That is a war that we must wage. The people of the West cannot wage it [for us]; the responsibility lies with us. If ISIS attains its goals by brainwashing youths [and filling their minds] with poison, we must purge [their minds] using the true disinfectant, namely true faith that strengthens one’s mind and knowledge.”

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 1, 2017.

Comments: Be the first to comment

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election

Posted January 17, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Media and DNC, Media and Hillary Clinton, Russian hacking
Tags: , ,

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, January 17, 2017

(UPDATE: This post has been removed by the author and replaced with a different analysis of the poll. The replacement article now states that “A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters followed the controversy but 58 percent doubt that the hacking influenced the outcome of the election. [This posting was updated]”– DM)

cnnlogo

 Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.

*********************************

The Democratic establishment has been pushing hard on a new narrative that Hillary Clinton lost not because of her record negatives polling going back years on truthfulness or the desire of the voters for a non-establishment candidate or the baggage carried by Clinton into the election.  Rather, it was the hacking by the Russians with a bit of help from FBI Director James Comey, according to this universal spin.  The media has assisted to a degree by referring to the “Russian hacking of the election,” which is obviously not true.  The election was not hacked. No voting machines or tallies were hacked.  Emails were hacked and none of those emails appear to have been altered. They were real emails showing highly dishonest conduct by key players.  Despite the virtual mantra from Washington, voters are clearly not buying it.  A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters do not believe that the hacking changed the outcome of the election.

The number included not just 72 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of independents but a surprising 84 percent of Democrats.

I have previously discussed the difficult sell that Democrats would have to make on the hacking spin.  As revealed by the intelligence report, the emails were not false or tampered with as claimed by Donna Brazile (who appears immune for media follow ups).  The Democrats are trying ton trigger outrage among citizens that the hacking revealed true and disturbing emails of lying and vicious dealing by insiders in Washington. It did not work during the campaign and is clearly not working now.  That does not mean that citizens are not concerned with Russian hacking. However, citizens have been hearing for years of our own hacking and surveillance of our allies, let alone opposing governments.  More importantly, (while ignored by the Democratic leadership at their own peril), voters were in an anti-establishment mood and many relished the fact that establishment figures were exposed like Brazile for things like feeding questions to the Clinton campaign.  Of course, there was clearly a selective release of such emails against Democrats and that is a valid objection. However, it takes a lot to get the public upset about being told how insiders lied to them or tried to rig the primary for Clinton.

What is interesting is the the Democrats are continuing this full-court press on the same hacking line despite the polls — a repeat of the strategies from the election.  There is no question that the hacking should focus all Americans on the vulnerability of our system and the constant threat from hostile powers like Russia.  Yet, the DNC was aware of that danger before the election and yet had a laughable security system.  In combination with Clinton’s reckless use of a personal server at Secretary of State, it shows a level of negligence and recklessness that was surprising given years of hacking cases.  Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kerry Attacks Trump for Stepping into “Politics of Other Countries”

Posted January 17, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Britain, Hypocrisy, Israel, John Kerry, Merkel, President Elect Trump
Tags: , , , ,

Kerry Attacks Trump for Stepping into “Politics of Other Countries”, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, January 16, 2017

spacemankerry

And now, a lesson in diplomacy from America’s Worst Living Diplomat.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday it was “inappropriate” for Donald Trump to brand German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s refugee policy “a catastrophic mistake”.

“I thought frankly it was inappropriate for a president-elect of the United States to be stepping into the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner,” Kerry told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour during a one-day visit to London in the last week of the Obama administration.

You don’t say.

Kerry just came off blasting Israel’s government and blaming it for anything and everything. The British government had lectured Kerry for being undiplomatic by stepping into Israeli politics in a quite direct manner.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman criticised John Kerry, the outgoing US Secretary of State, after he described the Israeli government as the “most Right-wing in history”.

Mrs May does “not believe that it is appropriate” for Mr Kerry to attack the make-up of the democratically elected Israeli government, the spokesman said.

But the State Department claimed in its defense that the Saudis still supported them.

Now a tone deaf Kerry is attacking Trump for stepping into another country’s politics. Kerry claims that’s inappropriate, when he was just guilty of it.

“I think we have to be very careful about suggesting that one’s strongest leaders in Europe, and most important players with respect to where we are heading, made one mistake or another. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be commenting on that,” Kerry said.

But his regime had no problem commenting on Brexit and threatening the UK. And his boss had no problem blaming the UK for his illegal Libyan War and assorted policy failures in the region.

He rejected Trump’s description of Merkel’s refugee policy as “catastrophic”.

“I think she was extremely courageous. I don’t think it amounts to that characterization,” Kerry said.

Kerry agrees with Merkel. That’s why he’s putting on this show. He opposes the UK and Israel. That’s the source of this double standard.

Comments: 1 Comment

Cartoons and Video of the Day

Posted January 16, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Humor
Tags:

Via Latma-TV

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

clowns

 

sitting

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

pervert

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

socialism

 

racists

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

Shock Israeli Poll Finds Only 4% Want a Left-of-Center Prime Minister

Posted January 16, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Israeli left, Israeli politics, Israeli right, Knesset, Netanyahu
Tags: , , , ,

Shock Israeli Poll Finds Only 4% Want a Left-of-Center Prime Minister, PJ Media,  Avner Zarmi, January 16, 2017

biteme

But nowhere is this more obvious than in Israel, as a recent poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post clearly demonstrates.

**********************************

The political Left is in full retreat across most of the world.

Certainly, this is obvious in the United States. At present, 33 of the 50 states are governed by Republicans (and one, Alaska, by a fairly conservative independent). Of the twelve most populous states in the union, only one, California, is completely controlled by the Democratic Party. The other eleven are either completely controlled by Republicans or have divided government, including New York, where the state Senate is majority GOP.

This is equally evident across Europe. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party is a shadow of its former self. The old Liberal Party (now the Liberal-Democratic Party) barely exists, and the Conservatives have a commanding lead in Parliament. The recent government shake-up that resulted in the fall of David Cameron and the rise of Theresa May was a disagreement within the Conservative Party concerning Brexit, an argument which Cameron lost. In France, Socialist President François Hollande is clearly on his way out, and the only real question is whether he’ll be succeeded by the conservative François Fallon or the Populist Marine Le Pen. Similar developments are rocking Germany, the Netherlands, and other European governments.

But nowhere is this more obvious than in Israel, as a recent poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post clearly demonstrates.

In order to understand the real import of this poll, it is necessary to recount some Israeli history.

Since the founding of Israel in 1948, there have been twenty Knessiyoth (the Hebrew plural of Knesset, Israel’s parliament). Over the years, the number of members has remained stable at 120, but the make-up has changed markedly.

From 1948 to 1977, Israeli politics was completely dominated by the Left. In the first Knesset, parties of the Left (including the Israeli Communist Party) held 74 of the 120 seats. In the second Knesset, elected in 1951, they held 69 seats; in the third Knesset, elected in 1955, they held 70 seats; in the fourth Knesset (1959), they held 81 seats; in the fifth (1961), they held 64 seats; in the sixth (1965), they held 68 seats; in the seventh (1969), they held 66 seats.

In the eighth (December 1973), even after the terrible debacle of the Yom Kippur War, they still held 59 seats, representing the largest single faction in the Knesset.

In 1977, the first political “revolution” (as Israeli television commentators at the time called it) occurred: Likud became the largest faction with 54 seats; the fractured Left still retained 40. Likud continued to dominate until 1984, when the government veered leftward again, and the Leftist contingent had 55 seats. The election of 1988 returned Likud to power at the head of a governing coalition, but parties of the Left still held 53 seats, a balance of power which continued until 1992, when the Left again took power, with 59 seats.

The 1996 election, which saw Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, was a bit anomalous in that for the first time there was an independent election for prime minister. Despite Netanyahu’s victory, the Left still held the largest faction in the Knesset with 48 seats. The dual elections for the Knesset and premiership continued in 1999, when Ehud Barak succeeded Netanyahu and the Left continued to hold the largest faction in the Knesset with 47 seats.

For the 2003 election, the dual system was scrapped. The head of the largest party was invited to form a coalition again and serve as prime minister. This election saw the rise of Ariel Sharon; the Left’s share of the Knesset stood at 46 seats. In 2006 Sharon was succeeded by Ehud Olmert, and the Left’s share dwindled to 27 seats. In 2009 their faction declined to a mere 20 seats; 2013 saw a rebound to 31 seats; and the most recent election, in 2015, saw them rebound again to 42 seats (this includes the new Joint List, an amalgam of three Arab parties and the old Israeli Communist Party, which has both Jewish and Arab members).

Nonetheless, since 2009 the Likud has been the dominant party and Netanyahu has been the prime minister. Now we arrive at the import of the present poll.

Since the so-called “Zionist Union,” a fusion of the old Labor party and Tzipi Livni’s “Movement” party, is the second largest in the Knesset with 24 seats, you might think that its leader Yitzhak Herzog would be the second most popular candidate for prime minister. You would be wrong.

The poll shows — unsurprisingly — that 39% of the Israeli electorate still consider Netanyahu their best option.

But next in line? Five other politicians who do not belong to the left.

The centrist Ya’ir Lapid has 19%, followed by Naftali Bennett of the Bayith Yehudi party at 13%, followed by Gid‘on Sa‘ar of Likud with 10%, then former Defense Minister Moshe Ya‘alon (also Likud) with 8%, and current Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) with 7%.

Herzog is dead last with 4%, falling below the poll’s margin of error of +/- 4.5%.

Even among those who voted for the left-of-center Zionist Union in 2015, 26% favored Lapid and only 15% supported Herzog.

Oh, how the mighty left has fallen in Israel, and seemingly everywhere else.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration

Posted January 16, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Conspiracy, Crime, Law enforcement, Leftists, Project Veritas, Trump inauguration
Tags: , , , , ,

Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration, Project Veritas via YouTube, January 16, 2017

According to the blurb beneath the video,

In this video, Project Veritas investigators uncover a group known as the DC Anti-fascist Coalition plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during the Deploraball event scheduled for January 19th.

The meeting, captured on hidden camera, was held at Comet Ping Pong, a DC pizza restaurant that is better known as the location of the Pizzagate controversy. The coalition members discuss the steps they would need to take to halt the Deploraball event. Project Veritas notified the FBI, Secret Service and DC Metro Police of the content of this video prior to its release.

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »