Behind Bibi's longevity

Jeff Jacoby

AS OF this week, Benjamin Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history. David Ben Gurion, the country's first prime minister and legendary founding father, held the office for a total of 13 years and 127 days. Netanyahu surpassed that milestone on Saturday. If he wins the upcoming election in September — and if he survives several pending corruption investigations — he could theoretically remain prime minister until 2023.

Such longevity in office would be an extraordinary achievement in any parliamentary democracy, let alone one as contentious and competitive as Israel's, where the stakes are always high and the elbows always sharp. It is all the more remarkable in the case of Netanyahu, whose enemies are legion — and sometimes quite powerful, as in the case of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom tried to bring about his political downfall. Throughout his political career, Netanyahu has been bitterly resented by the left, both at home and abroad, and especially in the media. As he remarked tartly in a recent Time magazine interview, journalists have had "Netanyahu fatigue from Day One."

But Israeli voters haven't.

Netanyahu may be controversial, arrogant and infuriating, but he has also been successful. On his watch, Israel has grown stronger and more prosperous. Despite a rising tide of global antisemitism, the Jewish state is more secure than it has ever been. The "nation that dwells alone" has never been less isolated diplomatically. And while the Middle East remains a notoriously violent, unstable, and fanatical region, the decade since Netanyahu's 2009 return to power has been the most peaceful in Israel's history.

To be sure, there has been no resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians. The "peace process" is moribund, and Netanyahu has shown no inclination to move heaven and earth to revive it — not even to placate the Obama administration, which bitterly and intemperately blamed him for the lack of progress. Netanyahu has paid lip service to the eventual goal of a two-state solution, but he has also given voters his word that there will be no Palestinian state as long as he is prime minister.

The results speak for themselves.

For years, a large and vocal "peace camp" has insisted that Israel must reach a settlement with the Palestinians or be shunned as a pariah and targeted by global boycotts. Netanyahu has proven them wrong. His predecessor's dramatic attempts to end the conflict —Yitzhak Rabin's dramatic White House handshake, Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, Ehud Olmert's offer of Palestinian statehood — ended up worsening Israel's standing in the world. The longer Israeli leaders clung to a policy of concessions and appeasement, the more respect Israel lost. Under Netanyahu, the appeasement has largely stopped — and Israel's international profile has risen dramatically.

Among Benjamin Netanyahu's gifts is great skill at communicating in English. He is one of only two foreign leaders to have addressed a joint meeting of the US Congress on three occasions (the other was Winston Churchill)

In recent years, Netanyahu became the first Israeli prime minister to visit Latin America. He has traveled four times to Africa and welcomed numerous African leaders to Israel. He has achieved "better relations with all the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council than at any time since [Israel] was created," writes Aaron David Miller, a longtime State Department advisor and Middle East negotiator.

Most important, he has expanded and strengthened Israel's ties to Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which share Jerusalem's view of Iran as a deadly enemy. Last November, Netanyahu visited the Gulf monarchy of Oman, where he was warmly received by the sultan.

Complementing Israel's improved fortunes beyond its borders is plenty of good news at home, from the country's emergence as a world-class high-tech powerhouse to a steady decline in terrorist attacks. To the extent that such things can be measured, Israel is one of the happiest nations on the planet. The Netanyahu Era has been a good one, and Israelis have been in no hurry to end it.

When Netanyahu's first stint as prime minister ended in a 1999 election defeat, some made the mistake of writing him off as a political force. "He will be a footnote, if anything, in the history of Israeli prime ministers," gloated one prominent Israeli journalist. Israelis return to the polls in September, and Netanyahu is running hard in hopes of winning a sixth election. There are no guarantees; voters may decide his time is up. But whatever happens, Netanyahu will never again be mistaken for a footnote. He is no beloved Ben Gurion, but his place in Israel's pantheon is assured.

SOURCE 






What's Most Important for blacks?  Trump?

By Walter E. Williams

Let's think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.

In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.

Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.

The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.

In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.

Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.

Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.

Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.

SOURCE 






House Democrats Rebuke Anti-Semite 'Squad'

The chamber overwhelming passed a resolution rejecting the anti-Israel BDS boycotts   

Members of “The Squad,” the radical leftist collection of four young Democrat women, are driving Democrat leadership crazy. Back in May, after a flap over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s repeated anti-Semitic comments, the House was driven to a vote condemning such hatred — only it was watered down so much that even Omar voted for it. Last week, of course, President Donald Trump successfully united Democrats behind these radical socialists by attacking them. This week, the House ended up having to pass a resolution opposing an effort to boycott Israel — an effort pushed by Omar and her pal, Rashida Tlaib.

“The resolution puts the House on record opposing the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its efforts to target U.S. companies that do business with Israel,” reports Fox News. “The movement has grown in recent years, and Israel sees it as a threat. Supporters of Israel view it as an attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state.”

Omar, Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were among 16 Democrats who voted against the resolution. In fact, in pushing for a resolution supporting boycotts like BDS, Omar and Tlaib each likened boycotting Israel to boycotting Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Omar did so — albeit without a specific reference to Israel — in the resolution itself. Tlaib echoed the resolution’s language on the House floor, saying, “Americans boycotted Nazi Germany in response to dehumanization, imprisonment, and genocide of Jewish people.”

Modern Israel exists today largely as a result of the Nazi Holocaust. Israel is by no means perfect, but, to grossly understate it, using one boycott to justify the other makes no sense. Yet here Democrats are, forced to reject this nonsense in a House vote.

What’s next? The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn writes, “The Democratic Party’s Thelma and Louise — Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar — are taking their act to Israel. In a great gift to Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going to let them in.” Tlaib is of Palestinian descent and has relatives in the West Bank. We fully expect the trip to be full of fodder for Trump to use against all Democrats.

Indeed, McGurn concludes, “The Squad is now in the driver’s seat of the Democratic debate. They are not letting go of the wheel even it means, à la Thelma and Louise, taking the whole car over a cliff.”

SOURCE 






Tourists defiant of coming ban on climbing Australia's Ayers rock



It's part of Aboriginal heritage but it's our heritage too.  It's basically a public property so why are we discriminated against in favour of one small religious group?  It's a major tourist drawcard so the ban will be a big hit on the tourist industry

A sign sits at the base of Uluru, imploring visitors to reconsider scaling Australia’s most famous natural landmark — an act that is deeply offensive to traditional landowners.

And yet day after day Australian and international tourists walk past the sign and scale the iconic rock, eager to tick the experience off their bucket lists before a total climbing ban comes into effect on October 26, this year.

As the deadline grows closer the pace of visitors is increasing with many insisting it is their right to climb Uluru and urging others to do the same.

In a number of Facebook groups, including those where backpackers look for farm work, tourists and Australians comment that people need to “chill out” about the rock and encourage others to make the climb.

In one post, a German tourist posted a picture of herself standing at the top of Uluru and said, “I would do it again if I could”.

Another person in the group said “climbing it is fun” and described the view as “fantastic”.

A man from Sydney also encouraged people to climb, attaching a laughing emoji to the end of his comment. “Climb it like every other rock on the planet,” he said. “People need to chill the f**k out, it’s like they’ve all given birth to this rock.”

Another tourist said they didn’t “give a s**t”. “Have climbed it and definitely worth it. I dont give a s**t,” they wrote.

In the same group, an Aussie described climbing the sacred rock as a “birthright”. “Australians have a birthright to climb Uluru. Regardless see ya there in 2020, ” he said.

Uluru senior custodian Sammy Wilson told ABC’s 7.30program on Monday night that tourists were increasingly aware of the cultural significance of the area to the indigenous people. “I’ve noticed more and more people are coming on tours to learn from us Anangu (the traditional owners),” Mr Wilson said. “I enjoy people asking about and wanting to learn about our country.”

Yawuru woman Shannan Dodson, who works as an Indigenous affairs adviser for Media Diversity Australia and is on the committee for NAIDOC week, told news.com.au that Uluru should have the same significance as other sacred sites around the world.

“The issue around climbing Uluru is that it is a sacred place and at the end of the day, when you see how much the world rallied around the destruction of Notre Dame and how significant that is, people understand there are sacred places based around culture and religion,” she said.

“The fact you can’t then translate that to Uluru having the same significance is undermining. “For me, it feels like Western cultures and values are always elevated above other cultures and values. It’s saying Aboriginal cultures and values are less important. It’s just a thinking that we’re less than them and that our culture and values don’t matter.”

In November 2017, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board started the countdown to when the climb would be closed permanently.

The date of October 26, 2019 was put forward — a significant day for the Anangu indigenous community because it was that day in 1985 that the government returned ownership of the land to the traditional owners.

But since setting the date, the number of people climbing Uluru has skyrocketed.

Before park management announced it was closing the climb, about 140 people were climbing Uluru each day.

Since then, the number has doubled and at times tripled to 300-500 daily visitors.

In early July, a photo taken at the base of Uluru went viral after it showed hordes of tourists snaking up the rock face.

The Anangu traditional land owners say tourists are leaving rubbish bins overflowing, illegally dumping human waste from caravans along the roadside, and have made Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park the “busiest they’ve seen it”.

“There’s cars parked for one kilometre on either side of the road leading up to the carpark at the base,” an unnamed photographer who supplied the photo to the ABC said.

Traditional landowners are devastated by the masses rushing to climb Uluru before the cut-off date and ignoring the fact the act is deeply offensive.

“It makes me sick looking at this photo at the disrespect and disregard shown for the traditional owners’ wishes,” a spokesperson from the Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation said.

“Not only do people climb it but they defecate, urinate and discard nappies and rubbish on it.

“I for one cannot wait for the climb to be permanently closed and our sacred lore, culture and traditions to be acknowledged and respected.”

At least 35 people have died while attempting to climb Uluru, and many others have been injured. From 2011 to 2015, the climb was closed 77 per cent of the time due to dangerous weather conditions or cultural reasons.

SOURCE  

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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