• Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    E. Friesen on Scoop of the Year: Proof of a…
    Hillel Damron on Scoop of the Year: Proof of a…
    Erika Friesen on Scoop of the Year: Proof of a…
    Goose on The Price of Victory
    Judah Rosen on The Colonel and the Sheph…
  • Top Posts

  • Search by Category

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 12,089 hits
  • Pages

  • Twitter

  • Meta

  • Advertisements

Scoop of the Year: Proof of a Collusion


The post you are about to read—friends and foes, left and right—is a bit unusual. Unusual for this blog; unusual for this blogger; and unusual for you the reader. If you will join me for the ride, however, I believe you’ll be rewarded handsomely. And in the most unusual of ways. But first, let’s start with the word ‘scoop,’ which among other meanings and usage, is described in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary simply as “information especially of immediate interest.” For the purpose of our post here, at this time, this description will suffice. As for how convincing a case I’ll be making, and how newsworthy it’ll turn out to be, you’ll be the judge.

You may ask yourself also: What business does this blog have—a blog dedicated normally to the politics and culture of Israel, America, American Jews, and the interaction between these three entities—to the question of a possible ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and presidency, and Putin’s Russia? Well… let me tell you. Because it all starts with a new book, written by a well-known Israeli investigative journalist, Ronen Bergman, titled ‘Rise and Kill First, The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.’ The book is getting rave reviews for its “authoritative and exhaustive history of Israel’s targeted killings of its enemies, the most robust streamlined assassination machine in history,” (Washington Post, January 26), and asks “at what point does violence in the name of self-defense become an end in itself, so addictive to its practitioners… that it undermines the very values it is meant to preserve?” And yet, though this book is serving as our springboard here, it—and the important questions it raises—is not really our business today.

What our business is, here and now, concerning an interview given by the book’s author—who’s highly regarded for his deep knowledge and inside sources of Israeli intelligence—to the NPR program ‘Fresh Air with Terry Gross,’ on January 31. And especially a segment, an exchange towards the end of that most interesting interview (conducted that day by Dave Davies), which is very much related to the question we are probing today, and which is also, to my mind, the business of every person living and working in this land. For that purpose, since you might have missed that interview (which you can probably still find on the NPR website), here’s a short transcript of part of it—limited and condensed (not altered though) to the crux of the matter at hand—as related to our investigation:

Bergman: “… a group of American intelligent officers, in a regular meeting with their Israeli counterparts, just before Trump was elected, and before the inauguration, they suggested that the Israelis stop giving sensitive materiel to the White House. They said we are afraid that Trump or someone of his people under leverage from the Russians, they might give sensitive information to the Russians, who in their term will give that to Iran… And the Israelis were shocked… that the Americans will say something of that kind about their chief in command, about their president… Few months after that, it turned out that all the predictions that the American have made to the Israelis as warnings… everything came to be true! And President Trump apparently gave secret information, and I know the nature of that information: it is indeed delicate, and very, very secret.”

Davies: “… You know of specific information that the U.S. shared with the Russians that is not being revealed publicly and that you are not revealing publicly?”

Bergman: “The nature of the information that President Trump revealed to Foreign Minister Lavrov is of the most secretive nature. And that information could jeopardize modus operandi of Israeli Intelligence.”

Davies: “You are referring to something we don’t yet know?

Bergman: “Most of it we don’t yet know.”

Well, if that’s not a collusion, I don’t know what a collusion is. If that interview is not a proof of it, then I don’t know what proof is. Or what kind of proof is still needed. Worst of all: If that’s not an admission of the leverage the Russians have had, and are probably still having, on President Trump—”under leverage from the Russians,” Bergman said—then I don’t know what leverage is. And therefore, as in the beginning, I will resort again to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which defines ‘collusion’ as a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” I’m not a legal expert, far from it, but for our purpose here, exposing the possibility, if not the certainty of collusion—and conspiracy, complicity, involvement, agreement, knowledge, all words associated with collusion—this will do. And the rest is history.

* The “Leave a Comment” link is the last tag below, in blue.


The End of Israel as We Know It


In the last few weeks—following our ‘Days of Awe,’ as it were—two major developments occurred in Israel-Palestine that might shape the reality of the place and its people for years to come. Now, while these two developments, in and of themselves, are not so earth-shattering—though nonetheless, historic—it is quite possible that they would seal the deal on the outcome, the trends, the events that have been brewing in the Holy Land for quite some time.

The first of these two developments is the unification deal between Fatah and Hamas, which was signed in Cairo on October 12, and which received the proper attention and media coverage in Israel, the world at large, and America. This deal of course is not a ‘done deal;’ in other words: thorny issues remain to be further ironed out, to be put into place and practice, until things will materialize into a sustainable reality. Until then, doubts will persist. However, there can be no doubt that if successful, this will be regarded as a momentous event, which will bring about a unified—fractured though it may still remain—Palestinian entity and force.

This development, which has been welcomed generally by the Palestinian people, the Arab Middle East leaders, the European countries; in short, anybody who for long believed that this is a major, required step towards solving the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Predictably, however, it has been rejected by Israel (strongly), and America (weakly). As far the latter is concerned, since it has no coherent policy of its own, or anybody in the State Department or the White House who has a clear understanding of the conflict, it has simply followed Israel’s dictate on the matter. Netanyahu—again, predictably—rejected the deal outright with all kinds of accusations and demands. The reason for that is simple: Anything that can bring closer a reconciliation between the two sides, with the possibility of peace and the creation of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side with Israel, is a nightmare for him.

The reasons for that, and for why this deal might in fact widen the chasm between the two sides—Israel and Palestine, that is, Jews and Arabs—and might push further away the chances of peace, are numerous. Meanwhile, it’s time for me to let you know about the second development, which came shortly after this first one, and that unlike it, received hardly any mention here in the American media, and in particular the Jewish American press. This development, coupled with the Palestinian unification deal, might signal, and solidify, the end of Israel as we know and love it. Or, to be more precise and honest: the Israel that we ‘knew’ and ‘loved.’

I am talking about, generally, the fate of the Labor Party in Israel, and specifically, the man who infiltrated it—indeed, like a fifth-column—‘kidnaped’ its leadership (albeit democratically) and now threatens to dismantle it once and for all. His name is Avi Gabbay. He is relatively a young man, 50, a successful business man—not without blemish, especially from the point of view of the ‘party of the working people’—who three months ago or so, after being a rightwing Likudnik most of his political life, including being a minister in Netanyahu’s government, switched allegiance, became a Labor Party card-carrying member, threw his hat into the ring, and—surprising everybody—had won the election, and became party chairman.

For those of you who don’t know, or remember, the Labor Party was formed in 1968, and comprised of the three main parties that ruled Israel—led mostly by David Ben-Guroin—for twenty years since independence. This union produced five Prime Ministers, and ruled Israel on and off until the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Thereafter, though not immediately, Netanyahu and the right-center Likud came into power, and never let go. Now to those of you who say, not without some justification, that the Labor Party—representing the center-left side of the Israeli people and politics—has been dead for many years, I say this: The Labor Party and its chairman, Isaac Herzog, lost by only six Knesset members to Netanyahu’s Likud in the last elections. If not for some late-hour shenanigans by Mr. Netanyahu—a la Mr. Trump—he might as well had won the election. A man of principals, Mr. Herzog refused the many attempts by Mr. Netanyahu to join his government, and be its Foreign Minister, unless there were real commitment to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, along the lines of the Two-State solution. But of course, there was no such commitment.

And so, in the last two weeks, the new leader Mr. Gabbay came out of the closet as what he truly is: A rightwing Likudnic. He declared, exactly as Mr. Netanyahu has done a few days earlier, that Israel will never dismantle any settlements. He declared the West bank settlers as the truly brave, new pioneers of Israel. Israel would never relinquish its s hold on the Jordan Valley, he’d further said, echoing Netanyahu. Latest rumors in Israel has it that he intends on changing the name of the party, where he already has power to appoint cronies to future ministerial positions all by himself, regardless of party affiliation. Furthermore, he declared his wish and intention to go into a national unity government with the Likud and Netanyahu. You see the similarities with the first development?

Why the Labor Party members—among them my 90-year-old-mother—have chosen him for their leader is a topic for another article. Though obviously, they are very keen on reclaiming governmental power, apparently at all costs. What is clear, however, is that while the first development signifies a compromise between the two Palestinian camps, and a wish—not without objectors, of course—to bring about peace based upon the principle of the a Two-State solution, the second development is exactly of the opposite kind: it signifies the enlargement, and hardening of the rightwing side of the Israeli people and politics. This side rejects any compromise, including the above mentioned Two-State solution. Essentially—it rejects peace.

Therefore, it closes the coffin on Israel as we know it: Jewish and democratic. What will come instead, only years will tell.

* The “Leave a Comment” link is the last tag below, in blue

%d bloggers like this: