Tuesday, March 31, 2015

How will the US handle Iran’s demands?

There’s a deadline today. It’s a deadline for the US to reach a deal with Iran, to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons.

As of 3 pm today, March 31, 2015, Israel time, news reports don’t sound optimistic that a deal will be reached. It seemed that, as the deadline loomed, Iran dug in its heels. Iran wants all sanctions lifted now. But it won’t yield on a number of nuclear items.

How will the US under Barack Obama handle the intransigent, demanding Iran? Will the US walk? Will the US sign something just to get a deal done?

Here’s an item from a reader. It’s a recent editorial from Investors .com (March 30, 2015):

“Iran Is Shaking Down Desperate-Seeming United States” 

Iran: At the eleventh hour before the Tuesday deadline, Tehran negotiators predictably changed positions and demanded new concessions. Unfortunately, unlike Ronald Reagan, President Obama won't be walking away.

As the world's leading terrorist sponsor state, which for years has sought nuclear weapons, backs Secretary of State John Kerry and negotiators for the other major powers into a corner, Americans should think back nearly three decades ago to a low-key former British Embassy in northern Reykjavik in Iceland.

It was there, in October 1986, that Ronald Reagan picked up his papers and walked out on a U.S.-Soviet summit, not caring a whit what the media or the Washington establishment would say.

In "The Age of Reagan," Steven Hayward recalls what Reagan had to endure after refusing to give up the embryonic U.S. missile defense program against nuclear attack, in a last-minute Soviet negotiating demand.

State Department diplomats there were devastated that there was no deal. "Some of Reagan's own people shared the sour mood. ... The mood on Air Force One returning to Washington was somber" with few exceptions, wrote Hayward, though "Reagan's old friend and U.S. Information Agency director Charles Wick told Reagan he had just won the Cold War, though the logic of his optimism was not transparent at that moment."

He had won the Cold War by standing his ground that day, as many ex-Soviets confirmed. Striking a note familiar today, Gorbachev adviser Anatoly Chernyaev's notes show that the Russian ruler believed "Reagan needs" a deal at Reykjavik "as a matter of personal ambition, so as to go down in history as a 'peace president.'"

But Reagan needed nothing of the sort. He knew his job was to protect the nation and the Free World and that those seated across from him were representatives of what he wasn't afraid to call an Evil Empire.

The Obama administration inhabits a very different planet. The president may have said earlier this month that he would be willing to walk away from a bad deal, but to do so would mean a foreign policy legacy over eight years that boasts only surrender in two wars and the consequent rise of the savage Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Unlike Reagan, Obama does need this deal. Or his ego does anyway.

And it is a bad deal indeed. Tehran has apparently reneged on its willingness to ship its already-enriched uranium to Russia — a point of no consolation to the U.S. anyway, since Moscow has spent decades helping Iran construct its nuclear program. And Iran is now demanding that all sanctions be lifted immediately.

An increasingly desperate-seeming U.S., meanwhile, has been making 11th-hour concessions, like letting Iran operate centrifuges enriching uranium at an underground facility built to withstand attacks by American or Israeli bombers.

Kerry said at a Swiss chocolate shop on Friday that there will be a deal inshallah — "if Allah wishes it."

Americans who have been watching closely, on the other hand, are hoping God will save us from a deal.

My comment: the US should walk away from any negotiations that won’t guarantee a nuclear-free Iran. Will it?

It might, at least this time.

We’ll find out in a matter of hours.




An early April Fool’s Day?

Tomorrow is April 1, 2015. In America, April 1st is always April Fool’s Day. Traditionally, it’s a day of hoaxes and jokes.

Will America’s media pull a hoax tomorrow on the American people? Will the media print stories of a ‘successful’ US-Iran nuclear deal—and then on April 2 declare that those headlines were just a hoax?

Or, alternatively, perhaps America’s media will play a joke on America. Perhaps the media will print ‘Iran Agrees to Deal with US’—then leave everyone to figure out for himself that the headline was a just a joke.

Perhaps America will move up April Fool’s Day to today, March 31. Then they’ll cry, April Fool’s!
Hope you like jokes about nuclear bombs in the hands of people who want Israel wiped off the map.

Remember, now, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on March 3, 2015 (in a highly-publicized speech) that the planned US deal with Iran would virtually guarantee that Iran got  nuclear weapons. Surely, you also remember that Obama immediately dismissed Netanyahu’s comments. He defended himself. He said, “What I can guarantee [emphasis mine] is that if it’s a deal I’ve signed off on, I will be able to prove [emphasis mine] that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon” (Charlie Spierling, “Obama reacts to Netanyahu Speech ‘As Far As I Could Tell, There Was Nothing New’”, Breitbart, March 3, 2015).

That statement sure sounds strong. It sure sounds decisive.

It sounds like a guarantee—with proof.

Remember also that, after Netanyahu’s speech, Democrats and loyal Administration media outlets hacked at Netanyahu as if he were some kind of selfish, arrogant fiend. He was vilified by some, dismissed by some—and sneered at by many.

Lucky for you, you’ll find out soon who was the arrogant one, who the truth-teller. Unfortunately, it’ll be April Fool’s Day when most of you do find out.

There’s another possible joke here. The deal the US has been so hungry for won’t be a deal (Elise Labott and Ben Brumfield, “Iran nuclear talks: 'Tricky issues' remain, Kerry says”, CNN, March 31, 2015). All that demonization of and outrage at Netanyahu was for nothing: Netanyahu was right all along.

Maybe the April Fool’s Day joke will be, ‘we’ll get the deal in June!’

Who’s the Fool in all of this?

Monday, March 30, 2015

Joe Biden, Netanyahu and Jews of the exile

Early this year, after the Charlie Hebdo/Jewish supermarket attacks in Paris, France, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to Paris. He spoke to a huge crowd in Paris’ historic Grand Synagogue (Emily Greenhouse, “Netanyahu does not speak for all American Jews”, Bloomberg News, January 13, 2015). He said the Jews of France had the privilege—not always available to Jews—of joining their brothers and sisters in their historic homeland of Israel: he invited France’s Jews to emigrate (make aliyah) to Israel (ibid).

Jews in France have a problem. They aren’t safe. For example, to protect Jewish schools and other “sensitive” locations, France has had to mobilize 10,000 soldiers and 4,700 police officers (ibid).

A growing number of Jews in France are afraid to walk in public with anything that identifies their Jewishness. In 2013, 40 per cent of French Jews had this fear (“1 in 4 European Jews afraid to wear kippah, Jewish symbols in public, survey shows”, Jerusalem Post, October 16, 2013). By 2015, it was worse. This past February, journalist Zvika Klein walked through different parts of Paris (with a bodyguard and a cameraman with a hidden camera) wearing tzitzit and a kippa (“10 hours of fear and loathing in Paris”, nrg, February 15, 2015). He wrote of that experience: “Welcome to Paris 2015, where soldiers are walking every street that houses a Jewish institution, and where keffiyeh-wearing men and veiled women speak Arabic on every street corner. Walking down one Parisian suburb, I was asked what I doing there. In modern-day Paris, you see, Jews are barred from entering certain areas” (ibid). At times, he felt as if he were walking in Ramallah (ibid).

Stephen Pollard wrote of Paris in January, 2015, “when it comes to home-grown anti-Semitism, France leads the world (“Antisemitism in France: the exodus has begun”, The Telegraph, January 9, 2015). He referenced a 2014 survey that stated that in 2013, France had more violent anti-Semitic incidents than any other country in the world (ibid).

At least 6 per cent of Europe’s population is Muslim (Simon Rogers, “Muslim populations by country: how big will each Muslim population be by 2030?”, The Guardian, January 28, 2011). In France, the number is at least 7.5 per cent (ibid).

By contrast, France’s Jews represent less than 1 per cent of France’s population. Not coincidentally, almost all anti-Jewish attacks in France are committed by Muslims (Pollard, The Telegraph, above).

So how did the French Jews attending Netanyahu’s Paris speech react to his invitation to move to Israel? They rose to sing the French national anthem, as if to demonstrate they preferred France to Israel (Greenhouse, Bloomberg News, above).

Shortly after his Paris visit, Netanyahu announced his plan to speak before the US Congress about the threat posed by Iran. He defended this speech by saying he was representing ‘the entire Jewish people’ (Rebecca Vilkomerson, “Netanyahu does not speak for all American Jews”, Religious News Service, February 20, 2015). American Jews quickly pronounced how appalled they were that someone they didn’t elect—or in any way chose—should dare to claim he spoke for them (ibid).

US Senator Dianne Feinstein blasted Netanyahu. “He doesn’t speak for me on this,” she said (David Harris-Gershon, “Senator Feinstein on “arrogant” Netanyahu’s claim to represent all Jews: “He doesn’t speak for me.””, Tikkun Daily, March 1st, 2015). 

At least one essayist called Netanyahu’s claim ‘preposterous and dangerous’ (ibid). Many agreed: Netanyahu was not the voice of world Jewry—and he was arrogant to say he was (ibid).

Now, a story appears from America about US Vice President Joe Biden (Corey Robin, “Joe Biden’s Israel stunner: American Jews should let Israel protect them”, Salon, March 29, 2015). This story suggests that French and American Jews who turn up their collective noses at Netanyahu might want to rethink their rejection.

This story is about an incident that took place in September, 2014, when Biden spoke at his residence about Rosh Hashanna. This incident was first reported by Jeffrey Goldberg in Atlantic. Biden told a story about former Israel Prime Minister Golda Meir. Meir had told him that Israel had a secret weapon in its fight to survive. That secret weapon, she had said, was, ‘we have no place else to go’.

After telling this story, Biden dropped his stunner. Speaking about America’s Jews, he said, “there is no place else to go, and you understand that in your bones. You understand in your bones that no matter how hospitable, no matter how consequential, no matter how engaged, no matter how deeply involved you are in the United States … there’s only one guarantee. There is really only one absolute guarantee [for your safety], and that’s the state of Israel.”

Biden seemed to be saying that America’s Jews would be wise to look to a foreign government for their safety, not America (ibid). As Robin (above) wrote, a country that once offered itself as a haven to persecuted Jews across the world was now telling its Jews that “in the event of some terrible outbreak of anti-Semitism [in America] they should… what? Plan on boarding the next plane to Tel Aviv?” (ibid).

That seems to be exactly what Biden was saying.

Jews of America, come home. Jews of France, return to your homeland. The Protective essence of G-d’s Presence (the Sh’china) removes itself from the lands of exile. You are no longer safe.

The Divine Protective Essence (the Sh’china) contracts. In preparation for the Redemption, it concentrates on the homeland.

Jews who turn up their noses at a supposedly arrogant Netanyahu might do well to look in the mirror. Netanyahu is correct to speak as he does. Just ask Joe Biden.


Here’s what J Street should do if it’s truly pro-Israel

If J Street wants to call itself pro-Israel, it should change its let’s-pressure-Israel-for-peace mantra. It should certainly stop using an anti-Israel vocabulary to discuss its goals.   
If J Street were truly pro-Israel, it would fight for Israel by challenging the Hamas-Fatah Unity government. Hamas-Fatah represents Israel’s so-called Arab peace partners. If J Street wanted to earn its pro-Israel bonafides, it would challenge both Hamas and Fatah to make four simple changes:
  1. Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.
  2. Hamas should delete all anti-Israel and anti-Jewish references in its Charter, speeches and public statements.
  3. Fatah should change its pictorial representations of its ‘Palestine’. Currently, the official Fatah logo, all maps, illustrations, monuments and plaques that show ‘Palestine’ universally present their new state as replacing Israel on the world’s map. Therefore, instead of showing Israel being replaced, all Fatah and Hamas logos, plaques, illustrations, monuments and maps should henceforth show the new ‘Palestine’ side-by-side with Israel.
  4. The Fatah/PLO Charter should delete all anti-Jewish and anti-Israel references. It should instead detail its goal to live side-by-side in peace and cooperation with its neighbour the Jewish state.
J Street should fight for Israel. It should fight for peace. But it should build its case upon challenging Hamas-Fatah, not Israel.
The dream of peace doesn’t fail because of Israel. It fails because of Hamas-Fatah. If J Street can’t see that, they’re in the wrong business.

J Street’s ‘peace’ problem

J Street calls itself “The political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans” (J Street, Homepage). It advocates for a ‘two-state solution’.

Jeremy Ben-Ari is the founder and president of J Street. He wants the Arab-Israel conflict to end (Video: The J Street Challenge @ 1:07 minutes). He declares that, ”The majority of the people on all sides actually share a common view of how to end this conflict. They share a belief in two states for two peoples. They share a desire for a peace for their kids and their grandchildren. They want to figure out how to compromise in order to live together in peace and security” (Video, ibid 1:52-2:04 minutes).

Is he correct? Do Arabs and Israelis share so much they’re ready to accept one another in peace?

In Israel, polls forever ask who wants peace. These polls consistently show Israelis and Arabs want peace.

But what kind of question is that? Asking citizens if they want peace is like asking married couples, do you want a happy marriage?

How many are going to answer, ‘no’?

It’s a meaningless question. But it may be the main question J Street uses to legitimize its ‘peace’ proposition.

Look at a Zogby poll from February 2014. This poll purports to show that 74 per cent of Israelis and 47 per cent of ‘Palestinians’ supported a two-state solution (Mitchell Plitnick, “Poll Shows Diminishing Support for Two-State Solution”, Inter Press News Agency (IPS), February 1, 2014).

On the surface, this suggests that Arabs and Israelis really do “share a belief in two states for two peoples” (Ben-Ari speech, above). True, that 47-per cent support number from the Arab side doesn’t represent a ‘majority’. But it’s close enough.

But Plitnick (above) points out a problem. That 74 per cent Israeli support number is misleading (ibid). He suggests that if poll questions had actually added that a two-state solution meant “1967 borders…and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem”, Israelis wouldn’t have given a 74 per cent-support result (ibid).

Without those added details, the poll gives a false ‘positive’.

In two other polls through The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (The Harry S. Truman Research Institute For the Advancement of Peace, Joint Israeli Palestinian Poll, June 2014, June 30, 2014), summaries declared that app 62 per cent of Israelis and 53 per cent of Palestinians supported two states living side-by-side in peace (ibid, p.4).

But a closer look at the actual poll questions suggests that 62 per cent of ‘Israelis’ don’t really support ‘two states living side-by-side’.

Question 43 of this poll asks: “Do you support or oppose the solution based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, known as the two-state solution?”

In answer, 48.0 per cent of ‘Israelis’ chose ‘definitely agree’ or ‘agree’.  That’s clear. But then, another 14.2 per cent chose, ‘somewhat agree’.

The press release for this poll added these two numbers (48 plus 14.2) and told us, 62 per cent of Israelis support the two-state solution. But what does ‘somewhat agree’ actually mean?

A ‘somewhat agree’ response doesn’t sound like an endorsement. It sounds more like, maybe yes, maybe no. What would the poll result have been if ‘somewhat agree’ wasn’t an option?

Without answering that question, the poll gives a false ‘positive’.

The poll reveals yet another problem. Question 51 asks:

“There is a proposal that after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the settlement of all issues in dispute, including the refugees and Jerusalem issues, there will be a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Do you agree or disagree to this proposal?”

Here, 52.3 per cent of ‘all Israelis’ either ‘certainly agreed’, ‘agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ to this proposal. But only 39.5 per cent of ‘Palestinians’ chose one of those three choices.

This poll had a 4.5 per cent margin-of-error for Israeli respondents. With such a margin-of-error, a support of 52.3 per cent (plus-minus 4.5 per cent) doesn’t suggest a ringing endorsement. When you also consider the ‘Palestinian’s’ 39.5 per cent response, you certainly do not see the kind of mutual acceptance necessary for two warring peoples to create a successful and lasting peace.

J Street declares that a two-state solution is possible because a majority of both people’s desire it. But poll numbers for ‘two-states’ aren’t compelling. Too often, ‘pro-peace’ results raise more questions than they answer. Too often, there lie beneath the surface dark enough suggestions to undercut the J Street ‘peace’ premise.

Besides, relying on polls that could well be the political equivalent of, ‘do you want to be happily married’, isn’t going to get you a realistic result.

If J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ari wants to sell ‘peace through two states’, he’s going to have to do better than that.


Sunday, March 29, 2015

Is this the real picture of J Street?

J Street claims to be pro-Israel. It isn’t. It’s anti-Israel.

Watch this video. The pertinent comments begin at 2:26:

click here

(The video comes from Elder of Zyion, as posted on The Algemeiner, “J-Street Speaker Calls for Destruction of Israel – to Applause (VIDEO)”, March 27, 2015).

When enemies of Israel speak about Israel, they use certain code-phrases. These phrases include, ‘took the land’, ‘displaced other people’ and ‘the ‘Palestinians’ are looking for a place for themselves and Israel opposes them’.

These phrases reveal the ugly truth about those who would destroy the Jewish state: they want you to believe Israel stole land that wasn’t hers. They want you to accept it has no right to say ‘no’ to ‘Palestinians’.

They oppose Israel’s existence. They want Jewish Israel to disappear.

Marcia Freedman, member of the supposedly pro-Israel J Street Advisory Council, seems to agree with these anti-Israel, anti-Jewish sentiments. She wants the Jewish Israel to disappear. She says Jews ‘displaced’ another people. She builds an anti-Israel argument upon anti-Israel code-phrases. If she’s pro-Israel, why does she speak of Israel using the language of Israel’s enemies? If J Street is pro-Israel, why is someone this anti-Israel so closely tied to it?

Marcia Freedman loves ‘democracy’. She prefers ‘democracy’ to ‘Jewish’. She wants ‘democracy’ to replace ‘Jewish’.

She argues in this video that a Jewish Israel isn’t a true democracy. The foundation for her argument is shocking: Israel can’t be a democracy because it’s too Jewish.

This argument is stunning in its anti-Israel chutzpa: for Israel to be a democracy, she argues, Jews have to allow Arabs to govern Israel (presumably upon winning a national election). Such a ‘democracy’, she claims, would actually be better than what Israel’s got right now because, she says, that would create “a homeland for the Jewish people in which we [Jews] are a minority”.

That’s nonsense. Given Israel’s demographics, when Jews become a minority in Israel, Arab Muslims become the majority. The moment that happens, Israel would cease to be a democracy.

The proof of such an assertion is everywhere in the Arab Middle East. Name one Muslim Arab country that’s a democracy.

You can’t. There is none.

There’s only way for there to be a democracy in Israel. Jews have to be the majority.

Marcia Freedman doesn’t accept that. She suggests that, in the democracy she prefers, Arabs would have the rights they lack today—and the Jewish homeland would be more secure. Her reason: Jews would become a ‘protected minority’. The Jewish homeland would be secured by the ‘state’, no matter who was in power.

Really? On what basis does she make such an assertion.

The idea that Jews would be a protected minority in an Israel ruled by Arab Muslims is madness. Where in the Middle East do Muslims-as-a-majority protect any minorities?

She’s not calling for ‘democracy in Israel’. She’s calling to destroy the Jewish homeland called Israel. That’s about as anti-Jewish and anti-Israel as one can get in polite company.

In fact, Israel the Jewish homeland is the only democracy in the Middle East. It protects Arab rights better than any Arab country.

If Arabs took over Israel, on what basis does she argue that the lives of Israeli Arabs would improve? On what basis does she argue that Arabs would actually protect the Jewish minority?

Name one country where Arabs treat Arabs better than Jews treat Arabs. You can’t. Neither can she.

She’s the true face of J Street.

J Street isn’t pro-Israel. It’s anti-Israel.


Friday, March 27, 2015

The nations, Amalek, 'Palestine', Israel and Netanyahu

The 2015 Israel election is over. Benjamin Netanyahu has won. He prepares to form a new ruling coalition. No one knows yet whom he will choose.

Nevertheless, the nations agree: Netanyahu’s victory causes international dismay (Daulat Pane/Ani Hasanah, “The victory of Netanyahu gets tough reaction from international community” Voice of Indonesia, March 20, 2015).

The nations agree: it must criticize, demonize and attack Netanyahu’s win—immediately (Ian Black, “Binyamin Netanyahu victory causes international concern”, The Guardian, March 18, 2015).

The nations agree: the time for being patient with Israel is over. The gloves have to come off (Rebecca Shimoni Stoil, “After Netanyahu win, Obama takes off the gloves, Times of Israel, March 19, 2015).

Arab opinion-makers trashed Netanyahu’s victory (Daoud Kuttab, “Don’t be Fooled by Netanyahu’s Upcoming Charm Offensive”, Al Jazeera, March 20, 2015). The nations agree: They won’t be fooled. Netanyahu must be punished (Cynthia Blank, “Obama Lays Down Punishment on Netanyahu”, Arutz Sheva, March 19, 2015).

The week before this election, the Palestinian Authority yet again portrayed all of Israel as the property of the Muslim ‘Palestine’ (“PA portrays all Israel as ‘Palestine’”, Palestine Media Watch, March 13, 2015). The nations ignored the obvious anti-peace content of such a portrayal. They simply agreed: it’s time for Israel to surrender to its enemies (“World Presses Netanyahu after Upset Election Win, Arutz Sheva, March 19, 2015).  

-France declared that Israel has to make peace with the ‘Palestinians’ (Elad Benari, “France Calls for Peace Talks Based on Two-State Solution”, Arutz Sheva, March 19, 2015). It ignored Palestinian Jew-hate.

-The EU has called again for Israel (not the Palestinian Authority) to restart peace talks (“EU calls for relaunch of Israeli-Palestinian peace process as Likud wins election”, DW, March 18, 2015). The EU demanded nothing from the Palestinians.

-US President Obama hinted that the time may have come to stop supporting Israel altogether at the UN (Moshe Cohen, “Politico: US May 'Dump' Israel at UN, International Forums”, Arutz Sheva, March 19, 2015). Obama said nothing about Palestinian responsibilities for achieving peace.

If the nations feared G-d, they wouldn’t attack Israel. Instead, they’d pressure the Arabs who want to destroy the homeland of G-d’s beloved. They’d be careful with Israel. They’d be afraid to incur G-d’s wrath by attacking His treasure.

But the nations don’t fear G-d. They scorn G-d. They choose the terrorist over the Jew. They prepare to isolate and criminalize Israel (“'Violence extremely high': EU report slams Israel for settlement building in Jerusalem”, rt .com, March 21, 2015).

The nations agree: when it comes to Israel, they will follow Amalek.

When Amalek attacked the Jews in the Biblical desert (Devarim, 25:17-19), it sought to destroy the Jewish nation. Its attack was, specifically, an act of defiance against G-d (Rashi, ibid).

Today, the hate of Amalek spreads like a plague: G-d’s beloved must be erased.

The nations even know how to make sure Israel is indeed erased. They demand the creation of the state of ‘Palestine’.

Do you know that recognizing ‘Palestine’ as a state means erasing Israel?

Take a look at a ‘Palestinian-approved’ map of their proposed state. It’s a map you may have seen before.


http://www.haberisvec.com/upload/resimler/haber/1240345_653767898065114_5766660737384619255_n(4).jpgHere is a picture of Hillevi Larsson. She is a Member of Parliament in Sweden’s extremist Social Democratic-led government.

This picture comes from a story in the Times of Israel (Ilya Meier, “Sweden approves borders of ‘Palestine’ with Israel erased”, December 3, 2014).  The plaque in this picture is the map of the proposed ‘Palestine’. Take a close look at the outline of that new state. Do you recognize the outline?

It’s the outline of today’s Israel. The plaque, by the way, comes from the Palestinian Association Malmo, Sweden—a gift to the woman pictured for her success in getting Sweden to ‘recognize’ ‘Palestine’. It (the plaque) tells a simple truth: ‘Palestine’ intends to replace today’s Israel.

That plaque pictures the dream of Amalek.

Amalek descended from Edom. The West has descended from Edom.

Edom married one of Yishmael’s daughters.

Edom, Amalek and Yishmael are all related. Together, they share a common dream: to destroy their hated foe, Yaacov the Jew.

Now, hand-in-hand, they play out Edom’s Biblical obsession: to eradicate Yaacov.

Intuitively, through Edom’s DNA, the nations understand the obsession. They will do their part.

They will vote to give ‘Palestine’ its statehood. Then, ‘Palestine’ will declared its borders—the borders you see in the picture above.

Then, the vote complete, Edom will celebrate. With the help of his son Amalek and father-in-law Yishmael, he will be closer than ever before to erasing Yaacov.  

There’s just one problem: Netanyahu’s victory gets in the way. He opposes Edom’s success. He refutes Edom’s obsession. He rejects Edom’s dream.

He will not accept what the nations desire. He will fight Israel’s enemies.

Is that why the nations are so dismayed he won?