Category: Politics

There is a possibility that two populists will be running against each other for President, one in his later 70s and one in his early seventies, Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  Aside from the issues of abortion, religious freedom and Israel’s right to the West Bank towns, the issues dividing President Trump and Senator Sanders are mostly about economic policies.  

 

Few note the agreements between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  While Bernie Sanders rails against Wall Street, the big bankers, and greedy corporations it should be known that the super-rich are more in the Democratic column than the column of Donald Trump.  Why? Because the crony capitalism that favored these big corporations and the high-tech monopolies were as much connected to the Democratic politicians as the Republicans. Both parties were fostering some very negative policies for the people in general but very good policies for corporate greed.  One of the biggest policy areas was trade. The argument that free trade would enable the nations to do what they do best and that new opportunities would come to Americans though we ship jobs overseas is counter-intuitive. Eventually, skilled workers in Hi-Tech would be found in India and would work for comparatively very low wages.  Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on how terrible it is to ship jobs overseas. Both also agree that the monopolistic practices of big pharma, Insurance companies, and more have been very bad for America. However, though there is agreement on some of the issues, the ways to solve the problem differ vastly.  

 

Yes, they part ways in their solutions.  How does Bernie Sanders respond to the middle class and their need to see income growth?  Also, how does he respond to the lower classes? It is by income redistribution programs though super high taxes, more government ownership of big corporations (he is not a total socialist but would have some private enterprise).  It is by making rules for companies to preclude them from going overseas. The problem with these solutions is that they never work. They do not grow the economy and destroy the incentives for risk and investment that produces growth.  For health care, it is for the government to take over. For wages, it is to set minimum wages. The solution is in big government. Big government wastes huge amounts of money and leads to more corruption.

 

President Trump sees the same issues.  However, his solution is to break the crony capitalist bond with the government, the favoritism.  It is to level the playing field for businesses that stay in the U. S. by requiring fair trade. It is by incentivizing corporations to invest in poor areas of the cities.  It is by making tax shelters unattractive compared to investments that grow the economy. If the economy has very low unemployment, then wages rise without government requirements for wages.  In health care, it is to have disclosure of prices, real competition, and multiple health plans. It is by tort reform that is a huge cost to doctors, and the patients pay this. It is to end the crony capitalism in health care.  

 

I wonder if people really do understand the difference between the two populisms.  

 

So much ink has already been used by commentators on the recent Deal of the Century proposed by Donald Trump that I hesitate to write about it.  Despite that, I am doing so because I think I have some things to say that I have not been reading in the press.

 

I have included Dore Gold and Jason Greenblatt (Trump’s Middle East Coordinator) as playing a major role in the creation of this deal because it is now reported in the press that they were major players and by their own profession. Dore Gold is an esteemed Israeli diplomat with years of experience and with roots in the conservative Likud Party.  In Israel, the great majority of Israeli leaders and the Israeli public is in favor of the Trump plan. The important thing is that it explodes the 23 year plus consensus on the parameters of what would bring peace in a two-state solution.

 

The old two-state proposal assumed that Israel would withdraw to the ‘67 armistice lines and that these lines would become the border.  It assumed that Israel would keep the major settlement blocks and give land swaps for them. These Jewish towns would have been totally within Palestine.  East Jerusalem would have been given to the Palestinians for their capital. Finally, there would have been a limited right of return to Israel proper for descendants of the 48 war refugees.  Ehud Barak gave almost this much, and Ehud Olmert gave all of this. The Palestinians rejected this offer.

 

The Trump administration is the first to reject these parameters as unrealistic and dangerous to Israel’s security.  Israel today would no longer accept the Barak/Olmert proposals. They are not realistic today.  Trump’s plan breaks the received paradigm and offers a new one.  It is a limited demilitarized Palestinian state on 70% of the West Bank plus Gaza.  Israel keeps control of all the settlements and the Jordan valley for its needed security.  It can eventually annex 30% and keep security control overall. It is a more limited two-state solution plan.  The key now is that the onus is on the Palestinians since Israel will accept the Trump plan. The Palestinians can only claim they are occupied if they do not choose independence with disarmament.  It totally changes the narrative on the situation. This is Trumpian, and a new and out-of-the-box proposal!

 

I want to speak to one thing that is not usually noted.  This is the issue of Israel being in violation of international law in its occupation of the territories.  This is made up law from some interpreting Israel’s control of the West Bank as if there was a Palestinian State.  But international law as written gives no basis for claiming an occupation against land that is not part of a recognized state.  International law is also wrong in one regard. It requires all land to be returned to the aggressor after there is peace. This is contrary to all historic laws of war.  The loss of territory and expansion for defense was always considered legitimate if the defender could somehow win. The change from this principle now brings loss of deterrence.  A nation can be aggressive again and again and lose nothing. This is exactly the situation we face here in the Middle East. In each situation of the refusal of peace, the Arabs lost more opportunities.  The U. N. partition plan was rejected, and the Arabs went to war. Therefore 700,000 refugees fled. The armistice lines with slight changes are what we call the ‘67 lines. The aggression in ‘67 and ‘73 however, led to Israel taking and keeping the Golan territory (now annexed).  It also led to settlements. Only one time did the Palestinians get a better offer after rejecting a peace proposal, and that was when P. M. Olmert offered more than P. M. Barack. They rejected that offer and today are offered less again but with much money for business development.  The Oslo parameters are finished. If they reject this offer, and from both history and their initial response it seems certain that they will, they will be offered less the next time. My own view is that the Palestinians should have residency in Israel and Jordanian citizenship. The Jordanian government does not want this because it could be the end of their monarchy since they are not Palestinians and the majority in Jordan are Palestinian.  The elephant in the room that no political leaders will assert is that Jordan is the Palestinian State. They want to preserve a more moderate regime led by King Abdullah and prevent a violent Palestinian state in Jordan. It seems to me that the Palestinian resistance is like God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. It is as if Israel is not able to cede the land to the Palestinians. They block it!  

 

I think that God is involved in all this at very significant levels!

The Founding Fathers of the United States created not a democracy, but a Democratic Republic.  The difference is that in a democracy the majority decides through vote whatever the majority wants.  The founders feared the corruption of both the rulers and the masses and rejected the idea of democracy.  The vote of the majority was only one part of the checks and balances to limit power and to give great freedom to the citizens.  Democracy is restrained by the separation of powers, among the judiciary, legislative and executive. Many state governments follow the same checks and balances.  There is also an electoral college that limits the power of the populous states. There is a Senate whose diversity from different states does the same. Then there are the limits of the constitution which constrains popular voting.  It is hard to change the constitution. The newly formed government was called a republic, not a democracy.  

 

Today, there is more and more of a desire to overcome the checks and balances.  There are ideas to pack the Supreme Court by the Democratic Party (so they can have their will), to eliminate the electoral college, to have a popular election of the President and to limit the involvement of corporations in politics and issues, though they are one check in the system.  (I have written before on a way to limit big money and also to ensure real competition in my book, Social Justice.) 

 

In my recent posts on narratives, I raised the issue of how dangerous this age is since narratives that interpret aspects of our life in the 21st century are based on little real evidence but are the power assertions of the imaginations of leftists.  This ranges from human sexuality, to the support of abortion, to socialism as a solution to injustice in society, to the claims of racism and colonialism as defining America and Israel as well.  History is re-written from leftist imagination with only partial information to create the new story. What is alarming is how rapidly the society changes, from Barak Obama supporting only traditional marriage and California passing Proposition 8 forbidding gay marriage, to today.  In ten short years since then, anyone who does not support the total LGBT agenda is hounded and vilified as a hater, as phobic and are to be shunned and protested. The hard ball power tactics are stunning. Leaders in corporations have even been fired.  

 

How did this happen so quickly? The issue is really the power of the mass media to vastly change public opinion.  We are now at a point were a few large hi-tech companies through search engine setups and the control of speech can vastly influence the culture.  They overcome the checks and balances and like a ramrod, destroying the protections of historic cultural norms. However, they now also have the power to create narratives and to control information to swing votes.  Robert Epstein Ph. D., a liberal Democrat, is the Senior Research Psychologist of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. He testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. He made the stunning claim that the leaders of the big Hi-Tech companies, and especially Google, can swing 15 million votes.  The vote is still very important and with the wrong people in charge, the checks and balances can be eroded. This power in the hands of a few is like nothing we have ever seen in our society before. Unless people are informed from another source of information that protects them (alternative media, the Bible?) they vote according to the molding of public opinion and skewed information.  Those who would be elected form the far left believe in shutting down debate and having a totalitarian control from the left. Generally, they reject free speech and open debate. Notice how conservative speech is now shut down on campuses in the United States.

 

Of course, the way to fight back is massive media campaigns based on truth and exposing the lies of the false narratives, but this is hard to do with the left in control of the press, mainstream media, the internet and even still has the largest internet news followings in spite of conservative gains.  This fight will likely require the decentralization of the Hi-Tech companies, of those in power over our internet sources of information. 

 

Can a Democratic Republic overcome the onslaught?   It will be difficult. And of course, a religious revival that sweeps millions into the Kingdom can be a game-changer.  But who will take on this fight and tame the tech giants? Along with abortion and the LGBT agenda, this is probably the defining issue of our age.  

 

Killing Kassem Soleimani, the leader and General in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Al Quds forces, brought a sense of justice and closure to many.  This was especially so in Israel. There is not really any push back here, unlike among the Democrats in America. Just about all leaders, left, right and center, think this was the right thing to do.  

 

Many here hope for more. They would like to see Iran provoke the United States into a massive retaliation.  It is possible that a massive retaliation would take out Iran’s air force, missiles and missile bases, navy, oil fields and ultimately their nuclear facilities. Some think this could lead to the collapse of the regime (but would Iran’s military permit this?)  (Is this John Bolton’s hope?) We can think of a world without this terrorist-sponsoring nation that seeks to dominate the whole Middle East and to bring about domination from the Shiite form of Islam. 

 

Iran does serve one positive purpose.  Their existence has broken down the united front against Israel in the Sunni Muslim world.  In a kind of unspoken and loose secret alliance for pragmatic reasons, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, United Arab Emirates, and others now join Israel in opposition to Iran. Could this even lead to diplomatic breakthroughs?  May God have a purpose in mind for allowing Iran’s present regime to continue? Israeli geopolitical strategists do see how Iran has pushed Israel and some of the Arab nations into cooperation. 

 

However, from my point of view, in spite of the secondary benefits, with Iran’s actions in many nations and not only the Middle East, and with the danger of Iran’s nuclear bomb, it would be best that the intention of the United States and the West would be to eventually carry out the full attack.  It would not take a ground war. It could be very quick. Israel would probably have to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon in its one last desperate action. It is best not to depend on Iran to gain good relationships with the Gulf Muslim countries. 

 

The Democrats say that they do not want to see us at War.  President Trump says the same. But we have been at war for many years. It is an asymmetric war and is based on both radical Shiite and Sunni ideologies that seek to use violence and conquering through war to gain their objective of Islamic world conquest.  It begins with the Middle East and Pakistan. Turkey is with the Islamists now. (We are deluded to think they are a NATO ally.) Then it is the struggle for Africa, as we see in Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, Kenya, and so many more nations. The world war has begun, but as yet the West will not admit it.  Politically correct people won’t see the problem. Russia and China play with Islamic tyrants and think they can control it while devastatingly crushing their own Muslim populations. 

 

We speak of strategy from a geopolitical point of view.  How do we fit this into the Biblical accounts about the last invasion of Israel being mostly described as from what are today Muslim nations?  More and more writers are taking the last invasion to be Muslim led. (W. Shoebat and J. Richardson). Nations cannot base their policies on such biblical pictures of the last days.  God can bring long delays in the process that eventually leads to the end. Acting for national self-interest and only secondarily for justice will guide even relatively good nations. The Biblical exhortation to rescue the perishing being led to death (Pr. 24:11) is not heeded by political leaders even if the cost is not high. (eg. Rwanda genocide, Syria chemical bombing).   We hope for policies that do two things. One is policies, even if inadvertent or unintentional, that will bring the greatest mercy and justice to the largest number. Secondly, we desire policies that will lead to the greatest spread of the Gospel. 

It is somewhat strange to be in Israel during New Years Day.   The world change of calendar is not a holiday in Israel. It is a normal workday.  Our family in Israel, all from America, did gather for a New Year’s celebration. It was a wonderful time of fellowship, food and the rukus of the younger of our 11 grandchildren. 

 

However, there is no break in the political perils in Israel.  The Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been indicted for fraud and breach of trust.  He has not asked for immunity from the Knesset. The last Prime Minister before Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Olmert, resigned when he was indicted.  The Parliament (the Knesset) can grant immunity for good reasons, but if the reasons are not good, the Knesset can be overruled by the Supreme Court.  Then the Knesset can change Israel’s basic law so the Court cannot overrule them on these kinds of issues (but that is highly unlikely).  Hope you are not confused at this point! Basically, his asking for immunity will likely delay the court filing by the attorney general until after the March 2 election, the third election.  Then the new Knesset after that election would have to decide. It is still unlikely according to the polls that Netanyahu would get 61 votes necessary to pass the immunity request and unlikely that he will be the Prime Minister and get 61 votes for that.  I have given my reasons for supporting Blue and White re: religious freedom and the persecution of Messianic Jews, the dangers of the non-working welfare supported Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Netanyahu’s camp, the marginalized status of so many Russian Jews, and the greater economic distributive justice for Israeli Arabs in government programs.   

 

It is amazing that the Prime Minister of Israel is in danger of being convicted of crimes and removed from office while at the same time the American President has been impeached and will probably have a trial in the Senate if the impeachment papers are turned over to the Senate.  However, the key person in Israel for this indictment was a Netanyahu supporter, the Attorney General Mendelblit of Israel. He is accused of clearly defined crimes according to criminal law. Whereas in the House of Representatives, it is the super partisan Democratic Party that impeached the President (this is like an indictment).  There is no clear violation of any criminal statute. In Israel, since we do not have a New Year Holiday, the political process is continuing as I write. Issues of when to convene the Knesset committee that would hear the request could assure delay until the election. In the United States, Congress will reconvene next week. Stay tuned for a roller coaster ride in both countries.   Is there something spiritual whereby both countries are in such political upheaval? Some want to compare it as two really good men chosen by God who are being under political attack. This is far too simple as this essay shows.  

 

In the midst of all this, my biggest issue in Israel is the freedom of Messianic Jews to continue to share their faith, build their congregations and to receive citizenship when they make Aliya.  This seems like a small issue to the world. Like the Chinese, we pray, “Lord, give us the government which will best enable the Gospel to go forth.” 

 

In the decision to investigate Israel for war crimes the ICC discredits itself.  They remind me of the most liberal judges in America’s courts that make the U. S. Constitution say whatever they want it to say; even the opposite!   Let’s list some of the reasons. 

 

1.  The first point of investigation is that Israel’s settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are illegal and a criminal violation of International Law.  However, for that to be true, these territories by international law have to be the territories of a recognized state. Only the Security Council can recognize a state.  To recognize a state there are criteria. One, there has to be a unified government with sufficient state institutions. The two governments, Hamas in Gaza, and the PA in the West Bank make this impossible!  Though other nations have recognized the State of Palestine, they have broken international law to do so. These territories have never been recognized as part of a recognized state. This assumes a two-state solution as well, which is now impossible.  It is best to have one state or go back to the Alon plan where the Palestinian areas are connected to Jordan and Jordanian citizenship and the Israeli areas are part of Israel.  

 

1. Israel is being investigated for war crimes for civilian deaths in the last Gaza war.  However, the rules for the ICC are such that investigations are to take place when a country maintains a serious independent investigative body for war violations.  Israel does so and with great care. Objective observers say that no one could better wage an asymmetrical war with an enemy like Hamas that uses human shields better than Israel.  This investigation can endanger the Prime Minister, the Defense secretary, and military figures when traveling.  

 

1. This is a travesty when one considers the territorial violations of real countries. Note Russia’s violations in Ukraine and Georgia and Turkey’s occupying northern Cyprus.  

 

1. It is secondly a travesty when one considers the crimes of Saddam Assad killing over 500,00 civilians, Russia’s killings in Ukraine, China putting its Muslim population in work re-education camps and more.  It is a travesty in the light of the mass killings in Africa. 

 

1. And when one talks about the right to a country, how much more do the Kurds show that they should be recognized?  

 

Why does this happen?  It can only be due to Anti-Semitism underneath it all.  Israel is treated differently than others. The UN has passed resolutions in the General Assembly that does not recognize any Jewish connection to Jerusalem or the Temple Mount!   One can see the Last Days on all this. 

 

The International Criminal Court should be disbanded or changed to only investigate real genocide where thousands of innocents are slaughtered.  It is now a rogue organization. There are great articles on all this in this weekend’s edition of the Jerusalem Post.  

I do seek to limit my posts on the issues of Donald Trump and the divisive political situation in the U. S.  I have my view of Donald Trump. I will add a bit to this post for you to know.  

 

Recently Chris Wallace said that Donald Trump’s attacks on the press as corrupt and fake news are very bad for the society.  He argues that if the trust in the press is destroyed (and to a great extent it has been) then we are not as safe as a society.  I have watched him for many years and do enjoy his fair and hard questions for both Republicans and Democrats. Yet in this case, I think he is wrong.  We now have a partisan press. The legacy press is so in the tank for the Democrats and so anti-Trump that they have discredited themselves as corrupt.  Make no mistake about it, though there is a conservative press when you add in all the news sites and social media, information is still by far to the left.  Michael Goodwin, historically a Democrat who voted for Clinton is now blowing the trumpet on this corruption. He even notes an explicit change of policy at the New York Times to become partisan. Important news that could be seen as helpful to the President is suppressed.  Whether economic news, progress in enterprise zones in the poor areas of the city, or prison reform and so much more is simply not reported. The most egregious example recently is that the legacy channels, NBC, CBS, and ABC, on their main news broadcasts did not report the huge story on the head judge of the FISA court rebuking the members of the FBI for their errors in seeking a warrant to wiretap Carter Page and thereby the Trump campaign.  It got zero coverage on the day it came out. Indeed, how they reported the I. G. report on the history of the Trump Russia investigation was not an exoneration. His Senate testimony said so. It was only the predicate of its beginning that he noted was not provably biased, but the further errors as new warrants and wiretaps were sought left serious questions.  

 

I do note that Fox News really does one thing that its detractors do not credit.  Its hard news shows like Bret Baier, are quite factual oriented and not promoting a partisan agenda.  Its panels have all sides. We saw such non-partisan reporting with Shephard Smith. When one watches the new channel form Israel, Channel 24, we can realize what a real news channel should be like.  It is amazing. The press really has brought this on themselves. There needs to be a press reformation with new organizations that emphasize news and commentary and have a balance of conservative and liberal newscasters and commentary writers.  The loss of journalistic standards goes back to our schools where objective reporting is rejected as impossible.  All only project their views or so it is taught. 

 

As for President Trump.  For my friends, I have noted that I am troubled by the always Trumpers and the never Trumpers.  I think both are really over the top. There are now two polarized narratives about the President, that he is almost all good or all bad.  When there is such absolutist thinking on both sides, we can be sure that both sides are wrong. This is a principle of historical research and evaluation.  Having said that, many Trump policies are very good in my view and some are bad. I have lists I have done and won’t copy them here. But on abortion, religious liberty, constitutionalist judges, prison reform, enterprise zones, getting NATO countries to pay their fair share, fighting crime, Israel, and so much he has been right.  But in cozying up to ruthless dictator-murderers and complementing them he violates Scriptural principles about how we are to treat evil people. In speech that is personally demeaning people and name-calling, he violates James and other Scriptures which make this a cardinal issue of morality. It can bring a curse and open him up to demonic attack.  Also, if he leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban, he will leave a blood bath that will be horrendous. He has to face that we are in a war for the foreseeable future against radical Islamic movements and need the help of other Islamic leaders to fight it. 

 

I am in touch with the prophetic movement. Credible prophets have helped us know that Trump’s election was God’s doing.  It is a time of respite. This is helpful to me. I felt great relief when corrupt Hillary was not elected. Yet this does not mean I lose my sense of proportion and the biblical norms for evaluating human behavior  

Unless something happens in just two days, Israel will have again failed to form a government.  I see several reasons why. First the fault of Benjamin Netanyahu. Here are the reasons we cannot have a unity government.  

 

1.  He will not give up his Faustian bargain with the Ultra-Orthodox parties.  I call it Faustian because I agree with many who see the present direction of this large and growing segment of Israel under the present arrangements as an existential danger to Israel.  Most of the males are not trained for any profession, but only to study Talmud and Rabbinic texts. They do not serve in the army. This is a great contrast to the nationalist Orthodox who are a strong part of building Israel.  The party under Liberman will not be in a government with them and he has the controlling vote.
2. Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery and other crimes.  Blue and White under General Benny Gantz say they will not join a government under his leadership.  Maybe if he promises to step down before six months and give Gantz the leadership. There would have to be compromises from the Ultra-Orthodox.  Probably Netanyahu should step down with a promise he could run again for party leadership if he is cleared and wins the case. 

 

So here is Gantz and blue and white to be faulted.  He shares the blame here with Liberman. They could form a minority government with less than 61 votes (the required parliamentary majority) if he allows the Arab Israel parties to vote for his government but to not join the coalition government (members in the cabinet etc.)   There are enough votes with them to carry him if Liberman would support this. But Gantz and Liberman find the support of the Arabs is so toxic politically that they will not accept their votes to put them in power even if they are not in the governing coalition. The reason is that these parties are anti-Zionist.  Yet they are not like Hamas seeking to see the Jews not living in Israel. They want a one-state solution and equality for Arabs and Jews and for the descendants of Arabs to be able to return. This would probably be the end of the Jewish majority. So what? This will never pass parliament, so why not accept their votes.  They really want to be treated equally to Jewish neighborhoods in housing permits, roads, and other infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. I don’t think they are treated fairly. But Liberman will not accept their vote and won’t join a minority government and Gantz probably thinks it is toxic. My thought this could happen in a post 8 weeks ago now seems like a fantasy.   The other sad point is that if they could do this, then they could invite Likud into the coalition after Netanyahu is no longer leading Likud. 

 

So we will go to a third election.  As of now, Gideon Saar is challenging Netanyahu for party leadership.  He is very conservative but has a good integrity reputation. Momentum is building for him but he is not there yet.  A new election is predicted to lead to the same result. If Netanyahu again fails to have 61 votes to lead, finally he may step down. His court case could also be beginning.  The majority of Israelis in the last polls say that Netanyahu is mostly to blame for no government forming.