Saturday, December 17, 2016

Thoughts About Tomorrow's Electoral Vote. Comments Regarding Our New Amb. To Israel. Moving Agencies Out Of The D.C Bubble.

Think about this on Monday when the electors vote. (See 1 below.)
An observation about our new Amb. to Israel. (See 2 below.)

Admission by outgoing U.N Secretary General of bias towards Israel. (See 2a below.)

Caroline Glick on "Trumpianism." Commentary regarding America's New Amb. To Israel.(See 2b below.)
One of the most sensible articles I have read in a long time was while I was away and I did not keep it. Basically it was a suggestion that we move certain agencies out of D.C. for several main reasons:

a)The cost of living is cheaper elsewhere and it would reduce government housing subsidies.

b) Moving these agencies to cities and/or areas that are in economic decline would help to bring needed talent and revenue to them and high paying employment would  elevate their economic prospects. The article suggested moving the IRS to Detroit, I believe and the FBI to some other city. As for the FBI, they are contemplating moving to a new building at a proposed cost of over 1 billion

The argument was also made that construction costs are cheaper outside of D.C. and would also raise area salaries.

c) Those who serve the people should be closer to them and get out of the D.C Bubble.

d) In the world of technology having all of government in the same area carries terrorist risks.

When I drive from Savannah to Atlanta, I notice The Secretary of State of Georgia has moved its own offices from Atlanta to Forsyth ,Georgia and  re-located on the campus of a defunct liberal college. The facility is beautiful after the state refurbished the campus and buildings .

If we truly want to reduce the cost of government while increasing its efficiency relocating certain agencies seems like a great idea.  Also, actually closing certain agencies entirely seems like an even better one and we could start with The Department of Education and Energy and any truly useful activities could be transferred to other agencies.

This is something Trump ought to know about.
I leave for a meeting of a GMOA committee I chair in Athens tomorrow so this will be the final memo for a few days.
1)The 5 Stages Of Losing An Election To Donald Trump

Never acceptance.
Though many things have changed in American political life over the past couple of years, one aspect remains a comforting constant: Democrats never lose an election. Not really. Not fairly.
Sure, elections can be stolen. Americans can be misled. Big Oil or Big Business can buy elections – because these institutions possess the preternatural ability to control human actions. Voter always fail to understand what’s good for them (which, amazingly enough, always aligns with the state-expanding goals of the Left.) Whatever the case, something fishy and nefarious must also be going on, because there’s absolutely no way voters could reject Democrats.
From the night of Nov. 8 onward, the political coverage has been dominated by a series of conspiracies to explain the election of Donald Trump. Never acceptance. Always denial.

Comey did it.

Weeks after the election, conventional wisdom had coalesced around the idea that FBI Director James Comey’s letter informing Congress that the bureau had found new evidence relating to the criminal investigation had irreversibly changed the election. Many Democrats accused Comey of attempting to win the election for Trump. After hammering Trump with one accusation after the next– some of them legitimate and some of them completely unproven — Democrats seemed to believe their candidate should be immune from news of her own doing. Clinton, after all, was the one who used a secret server to circumvent transparency. She was the one who sent unsecured classified documents on that server. She was the one who attempted to destroy the evidence related to this investigation. She was the one who lied to the American people about it. And Clinton was nominated by Democrats, who never seriously entertained any another candidate.

Voting machines.

Conspiracy theories over rigged elections are nothing new; we saw them 2000 and 2004 (according to David Remnick, John Kerry believes he was cheated out of the presidency because of supposed irregularities in Ohio). Trump had also peddled the “rigged” election conspiracy before Election Day. I remember this, because I was told that the GOP nominee was irreparably undermining public trust in our institutions. By devoting much covering to stories that not newsworthy, our media does the same. Like, for instance, giving partisan “experts” widespread attention and legitimacy might convince millions of people to take seriously the idea that Clinton “may have been denied” as many as 30,000 votes in Wisconsin.

The Constitution screwed us, again.

We are now in the midst of widespread anguish over the imaginary popular vote. Not only is the system we’ve used to elect presidents since the founding of the republic “unfair” and “undemocratic,” but like anything else progressives dislike these days, it’s a tool of “White Supremacy—and Sexism.”  And it’s not only illiberal pundits such as Mark Joseph Stern who peddle myths about the Electoral College, but Democrats such as E.J. Dionne and Michael Tomasky, both of whom misrepresented the reasons for proportional voting and the make-up of representation in DC. One could argue that Democrats oppose dispersing political power and states’ rights, but that would be giving them far too much credit. They only seem to oppose those things when they’re losing elections.

Fake news!

After some ginned up alarm over the proliferation of “fake news,” Hillary joined the chorus by claiming it was “an epidemic” in America. The fake news panic of 2016 is a variation on a long-held liberal notion that people are too easily manipulated by conservatives. This is one of the reasons Democrats are interested in empowering the state to ban political speech by overturning Citizens United or passing a Fairness Doctrines or handing control of the Internet to the government. Conspiracy theories are prevalent in American political life. And it’s difficult to dispute that voters are often susceptible to believing stories that reinforce their preexisting views about the world. Fake news comes in many variations, though, and no one is innocent. At one point, more than half of Democrats believed that George Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened. And since most of the media treated Trump as if he had absolutely no chance of winning the election, this unfathomable turn of events has to be explained by something.

The Russians are coming.

Now, we’re shifting into our Russia Panic phase. The CIA – or at least one leak from the CIA, as of now – claims that the Russians had attempted to interfere in the election to assist Donald Trump. This seems wholly plausible, considering Trump’s favorable view of Putin, and should be fully investigated. There’s still debate among U.S. intelligence services about the Russian hacks, but that hasn’t stopped some Democrats from questioning the patriotism of those who refuse to accept their own hysterical version of events. Paul Krugman, before ever seeing the evidence, has declared the election illegitimate. (Electors pretending that 2016 was stolen for Trump are at least demanding to see the CIA report.)
Well, unless the Russians transformed Hillary Clinton into an unlikable, ideologically malleable, corrupt, inveterate fabricator over the past 30 years, the claims that the Russians stole an election should, like all other panics this season, be received with a giant dose of skepticism.
Of course, there will always be overarching theories about why Republicans win elections – like assuming half the country are racist. The Left is so enveloped by its identity politics, it may not understand that the other half of the country is sick of it. But, while I’m no fan of Donald Trump, Democrats have been demanding I panic over every cabinet pick, every statement and the things that are 1) the sort of things that were completely ok with them during the Obama administration and 2) the types of things that any mainstream Republican would engage in. Now, I’m not in the business of concern trolling, but before we shift to yet another conspiracy theory, it might behoove Democrats to look inward to explain their historic losses since the passage of Obamacare in 2010.
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

I knew my good friend David Friedman from high school; we see each 
other at periodic high school reunions. Two years after high school, I 
met another David Friedman and soon his father, my hero — the 
legendary Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. As editor of 
The New Guard, YAF’s magaz…
I knew my good friend David Friedman from high school; we see each other at periodic high school reunions. Two years after high school, I met another David Friedman and soon his father, my hero — the legendary Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. As editor of The New Guard, YAF’s magazine, I enlisted  David to write a regular libertarian column.
Now there is a third David Friedman, designated by President-elect Donald Trump to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel. I feel like I know him. He is plain spoken, no-nonsense, thus obviously unqualified.
Within an hour of the announcement, Jeremy Ben Ami, head of J Street and President Obama’s favorite Chanukah Party guest, opposed Friedman’s nomination. Confused? K Street is where the lobbyists are, whose swamp Trump intends to drain. J Street is an organization of Jewish surnames; their Judaism certified by deli attendance, unless they are vegetarians. J Street is, it claims, “pro-Israel”; it is also pro-Keith Ellison for DNC Chair; oxymoronic.
Have you seen the movie Son of Saul?
“The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one,” Friedman wrote six months ago. “But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas.”
This guy sounds like a Jewish Trump. No wonder they get along.
Trump accepts Friedman’s position that there can be no progress on a Palestinian state “until the Palestinians renounce violence and accept Israel as a Jewish state.” This is a harder line than Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu who would come to the table “without any preconditions.”
“The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don’t think it’s the only answer anymore,” Friedman wrote two months before Trump’s nomination. More recently the politically incorrect lawyer termed “the two state solution an illusion… a narrative that now needs to end.”
To understand Friedman, you have to read The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline Glick, a Chicago-born, Columbia University-educated Israeli journalist. She says Arabs can buy land in Israel; why can’t Jews buy land in the West Bank?
“It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be Judenrein [void of Jews],” Friedman said six weeks ago, “any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein [void of Arabs]. It’s not fair.”
Almost all of the U.S. ambassadors to Israel have been career foreign service officers (FSO). Ronald Reagan agreed that two thirds of all his ambassadors should be FSO, one-third political; worse, he let the Foreign Service Association select the two-thirds. If I were advising President-elect Trump, I would advise him to clean house at the Department of State and the CIA, both status quo, anti-Trump bastions. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is no shrinking violet. And CIA-designee Mike Pompeo may be the smartest of Trump appointees.
As for Israel, the ambassador-careerists have not done so well. Trump is, as they say, a disruptor. But he should not select just rich men and women;his political nominees must be willing to challenge the State Department’s Ruling Class.
David Friedman’s family is no stranger to Republican politics. His father, Rabbi Morris Friedman, hosted President Ronald Reagan, the first visit to a synagogue by a sitting president since George Washington. Friedman represented Trump, when his three Atlantic City casinos went bankrupt, and the two later became friends.
What is significant about Trump’s appointment of Friedman?
  1. It’s an earlier appointment than usual, and symbolic. As president, Obama’s first trip was his apology tour to Arab nations. As President-elect, Trump’s first ambassador appointment is to Israel. But expect a confirmation battle led by the Jewish Left to include a long line of retired State Department Arabists. Mainstream media will oppose Friedman as a diplomatic disaster. Pat Buchanan will denounce the nomination as Trump’s first major blunder that could trigger a new war, an aim of “neo-conservatives who did not even back Trump and want wars with Iran and Russia.”
  2. The relationship between Trump and Friedman will be closer than between any prior President and U.S. Ambassador to Israel. In contrast, Trump just met Rex Tillerson. Given Trump’s penchant for avoiding the chain of command and Friedman’s access, friend and foe alike in the region will know that Friedman speaks for Trump. The State Department careerists will try to undermine Friedman; this is not like bankruptcy law.
  3. Friedman had his Bar Mitzvah at the holy Western Wall in Jerusalem, speaks fluent Hebrew, has a second home in the city and is well-connected. But the Israeli Left will oppose his nomination as a “setback to the peace process.” Secular Jews will feel threatened that he is an orthodox Jew. Arabs in the Knesset will boycott him.
  4. The nomination is linked to moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Friedman terms “Israel’s eternal capital.” Israel alone among nations does not have its capital recognized. Trump can quickly replace the consulate sign in Jerusalem with an embassy sign. He built an ice rink in Central Park in four months; a U.S. Embassy may take longer, but a site already has been selected.
  5. Friedman said he wants to “advance the cause of peace within the region.” These code words put Iran above “the Palestinian issue.” The only good that came of the Iran deal is that 11 Arab nations are allied against Iran and most of them are working at least indirectly and quietly with the Israelis. Having been to Saudi Arabia 35 years ago, I am stunned at the Israeli-Saudi connection that is plausibly denied by all concerned.
  6. Appointing Friedman is provocative, but it’s the embassy move to Jerusalem that could spawn (a) a new Intifada; I was in Ramallah/West Bank years ago — the spontaneity is orchestrated; (b) rocket attacks from Hezbollah could be ordered to open up a second front; (c) terrorism on soft American targets, including some obvious ones (that should be divested) in the U.S. and elsewhere. With Obama and Kerry gone, Israel can respond with closure and ignore the U.N. Trump is not a gradualist who will insist on a ceasefire so the besieged bad guys can regroup. Finally, several Arab nations have lost patience with Palestinian intransigence.
It’s time for something new. Nearly a half-century of the “peace process” has failed. Give back Gaza, and you get infiltration tunnels and rocket attacks. Stop settlements, and it makes no difference. The Palestinians still teach school children hatred and violence. Their leaders diverted economic aid to Swiss bank accounts or making rockets and building infiltration tunnels. The Islamists don’t care about real estate; they want to kill the Jews, all of them.
What’s in Trump’s head? He sees Israel as an ally that Obama undercut. He believes peace is more probable if the U.S. supports Israel. He is sending a message, with this ambassador and with moving the embassy, that the proverbial train is leaving the station. Time is running out for the Palestinians to come to the table. He and his Ambassador start with a hardline position then incentivize negotiation. In the meantime, beef up intelligence capability in the region. When that embassy opens up in Jerusalem, all hell may break lose. Have contingency plans ready.

2a) Ban Ki-moon recognizes bias against Israel in last Security Council speech
In his last address to the UN Security Council on Friday, outgoing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recognized that Israel is subject to strong bias in the international body, something that Israeli ambassadors to the UN, including Danny Danon today, have raised their voices about for years.

“Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel,” Ban said. “In many cases, rather than helping the Palestinian cause, this reality has hampered the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively.”
“The secretary-general admitted the clear truth, the UN’s hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decade,” Danon said in reaction to the statement.
“During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd.

With a new secretary-general set to take office next month, we look forward to the possibility of a new era of fairness at the UN.”

The outgoing secretary-general chose to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for his last speech at the Security Council because: “While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the cause of the wars in the Middle East, its resolution can create momentum for peace throughout the region.”

“The right of the Jewish people to have a state does not negate the right of the Palestinian people to statehood,” Ban added. “At the same time, Israel must realize that the reality, in which a democratic state governed by the rule of law keeps the Palestinian people under military occupation, will continue to generate criticism and calls for accountability.”

He added that “the expanding Israeli settlement enterprise and an ever-more-entrenched status quo is preventing Palestinian development and locking in Gaza,” and that “settlements eat away at the land meant for a future Palestinian state.”

“Progress in this area, however, will be difficult unless the Palestinian authorities take brave and concrete steps to address incitement and violence,” he added.

The secretary-general reiterated the Security Council’s position that “Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have been under military occupation since 1967.”

“Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight of nearly half a century of humiliating occupation,” Ban said. “Leaders on both sides increasingly speak to their ever-more radicalized constituencies, rather than to each other.”

Ban also criticized “some Israeli politicians” for promoting the full annexation of the West Bank and urged them to reconsider advancing the recent settlement bill that would legalize Israeli settlement homes on private Palestinian land in the West Bank.

Speaking of the situation in Gaza, he said the area is “a tinder box.”

“It is almost certain to explode unless movement and access restrictions are lifted and humanitarian needs are addressed; unless rocket attacks, tunnel construction and smuggling stop; unless progress is made on establishing a Palestinian state, with Gaza an integral and peaceful part,” Ban said.

He continued by slamming Hamas for its “antisemitic charter that aspires to the obliteration of Israel. Hamas must, once and for all, renounce the use of violence and recognize the right of Israel to exist alongside a Palestinian state, in accordance with all relevant Security Council resolutions and previous agreements between the parties.”

Since becoming secretary- general 10 years ago, Ban has visited the region 11 times, including during periods of war. He will step down from his position at the end of the month and will be succeeded by former Portuguese prime minister Antonio Guterres.

2b) Our world: A Trumpian Israeli initiative
By Caroline Glick

US President-elect Donald Trump won’t even take office for another month, but he has already killed the status quo.

During the election campaign, Trump trounced the untouchable consensus on NATO’s post-Cold War purpose. Questioning the purpose of an alliance formed to fight a war that ended 25 years ago is indisputably a reasonable thing to do. But until Trump came around, no one did.
Since November 8, Trump has continued to reject accepted wisdom. For 37 years no US president would speak with the president of Taiwan. And then President-elect Trump took a call from Taiwan’s President-elect Tsai Ing-wen.
It’s not clear where Trump stands on either NATO or Taiwan. But it is eminently apparent that by ignoring protocol, Trump expanded his maneuver room in his dealings with NATO and China.

Then of course, there is Jerusalem. Since 1948 the US has refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – or even as part of Israel. This policy of nonrecognition – embodied by the US refusal to transfer the US Embassy to Jerusalem – has been maintained by a bipartisan consensus despite the fact that for the past 20 years, US law has required the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy to Jerusalem.

When Trump promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his words were greeted with cynicism.

But then this week his senior adviser Kellyanne Conway said Trump is serious about moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

In one fell swoop, the 68-year-old consensus is gone.

Thirty-five years ago, on December 14, 1981, Israel took a Trump-like step. Israel took a wrecking ball to received wisdom.

That day, the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law. Then-prime minister Menachem Begin decided on the initiative the day before. In less than 24 hours, the law went from an idea in Begin’s head into the law books.

The Golan Heights law canceled the Military Government and Civil Administration that had governed the area since 1967 and replaced them with Israeli law and administration.

The Reagan administration was livid. Begin had neither asked Ronald Reagan for permission nor given Reagan a head’s-up on what he was about to do.

Begin was clearly operating on the basis of the “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” protocol.

In the event, the Americans weren’t really mad.

Reagan prevented the UN Security Council from sanctioning Israel for its action.

The Syrian regime did nothing. The Arab world yawned.

Israel was spared international condemnation in large part because of the way Begin explained the purpose of the law.

The day before the Knesset passed Begin’s law, the Syrian regime announced it would prefer to fight Israel for 100 years than live at peace with it. That statement, like hundreds of similar ones over the 13 years since Israel took over the strategic plateau, reinforced yet again the basic truth that Israel would be responsible for the Golan Heights for a long, long time.

After the law was passed, Begin and his advisers insisted its purpose was administrative. Israel couldn’t wait for a hundred years to register births and deaths and marriages, they explained. The Syrian legal code through which the Military Government administered the areas was unsuited to a modern democracy. There was no way to protect the rights of Golan residents so long as Syrian law was the law of the land.

Begin and his advisers explained over and over that the application of Israeli law would have no impact on Israel’s willingness to make territorial concessions to Syria on the Golan in the event that the regime had a change in heart. And indeed, from 1992 until the war in Syria began in 2011, every Israeli government expressed willingness to discuss the future of the Golan Heights with the Syrians.

Aside from safeguarding the civil rights and legal protections of the Israeli citizens and permanent residents on the Golan, the law also defused the issue as a political cause inside Israel.

Everyone could accept the law. Those who wished to conclude a land-for-peace deal with Syria could support the law. Those who wished to retain perpetual Israeli control could live with it.

To safeguard against irresponsible concessions the Knesset passed the referendum law that requires a two-thirds Knesset majority to approve territorial compromise on the Golan.

By transferring administrative responsibilities from the military to the government, Israel freed its armed forces to concentrate on their primary mission – defending the country from its enemies.

When Begin passed the Golan Heights Law, he had already learned its basic lesson: When Israel speaks modestly about its objectives, it can achieve a lot more than when it bloviates about them.

Begin learned that lesson a year and a half earlier when he passed Basic Law: Jerusalem. Unlike the Golan Heights Law which changed the situation on the ground, Basic Law: Jerusalem, which announced that Israel’s capital is united Jerusalem, merely described reality. United Jerusalem had been Israel’s capital since immediately after the Six Day War. Weeks after the war the government united the city by expanding its municipal borders to include the neighborhoods that had been under Jordanian occupation since 1949.

Basic Law: Jerusalem was a bit of chest beating.

But the beating reverberated like drums of war in the West. And the US responded by enabling the Security Council to pass Resolution 478. Whereas in 1981 the US blocked the Security Council from passing sanctions against Israel for the Golan Heights law, in 1980 it enabled sanctions to be incorporated into the condemnatory resolution.

Resolution 478 enjoined member states that had embassies in Jerusalem to remove them. Within weeks, 11 of the 13 states that had embassies in Jerusalem had shut them down. The last two were closed in 2006.

The Golan Heights Law’s 35th anniversary was celebrated Wednesday evening at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. There, Transportation Minister Israel Katz and former cabinet secretary Tzvi Hauser said Israel must lobby Trump to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

While reasonable on their face, their calls ignore the basic lessons of the Golan Heights law, and seem to misread or ignore Trump’s modus operandi.

Trump cares about what works, not what looks good.

He isn’t interested in moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem because he cares about recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem or over anything else for that matter. If Trump moves the embassy he will do so to advance America’s interests.

In one fell swoop, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem will correct a great deal of the damage that eight years of President Barack Obama’s foreign policies have caused to US credibility worldwide.

There is no single step the US can take that will do more to rebuild US credibility as an ally than moving the embassy to Jerusalem. By taking the step that none of his predecessors would take to stand in support of the US’s most embattled ally worldwide, Trump will show that America can again be trusted. And moving the embassy will accomplish this goal without placing one US soldier at risk, and will cost US taxpayers no more than a few million dollars for construction and moving fees.

On a basic level, from Israel’s perspective, what distinguishes Trump from his predecessors is that he has signaled that he views Israel as an ally whereas his predecessors viewed the Jewish state as a burden.

Trump wants and expects wants Israel to be a credible ally. To achieve this, Israel has some status quo icons of its own to shatter. And the Golan Heights Law provides just the road map for action.

Begin wasn’t bluffing when he said that the Military Government lacked the legal tools to protect and uphold the rights of the residents of the Golan Heights. In Judea and Samaria, the situation today has similarly reached a critical moment. And whereas Begin canceled the military government on the Golan when a mere 6,000 Israelis were living there, today 450,000 Israelis live under military administration in Judea and Samaria.

The Israelis in Judea and Samaria all in live what is referred to as Area C. When the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994 it took over governing authority from the Military Government in Areas A and B – the Palestinian population centers.

A mere 100,000 Palestinians live in Area C.

The Military Government administers on the basis of the Jordanian legal code, which has been revised over the past 49 years by various military administrative orders.

As the human drama taking place in the community of Amona makes clear, the existing legal system is incapable of protecting the civil and legal rights of either the Israelis or the Palestinians living under it.

In Amona, 40 Israeli families are about to be thrown out of their homes because Jordanian law doesn’t allow Jews to easily purchase land from Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority has made selling land to Jews a capital offense. Israelis in Area C cannot properly adjudicate their legal rights to land in Israeli courts.

As was the case with Syria in 1981, the Palestinian leadership – from the PLO to Hamas – has made clear that it has no interest in making peace with Israel. Palestinian intransigence has brought about a 16-year stalemate in the so-called peace process which has convinced even true believers on the Israeli Left that the time has come to put aside the two-state paradigm.

The latest person to come on board was novelist and leftist ideologue A.B. Yehoshua. Earlier this month Yehoshua told an astonished audience in Jerusalem that the two-state solution is impossible.

Yehoshua then endorsed the plan to apply Israeli law to Area C and grant full civil rights to the Palestinians living in the area.

Trump’s rejection of the status quo and his respectful view of Israel gives our leaders the opportunity to join Yehoshua in rejecting the failed “two-state solution” status quo and act on the growing consensus on the Left and Right that the time has come to apply Israeli law to Area C.

True, to a degree even greater than on the Golan Heights, Israel has the legal and historic right to full sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria.

But it is equally true that most Israelis would be willing to negotiate the permanent status of Judea and Samaria with a credible, sincere Palestinian neighbor.

By simply applying its law to the area as an administrative step, Israel keeps all options on the table while securing the civil, legal and human rights of both the Palestinians and the Israelis who live in the area.

Rejecting received wisdom is far less risky than maintaining allegiance to it when it is wrong.

Trump obviously recognizes this. The time has come for Israel to recognize it as well.

No comments: