Intersectionalism and Israel. Bibi Under A Cloud For Arrogance But Did He Break Any Laws? The Mass Media Had Two Choices - They Chose The One That Harms The Republic.

Another classic from a very dear friend and fellow memo reader: "Tennis is rarely a contact sport - stay well. J---"

My response:  "Apparently not the way me and my partner play it, thanks. Me"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Large number of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign, Pelosi and her crowd want Trump to resign, the Democrat Party has been taken over by a bartender and two Muslims.  You could not predict this if you even tried.   

Meanwhile I am reading John Grisham's latest novel about a murderer who planned it all and wants no defense. (See 1 and 1a below.)

Finally , in an "intersectional world" can Israel survive, powerful and economically strong as it may be?

Furthermore, does Trump's walk in Viet Nam  put more pressure on Iran? (See 2 ans 2a below.)

The idea of "intersectionality" is purposely designed to keep a united world split and at each other's throats. This is what chaos is all about, ie. division that can never heal.

In the case of Israel, the best way to weaken a strong nation is to keep it disunited and to challenge anything that smacks of solidarity and a return to unity.  Keep Israel weak and feeling guilty just as the radical left wants to impose guilt on white males in particular.

The 2020 election is a dagger aimed at the heart of America by radical elements in the Democrat Party and AOC is keeping a record of those who will not succumb to her clever efforts of destruction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since very little attention is given to writing about real news what we receive from the mass media makes a story of intrigue as if we were reading a novel.

What will the Mueller report report? Democrats have decided to go after Trump's financial situation before he became president because the Mueller report maybe light on collusion evidence, What about Cohen's allegations?  All of these soap box dramas have displaced news because what AOC is doing to track and record the behaviour of independent minded Democrats is intolerable.

The mass media have chosen to sell drama, to write history rather than report it objectively. This is not healthy but profits trump keeping the republic secure and safe. This did not happen innocently. This occurred because it was subtly orchestrated by those who want to destroy America. The substantive side of the drama involves opening our borders to those who defy our laws, rejecting accepting a legally elected president by attacking his legitimacy through spurious orchestrated paid for documents introduced by those engaged in treasonous behaviour. 

The mass media had a choice to report the facts and let the weight of the truth speak for itself  or protect the perpetrators with whom they choose to be in bed. They chose the latter and our blessed  republic now hangs in the balance. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Poll Shows Two Thirds of Israelis Think Netanyahu Should Resign If Indicted
First surveys since Attorney General announces he plans to charge PM with corruption indicate Netanyahu will have trouble forming a coalition
By TOI Staff

Some two-thirds of Israelis believe that Benjamin Netanyahu should resign if he is indicted for corruption, a survey indicated Friday, a day after Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced his intention to file criminal proceedings against the prime minister.

The findings were part of the first polls published since the announcement, which also appeared to indicate that Netanyahu would likely be unable to form a governing coalition after the April 9 elections.

Mandelblit announced Thursday that Netanyahu will be charged with criminal wrongdoing in three separate cases against him, including bribery in the far-reaching Bezeq corruption probe, pending a hearing.

The decision marks the first time in Israel’s history that a serving prime minister has been told he faces criminal charges, and casts a heavy shadow over Netanyahu’s re-election campaign.

A poll published by the Kan public broadcaster Friday night found that 36% of Israelis believe that Netanyahu should resign now. A further 32% think he should step down if he is actually indicted after the completion of a hearing process.

Twenty-three percent of respondents said that Netanyahu could continue being prime minister even after an indictment, which the law technically allows, and 8% said they did not know.

The poll found that 42% of Israelis believe Netanyahu’s claim that Mandelblit, in announcing the planned indictment, was motivated by pressure from the left and the media to bring down his right-wing government, while 58% said the attorney general was acting from professional considerations only.

The Kan poll, and another from Channel 13, also indicated that Netanyahu will be unable to form a governing coalition.

The survey by Kan showed that if elections were held today, results would see Likud maintaining its strength from recent polls and winning 29 seats. The Blue and White alliance of Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid would get 37 seats.

It gave the New Right, the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism and the Arab Hadash-Ta’al parties seven seats each. Labor, Shas and Meretz would all win six seats, and Kulanu, the Union of Right Wing Parties and the second Arab party Ra’am-Balad would each get five seats.

Former defense minister Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu would not make it into the Knesset.

Those results see the right-wing and Orthodox parties with 59 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, while the center, left and Arabs would have 61.

The Channel 13 survey had slightly different results, but also found a 59-61 division among the blocs and concluded the right would be unable to form a coalition.

Channel 13 shows the Likud winning 30 seats. Blue and White would get 36 seats. The poll gave Hadash-Ta’al nine seats and had the Union of Right Wing Parties and United Torah Judaism winning seven each.

Shas, Labor and Meretz would get six each, while the New Right would get five. Kulanu and Ra’am-Balad would get four, and Yisrael Beytenu would again not cross the threshold.

The Channel 13 poll was conducted among 761 voters and had a margin of error of 3.1%. The Kan poll was conducted among 550 voters and had a margin of error of 3.7%.

A poll conducted for The Times of Israel before Thursday evening’s announcement also predicted that potential charges would remove Netanyahu’s ability to form a right-wing coalition.

This was due to voters defecting from Likud as well as a slight change in voter preferences among smaller parties leading to three of them dropping below the threshold. The ToI survey, however, predicted that the Blue and White party could see a major jump in its Knesset seats, a situation not mirrored in Friday’s poll.

Blue and White was formed last week, when Israel Resilience and Yesh Atid agreed to run on a joint slate along with Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem party and Gabi Ashkenazi, who like Gantz and Ya’alon is a former military chief.

The announcement of Mandelblit’s intention to indict the prime minister — who long argued that the decision should be postponed until after the vote so that it would not affect public opinion — places Netanyahu’s legal situation front and center in the election campaign.

Responding to the announcement late Thursday, Netanyahu said there was “no explanation” for the timing, coming just 40 days before the April 9 election day, other than that it was part of a political vendetta designed to oust his right-wing government and install the left.

“For the first time in Israel’s history, a [criminal] hearing process was launched a few weeks, a few days before elections,” he charged. “Everyone can see that the timing is scandalous, intended to topple the right and help the left rise to power. There’s no other explanation for the insistence on this timing. This is their purpose, to flood the public with ridiculous charges against me without giving me the opportunity to disprove the charges until after the elections,” Netanyahu said Thursday night.

The criticism, which seems set to become the central theme of Netanyahu’s election campaign, may not, however, resonate with the public.

In The Times of Israel poll, just 35% of respondents, for example, said they agreed with the following statement: “The investigations into Benjamin Netanyahu are petty and politically motivated. They know he will win the election, so are trying to find other ways to get him out of office.”

By contrast, 47% said they agreed with a second statement, to the effect that the probes are “extremely serious and should not be taken lightly,” and that if Netanyahu is indicted, “he should immediately step down.”

For Likud voters, 81% said they agreed more with the first statement, while 10% said the second better represented their views.

Asked if they believed that after a decade in power, Netanyahu should continue in the top job, 19% of respondents said they were happy with his leadership and wanted him to continue. Twenty-six percent said they believed it was “time for a change” but couldn’t see a viable alternative, while 55% said the prime minister should go.

1a)

Facing indictment, PM strikes back at left-wing 'blood libel'

Hours after being informed that he will be summoned for a pre-indictment hearing on four corruption counts, Netanyahu attacks Left and the media for colluding against him • "This is an unprecedented witch hunt. … Nothing will come out of this," he vows.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Left of trying to unseat him through undemocratic means on Thursday, hours after Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit announced his decision to indict him for alleged corruption pending a hearing.

"The Left knows it cannot beat me through the ballot box and that is why it has engaged in political persecution against me for three years," he said. "This is an unprecedented witch hunt with only one goal – to topple a right-wing government," Netanyahu said in a televised speech.

"The Left applied extreme and inhumane pressure on the attorney general so that he would decide to go ahead with an indictment, even if it is pending a hearing, so long as he made this decision before the election and even though the Left knows full well that this house of cards will collapse after the election. What happened today is a major blow to democracy – for the first time in Israeli history, a pre-indictment hearing is announced during an election campaign."

Netanyahu has been investigated in three corruption cases over the past three years. In Case 1,000, one of the first cases to come to light, Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, were investigated for allegedly accepting illicit gifts from billionaire businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer.

In Case 2,000, in which Netanyahu is suspected of negotiating a deal with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon "Noni" Mozes under which he would work to curtail the activity of Israel Hayom in exchange for Yedioth Ahronoth softening its harshly critical coverage of Netanyahu.

In Case 4,000, Netanyahu is suspected of having offered Shaul Elovitch, the controlling shareholder in the Bezeq communications giant, regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels in exchange for favorable coverage of Netanyahu and his family on the Bezeq-owned Walla news website.

Mendelblit informed Netanyahu's lawyers on Thursday that he has made a tentative decision to indict Netanyahu in all three cases, with a final decision depending on the outcome of pre-indictment hearing where Netanyahu would be able to counter the allegations.

According to Mendelblit, he plans to indict Netanyahu on fraud and breach of trust in all three cases, as well as on one count of accepting a bribe in Case 4,000.

Netanyahu said that the Left's alleged judicial campaign to bring about his political demise is nothing short "scandalous." I know that the media's power is limited but even through this limited power, it can affect enough people to make the Left win. Look at what is happening as we speak – in the television studios, in the live broadcasts, I can't remember the last time the Left was so gleeful – the Left is already  measuring the drapes, everything is fair game when it comes to bringing me down, including my wife and son."

Netanyahu said that the only reason there are state's witnesses willing to testify against him is because of undue pressure by police. "They told them: Either you provide us with some lie on Netanyahu or you get locked up for a long time," Netanyahu said and vowed that "nothing will come out of this, this is just one big blood libel."

He then repeated his claim that he is "the first person in history who is accused of taking a bribe because of favorable coverage," saying that this standard was not applied to other politicians. "Why hasn't Yair Lapid [head of the Yesh Atid party] not being taken in for questioning over the torrent of favorable coverage from Yedioth Ahronoth?" he asked.

Meanwhile, in Vietnam, President Donald Trump praised Netanyahu just hours before Mendelblit's decision. Asked if he would like to comment on Netanyahu's legal woes, Trump said he was not familiar with the details, but said Netanyahu "has been a great prime minister. … He's done a great job as prime minister. He's tough, he's smart, he's strong."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) Jews Must Not Embrace Powerlessness 

Commentary Magazine

To many observers, Israel’s military strength, thriving First World economy, and democratic institutions seem to mark it as a conventional Western power—albeit one located in the Middle East. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Zionism that gave birth to Israel was a radical and revolutionary movement not only to return the Jewish people to sovereignty in their ancestral homeland, but to eradicate the narrative of victimhood that had come to define the Jews of the Diaspora after centuries of oppression and second-class citizenship.  That is why Israel is one of the greatest progressive success stories of modern times.

Thus, it makes sense that many left-leaning pro-Israel activists are making valiant efforts to create a space for Zionist groups within the American social-justice movement. On the surface, the fit is an obvious one. Formerly disempowered Jews, who had been oppressed for thousands of years and had lost millions to the Holocaust, now have agency. No longer at the whim of tyrannical regimes, Israel is a powerful, if small, nation-state where the Jews can finally exercise the same rights and privileges as all other peoples.

Yet, as these well-intentioned pro-Israel groups are discovering, intersectionality—the new framework for social-justice movements and the religion of the progressive left—is inherently irreconcilable with Zionism. Pro-Israel groups will fail in their attempts at inclusion precisely because Israel did not fail in its efforts to reverse the condition of the Jew in history. Within the social-justice movement, there is no place for an ideology or an identity that is premised on the idea that Jews will no longer be victims.

In a recent article in the New York Times, columnist Michele Alexander suggested that the only reason Martin Luther King Jr. had been supportive of a homeland for Jews in his day was that “he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed, and homeless people.” King would never, she argued, support Israel today.

Alexander inadvertently highlighted a key point here. While intersectional groups may argue that their problem with Zionism is Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, their real issue with Israel, and by extension with pro-Israel activists, is that they are not only no longer oppressed and homeless but strong, powerful, and independent.  Within contemporary social-justice movements, power is seen as inherently corrupt, regardless of whether it is used for defense or domination, for overcoming odds or oppressing others. Outdated denunciations of “Western imperialism” are used by activist groups to reduce complicated issues to a simple calculation: Power = injustice.

Intersectionality arose from a 1989 paper by Kimberlé Crenshaw, an academic and activist. In the paper, she discussed the ways that gender and race intersect with each other to multiply the negative effects of systems of power on women of color. Her central observation—that one can’t confront and fight against discrimination without acknowledging the interaction between multiple parts of one’s identity—was important. However, over the years, as Crenshaw’s ideas on the complexity of identity have been mapped onto queer theory, feminist legal theories, and theories on sexuality, race, and gender, the focus morphed from her agenda of empowerment to an emphasis on the import and individuality of identity.

In an attempt to unite very disparate and seemingly incompatible groups, social-justice movement leaders came to highlight the only thing these groups have in common: They all feel misunderstood and victimized. Thus, intersectional social-justice groups began to coalesce around, and embrace, the identity of shared victimhood.

In truth, many of the groups that come together under the intersectional banner have just claims to victimhood. However, instead of working to fight against the victim identity, they elevate it, since it is the only thing that keeps them all connected. For example, the conflicting ideology of feminist groups and fundamentalist Islamic groups seems impossible to reconcile. However, they can coexist within the intersectional movement because both claim victimhood status, and thus they unify around that shared identity. This overlapping experience of feeling discriminated against and disempowered—the embrace of the “intersection” of their victimhoods—is crucial to holding this new coalition together.

Given the acceptance of how complicated and personal each person’s identity is, and the stress on how much the complexities of identity affect each person’s life experiences, the intersectionality movement demands of its members unchallenged support for one another in their struggle against whoever is identified as an oppressor. We “recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people,” write the authors of the Black Lives Matter’s website. If the model of power = injustice is the structure in which all oppression must be understood, all that is required is for one group to note a power imbalance. At that point, all allied groups must accept the justice of the claim. Thus, the correlate to the very particular, albeit shared, victimhood of Islamic pro-Palestinians and feminist groups is that both join in each other’s fight against each other’s oppressors. Islamists accept the evil of white men; feminists reject Zionists. 

This blind acceptance of both victimhood and identified oppressor is exactly the opposite of what was compelling about social-justice movements before intersectionality came to dominate them. The aim of the older social-justice movement was greater equality, greater power, greater access for those who had been ignored, silenced, and disempowered for too long. Social-justice groups were designed to give voice and agency to those who had been disempowered. Victimhood was rejected. Women didn’t cower in safe spaces when it got dark; they “took back the night.” The purpose was to overcome the status of victimhood and transform it, and it was understood that to do this effectively, groups had to work together to improve the system and expand access to power. Power was not a bad word, but a collective aim.

In that social-justice movement, there was room for politically empowered Jews, as exemplified by Israel and supported by the Zionist movement. This is no longer the case. “Liberalism used to be about making the capitalist system fairer, gentler, and more inclusive,” Bret Stephens has written. But now “it has become an ideology for maligning it as a ‘rigged system’ (Elizabeth Warren), or eliminating an entire industry within it (Kamala Harris), or demonizing and punishing those who do exceptionally well at it.”

Stephens is correct if one views the intersectional movement as a subspecies of liberalism. However, many of the intersectional groups have morphed from liberalism to progressivism. Their focus is not just on individual rights, liberty, and justice for everyone, but on tearing down a system that, however flawed, allowed for opportunity of expansion of these values. If all power is unjust, then all systems of power need to be destroyed. The existing American political process is not simply imperfect but inherently evil and unredeemable.

American Zionists are thus triply excluded: They reject victimhood, they don’t spend their efforts fighting against oppressors, and they gained their power by navigating the American political system rather than rejecting it.  “It is well known that those who understand and use the political process…can amplify their political clout beyond their numbers,” explains Henry Feingold in Jewish Power in America. “It is also no secret that beyond their high voting rate and the location of Jewish voting blocs in pivotal states, Jews are among the most engaged constituencies in the nation.”

It was the trauma of their failure to alter the trajectory of the Holocaust that forced American Jewry to become more engaged in the political system, specifically in their support and efforts on behalf of Israel. In the early part of the 20th century, American Jews had been divided on the question of a Jewish homeland. But in the aftermath of the Nazi killing machine, they coalesced around the need for a militarized Jewish country so Jews would never again be powerless in the face of murderous anti-Semitism. American Jews no longer felt it was the better part of wisdom to keep their heads down.

It was the Six-Day War that marked the change. Israel, the symbol of the Jewish people, was victorious in the face of overwhelming odds, and American Jews felt both pride in Israel and in their own efforts on behalf of their national homeland. In the buildup to the war in the spring of 1967, Jews had mobilized millions of dollars, lobbied, and marched. They had reached out to their members of Congress and worked within the system to help save their brothers and sisters in Israel. The Six-Day War intensified American Jews’ love for Israel and elevated their confidence in their ability to act for their interests at home and abroad.

Yossi Klein Halevi’s description of the war’s bifurcated effect on the Israeli psyche is relevant for understanding American Jewry’s post-’67 motivation and actions as well. From the run-up to the war, when Egypt blockaded Israel and no international power was willing to send aid, half of Israel’s population internalized the lesson that the Jews would always be insecure and on their own. The other half became emboldened by the ensuing victory and what it said about Israel’s military prowess and the new nation’s self-confidence. For their part, American Jews seemed to combine the two aspects of the Israeli experience. The abandonment of the new state by the international system was a reminder of the world’s instinctive willingness to allow the Jewish people to be obliterated, and the best way to prevent that from happening was for Jews everywhere to change the course of the future through their own actions. 

This was reinforced over the years through American Jewry’s continued awareness of the threats facing Jews around the world—most notably the plight of Soviet Jewry—and the ongoing hostility and danger of Israel’s neighbors. American Jews responded to these threats through honest, serious, and thoroughgoing participation in the American political system.

If groups focused on Jewish and Israeli issues want to be part of this new progressive intersectional movement, they will have to reject everything that Jews, as a minority group, have learned over the past century about navigating the American political system. They will be required to highlight the continued oppression and victimhood of the Jewish people and others, rather than embrace Zionism’s focus on the positive uses of power.

Take the example of If Not Now, a millennial group formed to “seek an end to the American Jewish support for the occupation,” as its own literature says. “We acknowledge the existence of anti-Jewish oppression in the world and in ourselves,” according to the organization’s website. “We take pride in who we are and work towards ending oppression in our own communities so we can be more whole.”

If Not Now is an anti-Zionist group, but not because it is critical of Israel. It is anti-Zionist because it rejects the core of Zionism, which is premised on embracing power, and instead focuses on the oppression and victimization of Jews and Palestinians. It wants to tear down, rather than make advantageous use of, existing systems of power.

That is why Zionist groups need to accept that they will never be included in this contemporary progressive and illiberal social-justice movement—and should not wish to be. They should let those who claim that Israel is a trigger word go hide in their safe spaces; Zionists need to embrace the strength and power of the Jewish homeland and find ways to work within the system to support and strengthen Israel’s position on campus and in Washington. In the process, they will find other brave and thoughtful allies who also understand that power is not inherently bad. By highlighting the insidious and disempowering nature of the current intersectional social-justice movement, perhaps Zionists can not only advance their own agenda but help improve the intellectual climate and discourse across America.

2a) Analysis: Trump walking away from N. Korea increases pressure on Iran

By YONAH JEREMY BOB

U.S. PRESIDENT Donald Trump and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un walk together in Sentosa, Singapore in June, 2018 (photo credit: JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS)

From Trump’s press conference, it appears that even with no deal, the two sides are still talking and there is no immediate danger of deterioration or escalation into a conflict.

Everyone would have been thrilled if US President Donald Trump had reached a historic deal getting North Korea to denuclearize.

But in the absence of that, the result could turn out to be very positive from the Israeli perspective, since it could put more pressure on Iran.

From Trump’s press conference, it appears that even with no deal, the two sides are still talking and there is no immediate danger of a deterioration or escalation into a conflict.

Just as importantly, Trump said that one always needs to be ready to walk away from a half deal which will not solve the overall problem.

Many thought going into the summit that Trump was so desperate for a deal that he would sign almost anything and make major concessions to North Korea in exchange for only partial denuclearization.

That was clearly what North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wanted.

From Trump’s press conference, it appears clear that part of the sticking point was North Korea was offering to dismantle its YongByon nuclear facility and possibly others in exchange for a full removal of US sanctions.

But as Trump and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out, signing that deal would have left the North without a declaration that it will give up all of its nuclear weapons stock and a large number of other facilities.

If Trump had cut such a deal, Iran could have pushed back against US sanctions and asked why it needs to make more concessions when Pyongyang got a deal without even giving up its nuclear weapons.

Israel has strong hopes that the current US pressure campaign will lead to Iran rolling back its ballistic missile testing and reducing its footprint in Syria.

All of that might have been put into question by a premature deal with chairman Kim.

Just wait out Trump and eventually he will crack for a face-saving partial deal, they may have thought in Tehran.

None of this means that the final result of US-North Korea negotiations will have a good impact on the nuclear standoff with the Islamic Republic. Either blown negotiations, which leads to a conflict, or a premature deal could still be negative.

But it does mean a win for Israel since, at this particular stage, the Trump administration and those forces looking to send a message to Tehran that it cannot wear down the US pressure, are holding their ground.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++