Green light on Judea and Samaria is key to Trump’s re-election

[Published 3 August 2020]

President Trump’s chances of winning another term in November could well turn on his publicly endorsing Israel to immediately implement his Peace Plan restoring Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) after an absence of 3000 years.

Judea and Samaria — the ancient and biblical heartland of the Jewish People — was expressly designated by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 as part of the area within which the Jewish National Home could be reconstituted. That right still survives in 2020 under article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Republican-voting Jews and white, born-again/evangelical Christians are particularly interested in seeing Trump give Israel the go-ahead. It could be the tipping point in their decision to vote or not vote for Trump. Whether Israel positively responded would then be its decision solely.

Jessica Martinez and Gregory A Smith concluded in their article — “How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis”:

“Fully eight-in-ten self-identified white, born-again/evangelical Christians say they voted for Trump, while just 16% voted for Clinton. Trump’s 65-percentage-point margin of victory among voters in this group—which includes self-described Protestants, as well as Catholics, Mormons and others—matched or exceeded the victory margins of George W. Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012…
… Like Hispanic Catholics, religious “nones” and Jews were strong Clinton supporters. Indeed, nearly seven-in-ten religious “nones” voted for Clinton, as did 71% of Jews.”

Only 72% of white, born-again evangelical/ Christians currently approve Trump’s handling of his job, according to a Pew Research Centre survey conducted June 16 to 22 — a decline of 6 percentage points since April. Actioning his peace plan could see Trump’s Evangelical vote restored to its 2016 levels. Delaying its implementation could see Evangelical support decline below 72%.

Strong Jewish support for the Democratic Party has seemingly resulted from intermarriage — last measured at 58% in another 2013 Pew Research survey:

“Intermarriage rates seem to have risen substantially over the last five decades. Among Jewish respondents who have gotten married since 2000, nearly six-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who got married in the 1980s, roughly four-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. And among Jews who got married before 1970, just 17% have a non-Jewish spouse.

American Jews merging their Jewish identity with their non-Jewish partner’s identity over the last 50 years has seen their families increasingly vote for the Democratic Party — safe in the knowledge that strong bipartisan support for Israel existed between Democrats and Republicans.

However this bipartisan support has been fractured following President Obama’s post-election sell-out of Israel at the United Nations on 23 December 2016 — followed now by stringent criticism of Trump’s Peace Plan by:

• Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, Chris Murphy and Independent Bernie Sanders.
• 191 Democrat Members of Congress
• The Democratic Party’s Draft 2020 platform—which proclaims:

“Democrats oppose any unilateral steps by either side—including annexation—that undermine prospects for two states”

The Democratic Party now opposes Israel unilaterally reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria — a legal entitlement vested in the Jewish People for the last 100 years but unattainable until now under Trump’s Peace Plan.

Many Jews who voted for the Democratic Party in 2016 would be alarmed at seeing their previous bilateral comfort zone collapsing. The choice they thought they would never have to make has now arrived.

Trump can help regain his high 2016 Evangelical Christian vote whilst increasing his very low 2016 Jewish vote by green-lighting Israel’s immediate application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria -considerably boosting his prospects for re-election.

Author’s note: The cartoon—commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”—one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators—whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog.

Sanders and Bloomberg boost hopes for Netanyahu election win

[Published 27 February 2020]

Democratic Party contenders for the American Presidency — Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg — have unwittingly given Israel’s Prime Minister — Bibi Netanyahu — an unexpected boost to becoming Israel’s next Prime Minister on March 2.

During a nationally-televised Democratic Party Presidential contenders’ debate, Sanders made this inflammatory claim:

“I am very proud of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that, right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country.”

This “reactionary racist” just happens to be Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister — victorious after six election campaigns conducted in fully democratic and openly transparent elections. Sanders’ comment doesn’t say much for his opinion of the majority of Israelis whose votes have kept Netanyahu there.

Bloomberg was motivated to chime in with his take on Israel:

“Well, the battle has been going on for a long time in the Middle East, whether it’s the Arabs versus the Persians, the Shias versus the Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it’s only gone on for 40 or 50 years.

Number one, you can’t move the embassy back. We should not have done it without getting something from the Israeli government. But it was done, and you’re going to have to leave it there.

Number two, only solution here is a two-state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated…”

The conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine has been going on for 100 years — not 40 or 50 years. Brainwashed by Arab propaganda — Bloomberg had erased the origins of the conflict which began with the San Remo conference and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Bloomberg - in mentioning the need for a two-state solution - was apparently ignorant of the fact that the Palestinian Arabs had been allocated 78% of Palestine in 1922 - which subsequently became a sovereign state renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 — today called Jordan.

For someone aspiring to be America’s next President Bloomberg displayed an appalling lack of knowledge about this long running and unresolved conflict.

Had President Trump obtained a quid pro quo from Israel for moving America’s Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem he would have risked impeachment by the Trump-hating Democrats. The Embassy was moved because American embassies are always located in the capitols of each country.

One major policy difference between Netanyahu and Gantz makes this Israeli election an especially historic and momentous one:

Netanyahu is offering — if re-elected and with Trump’s approval — to immediately extend sovereignty into the Jewish People’s heartland — Judea and Samaria — after a 3000 years absence

Netanyahu’s chief rival – Benny Gantz will not do so until the Arab States and the international community agree.

Sanders and Bloomberg’s disparaging anti-Zionist rants could prove to be the catalysts needed to see the Jewish People turning this 3000 year dream into a living reality.

Sander’s and Bloomberg’s comments could galvanize tens of thousands of angry Israelis - who don’t usually vote out of sheer apathy — into voting for Netanyahu.

Voter turnout at Israel’s last election in September 2019 was a disappointing 69.83% — only slightly higher than the 68.46% in the February 2019 elections — given the huge incentive to vote to break the unprecedented February deadlock.

Latest polls indicate Netanyahu has now moved ahead of Gantz for the first time.

Sanders and Bloomberg have ensured Netanyahu’s late momentum continues — which could indeed see Israel finally ending the political stalemate that has marked the previous two deadlocked elections.


Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Trump Or Clinton Victory Could Depend On Non-Voters

[This article was submitted for publication to Canada Free Press on 4 November 2016 but was never published.

When I enquired as to reason why - I received the following response:

CFP-Copy
09/11/2016

Dear David,

Apologies.

I just site searched the article and found it in our spam folder. For some reason unknown to us, a few of our writers — in the last week— had their submissions arrive in spam.

Not sure why this happened, but sorry it did

Brian and Judi

Russian conspiracy theorists - here is something for you to go ballistic about.]



It would indeed be ironic if the next President of the United States was determined by the number of previous voters who this time did not exercise the most fundamental right bequeathed to them by their forefathers - the inalienable right to vote.

An increase in this class of non-voters has become more likely with the release of a Washington Post-ABC News poll - which found 46% of likely voters saying Trump is more honest and deserving of trust as against 38% for Clinton. That is seen as a wide lead for Trump since both he and Clinton were tied when the same question was asked by the Washington Post-ABC poll in September.

Clinton's decline comes amidst some extraordinary events:

1. the FBI reopening an investigation into Clinton’s private email server, having found more emails on the private computer of her senior aide Huma Abedin.

2.Interim Democratic National Committee Chairperson Donna Brazile being caught out - whilst a contributor at CNN - feeding two questions to the Clinton camp likely to be asked in a Democrat debate without the knowledge of her Presidential opponent Bernie Sanders.

3. An undercover video surfacing that tied Robert Creamer - a White House visitor on 340 occasions meeting with President Obama 45 times - to plans to incite brawls at Trump rallies and illegally bus voters to polling stations.

These latest developments could influence many previous voters - both democrats and disenchanted republicans intending to vote for Clinton - into not voting.

Bernie Sanders supporters are no doubt outraged by the treatment accorded to him by two Democratic National Committee Chairpersons.

Brazile's predecessor Senator Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been forced to resign that position after hacked emails revealed a plot to embarrass and undermine Sanders in the Democratic primaries as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brazile survives - defiant, unrepentant and unscathed.

Many other Democrats might not be prepared to vote for a candidate who could be embroiled in a lengthy FBI investigation extending well into her Presidency - that could both hamstring her administration and impact on her decision making capacity.

Republican voters - such as the Bush family - affronted and publicly distancing themselves from Trump's policies and his sometimes irrational and explosive behaviour not to mention his alleged sexual indiscretions - will now reflect on voting for Clinton in the face of these latest developments but decide they still cannot vote for Trump. They could opt to vote for neither.

The crowds flocking to Trump's rallies are far larger than Clinton's. One can reasonably conclude that the enthusiasm of Trumps's supporters far outweighs that of Clinton's - and that the likelihood of Trump voters turning out to vote will probably not diminish no matter what happens in the next few days.

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3% of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5% in 2012.

The low 2012 turnout could be explained by the fact that President Barack Obama was running for his second term whilst enjoying a high popularity rating.

It would therefore be more circumspect to accept the figure of 62.3% as setting the bar that both Trump and Clinton should be watching closely as the votes are being counted.

If the voter turnout is less than 62.3% - then Trump is more likely to win. If higher than 62.3% - then Clinton is more likely to win.

There is no doubt that this has been the most volatile Presidential election campaign ever and that the popularity of both Trump and Clinton is very low.

Hopefully dedicated past voters choosing to not vote in 2016 will never again be faced with this difficult choice of rejecting both the Republican and Democratic parties nominees.


[PS:I received the following reply from Fox News pollster Larry Sabato on 10 November 2016 after I sent him this article:

David,

It’s an excellent piece. I am going to share it with my entire team; I want every one of them to read it.

I appreciate your kind words. Most people wrote to suggest an early retirement — or a firing squad! So I salute your humanity.

Best wishes,

Larry

Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University Professor of Politics
University of Virginia
sabato@virginia.edu]