It is with considerable pleasure that I stand here tonight to address this gathering. What distinguishes you from the two federally funded patronage machines, also known as the Democrats and Republicans, is for me quite simple: I usually find myself agreeing with your positions but not very often with theirs. To your credit, you do not stand in fear of the media. You do not crave the affection of those who would never vote for you.  And you defend limited constitutional government and family arrangements that have been integral to all civilized societies up until a few years ago. Unlike the GOP, and certainly at the executive level, you would never try to score electoral points by calling for the amnesty of illegals. This is a tactic that has proved counterproductive for the Republicans, judging by the meager electoral results that it produced for the partisans of Bush and McCain among Latino voters in 2008.

It may be a case of accentuating the obvious to note that the GOP has become an only slightly less predictable source of leftist views than its opposition. That remains true even if some Republican politicians do stand up sometimes for limited government. I would be the last to disparage these exceptional GOP politicians, like the feisty congressmen who opposed Bush II's immigration bill and the courageous state representative from Berks County, Sam Rohrer, who preceded me on this podium. I am also delighted that the GOP in it current oppositional mode is resisting Obama's march toward socialism. I applaud this effort even though up until a week ago, the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was proposing his own party's extensive mortgage bailout plan in lieu of the Democratic one.

Needless to say, I could imagine a very different situation if there were a Republican president, say Bush I, McCain, or Bush II. Whether the plan was for extensive federal control over education, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the quota-favorable Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported their Republican presidents in voting for such measures.

Too often GOP officials speak out of both sides of their mouths, in a clumsy attempt to sound moderate and sensitive. Allow me to indicate my frustration with Republicans who agonize endlessly about their failure to win leftist affections. If the choice is between Arlen Specter and his Democratic opponent, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to vote for either. Are we supposed to believe that having a Senator with an R label supporting affirmative action, expanded abortion rights, and a widened scope for federal interference in our economic lives represents the Right? In what way is such a Senator preferable to a Democrat voting for the same positions? One has to be a fool or a knave to believe the national media, when we are told that everyone displaying an R label is automatically on the right.

My advice to you is not to move toward any imaginary center. This notion of being in the center is itself a media-creation, and one used to push our national politics toward the left. No matter how urgently the GOP plays this game, it continues to be slimed as racist, sexist, and homophobic. And no matter how much more Wall Street gives to Democrats than Republicans, it is only the Republicans who are attacked as the friends of Big Business. By now the lesson should be clear: parties that intermittently claim to be on the right but cater to the Left, can only lose ground. They typically fall between two stools, upsetting their rightwing constituency while being unable to win votes from the leftist opposition. I for one was not unhappy to see McCain lose after pursuing this very bad strategy.  I only regret that a party like this one could not take advantage of his well deserved defeat.

It is we who should be able gain influence when and if the two institutionalized parties veer to the left at the same time. It is we who must be ready to build on the ruin caused by both parties in varying degrees. Overspending by the federal government, floods of illegals coming across our borders, and the involvement of social engineers and anti-discrimination experts in our daily lives will surely evoke a reaction. But the GOP will not likely stand athwart this disastrous course. That is because its national organization, to the extent it is not of the Left, craves the Left's acceptance of it as a nice opposition.

Those who think this way have been able to manipulate the GOP base, but this too may be changing. In the last election, much of this base never came to the polls. In every national election since the Reagan landslides in the 1980s, moreover, the white Christian core of the party has become increasingly less visible. At the same time the GOP share of minority votes has either stayed the same or declined. Since the GOP began its latest outreach efforts to minorities about 20 years ago, its share of the black vote has shrunk from 1 in 8 to 1 in 30. It is not from the targets of GOP outreach but from disaligned Republicans and those on the right of every ethnic background that the CP will have to build itself up.

In all likelihood, the GOP will continue to try to reach out frenetically to the Left on immigration, gay rights, and affirmative action. It will also likely continue to push a liberal internationalist foreign policy centered on spreading the latest version of US democracy; with increased intervention in foreign countries in the name of the war on terrorism. The fact that the neoconservatives are working to sell this policy to the Obama administration should be for us welcome news. It means that both parties may eventually be following the same imprudent course in international relations while ignoring that part of the Right that is skeptical about foreign adventures.

The CP does not operate in the same manner as the two authorized mega-parties. We are not a big business enterprise engorged with public revenues. Unlike the GOP and the Democrats, we do not have to worry about millions of hangers-on whose services have to be bought with booty extracted from taxpayers.  Such patronage parties can only survive by winning elections in the near term or by losing them by narrow margins, because their continuity depends on doing favors with public money.

We, by contrast, have declared our opposition to what the major parties celebrate, namely welfare state democracy. We do not pretend that a government limited by constitutionally enumerated powers should be reconstructing human relations, banning discrimination from the lives of designated victims or beneficiaries, or micromanaging families through social professionals. Nor does the argument that citizens should be equal before the law apply to those who are here illegally, any more than the belief that all human beings have a right to liberty requires us to rebuild other societies in the image of our political class—or to redistribute income to make everyone feel equally good about himself or herself. In short we do not need the booty that is vital for Demorep survival. It does not matter to us materially or professionally, if we do not win the next election. We are not trying to grab tax monies and jobs in the public sector to pay off cronies and ward-heelers. We are a party of principle, and we can wait until the established powers derail public affairs sufficiently so that we and our principles can be taken seriously by a critical mass of American citizens.

Of the two national parties, the real Right has just cause to hate the GOP far more than the Democrats. For one thing, the traditional right must fight the GOP octopus to gain recognition. The Democratic Left would never vote for us, except in some extraordinary situation, to weaken the GOP in a particular election. The real, continuing hindrance to our progress is the well-heeled Republican machine.

But that is not the only reason for us to despise the GOP even more than the Dems. Unlike the Republicans, Obama's party stands foursquare for its principles; and we should admire the Democratic Left for believing in something other than winning elections. Their success did not result entirely from their use and occupation of the media and public education. It also had a great deal to do with the willingness of the Democratic Left to defend its positions openly and with pride. This in contrast to the wavering convictions of Republican leaders who cannot bring themselves to take emphatic stands against minority quotas, illegal immigration, and Sarah Palin's much beloved anti-discrimination guidelines for women. In 2000 when George W. Bush and Al Gore were in a presidential debate and each was asked where he stood on minority preferences and set asides, the Democrat responded by expressing full support for his party's policy, but the Republican, true to form, mumbled something in garbled syntax about "affirmative recruitment."

In the last presidential election, Barack Obama openly backed minority quotas, as he had done unflinchingly throughout his career. By contrast, his Republican opponent tried to create a slight but not noticeable distance from the pro-quota position he had occupied since 1998, without allowing himself to move too rapidly in the direction of clarity. McCain then tried to cover his tracks by publicly doing contrition for having failed to rally to the Martin Luther King national holiday in time. Too often even when the Republicans do what is proper, they do so accidentally, inconsistently, and with sputtering embarrassment. Somehow it has never dawned on their apologists that what makes Republicans look silly next to Democrats is their evasiveness on controversial social issues and their unwillingness to stand firmly behind rightist positions. Although I disagree with the Democrats on most domestic issues, I applaud the relative frankness of their stands. If Republicans did the same, a party like this one would not be necessary.

A few weeks ago, I watched Mike Huckabee, a former GOP candidate for president and an ordained Southern Baptist minister, interviewing the former Democratic NY governor Mario Cuomo on FOX. Cuomo expressed forthrightly his beliefs that "religion should have no part in our political life," and he tried to apply this principle to his stand on abortion. Although the former governor claimed to be a devout Catholic, he also insisted he would never inflict his "religious principle about abortion" on those who saw choice as a fundamental human right.

Note I'm not praising this opinions uttered by a former law professor. It is impossible for me to see how one can keep antiseptically apart theological and political positions, given the facts that human conscience shapes political choices, and that political and religious values are inescapably intertwined in public life. It is also doubtful that Cuomo would try to separate things of God from things of Caesar if he liked the politics of a particular religionist. More than once he has praised the religious conscience of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Barack Obama.

Religion in political affairs is only a problem for Cuomo if someone has the nerve to put forth traditional Judeo-Christian or biblically-based views that clash with his leftist social agenda. It also became obvious from listening to him that his views on some issues are not at all thought through, for example, when he explains: "I oppose abortion as a religious-moral outrage but I won't interfere with someone else's right to have one. In fact I'll support measures to facilitate every woman's access to this procedure, which I personally consider to be the taking of life." Only a sociopath or a liar could even approach this degree of moral cynicism or idiocy. And such grotesque views typically emanate from people who would lament a great injustice being committed if we fail to pass new civil rights bills or anti-discrimination laws. Don't they find it strange that they should be calling for extraordinary steps to uphold the unrestricted right of others to commit what they personally consider to be homicide? 

But the most striking thing about this interview was not Cuomo's statement of belief but Huckabee's response. As a respondent, the former governor was characteristically Republican, unctuously thanking Cuomo for engaging in dialogue and for stating how great it is to live in a country where such open discussion could take place. What I would have expected from Huckabee as a minimal response was to have pointed out the fallacy in Cuomo's statements. I doubt he failed to see them, but as a member of the cravenly party, Huckabee could not bring himself to say what was self-evidently true. He would not suggest that Cuomo sounded foolish. His GOP mentality would not allow him to go that far in appearing "rightwing." A week before, however, Huckabee had behaved contentiously when he had gone after a more permissible target on his show, namely Ann Coulter. Presumably targets on his right were more appropriate, by media standards, for a would-be Republican presidential candidate than criticizing left liberals who enjoy the esteem of the political class.

One may respond to my criticism by citing such media celebrities as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who flail at Democrats every day. But my response to such a counterargument is that we are dealing in both cases with GOP shills. Such media personalities get Dittoheads up in arms about the abuses of the Democratic Party, in order to have them line up behind Bush, McCain, and Arlen Specter. Misdirected rage is made to serve establishment ends. The beneficiaries of these ritualized rants are the GOP operatives and in Rush's case Hillary Clinton, when she was a presidential candidate last year. When it looked as if lots of right-wingers might cast sympathy votes for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin after McCain had sown up the GOP nomination, Rush, who is no friend of the antiwar Right, got his groupies to change party affiliations and to vote for Hillary. His cockamamie reason was that he was creating dissension within the opposition. What Rush was actually doing was trying to keep down the primary vote of the Republican Right while enhancing the presidential prospects of the New York Senator. About the same time the neoconservative press had begun to talk up Hillary's virtues as a moderate. It was hoped in the Weekly Standard and on FOX news that she would continue the GOP foreign policy as president. Rush was simply acting in unison with those who help determine the content of his daily tirades.

Allow me to offer one final observation: Lots of GOP capital was wasted on a fool's errand. It was an errand that certain advisors pushed on former president Bush and which became the defining issue for the GOP and for the conservative movement. Anyone who did not believe that American lives and treasure should be squandered on the mission of bringing democracy to Iraq was unceremoniously booted out of the official Right. Candidates like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were treated like moral lepers in the neoconservative press for daring to oppose an unwise American military involvement in Iraq. The entire conservative and GOP establishment was organized as a cheering gallery for this ill-conceived, foreign adventure.

To your party's credit, you did not yield to conformist pressure. You stood your ground by questioning our invasion of Iraq and despite being scorned and marginalized by the antiwar Left as well as by the neoconservative-occupied media, you have emerged as a moral force on the current political scene. This moral capital is something you (or we) should point to with pride as the Constitution Party prepares for its future. We were on the right side of a deeply divisive issue, and we took our position as Americans, and not as partisans of the Democratic or Republican Party.

www.constitutionparty.com

196: Hear it Now (13,386 kb)

Election Results: Towards Fascist Rule in Israel

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
February 21, 2009

On February 10, Israel held parliamentary elections for 120 seats in its 18th Knesset. The process repeats every four years unless the body calls an earlier election by majority vote. The prime minister may also ask the president to request one early that will proceed unless the Knesset blocks it. Parliamentary terms may be extended beyond four years by special majority vote. Israel has no constitution. Under Article 4 of its Basic Law: The Knesset:

	Binyamin Netanyahu

“The Knesset shall be elected by general, national, direct, equal, secret and proportional elections, in accordance with the Knesset Elections Law.” Every Israeli citizen 18 or older may vote, including Arabs who are nominally enfranchised, may serve in the parliament, but can’t govern or in any way influence policy.

Knesset seats are assigned proportionally to each party’s percentage of the total vote. A minimum total is required to win any seats. Jewish parties alone are empowered. Arab parliamentarians have no decision-making authority. They’re also constrained by the 1992 Law of Political Parties and section 7A(1) of the Basic Law that prohibits candidates from denying “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

Under the law for Arabs and Jews, no candidate may challenge Israel’s fundamental Jewish character or demand equal rights, privileges, and justice. The essential Zionist identity is inviolable. The law works only for Jews. Israeli Arabs have no rights. They’re denied equal treatment and justice, even those elected to public office. Israel calls this democracy. South Africa called it apartheid. Nazi Germany called it fascism.

On January 12, the Central Elections Committee (CEC) banned two Arab parties from participating in the February elections on grounds of incitement, racism, supporting terrorist groups, and refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Two extremist right wing parties requested it - Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union. Named were United Arab List-Ta’al and Balad. All charges were bogus and hateful.

On January 21, Israel’s High Court unanimously reversed the ban after Arab politicians appealed, but this behavior shows what Arab citizens face in a country affording rights only to Jews. Nonetheless, election law states that all votes are of equal weight, without saying
only Jewish ones matter, not those of Arabs or members of other faiths. Israel is a Jewish state. Others are outsiders, unwelcome, unwanted, disadvantaged, without rights, and criminally abused at the whim of the government.

Israeli Election Results

Given the number of Israeli parties, coalitions are needed to govern as no single party ever won enough Knesset seats to do it on its own.

Below are the results of the February 10 elections:

Kadima:

– 28 seats, one less than previously. Founded by Ariel Sharon and 13 other Likud members in November 2005, Kadima (meaning “forward” or “in-front”), calls itself “a broad popular movement which works to ensure the future of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.” It’s now Israel’s largest political party. Its ideology is center-right and very militant.

Likud:

– 27 seats compared to 12 in the previous Knesset. It was founded in 1973 as a right wing union of the revisionist Herut party with the Gahal and center Zionist parties. Its former prime ministers include Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu again leads it. Its ideology is hard right and like Kadima is very militant.

Yisrael Beiteinu (or Israel is Our Home):

– 15 seats, four more than the previous Knesset. It was founded in 1999 by Avigdor Lieberman, an ultranationalist and revisionist Zionist. In its January/February 2007 issue, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs said his rise “makes (the) US - Israel alliance more dangerous,” given his extremist views.

On Israeli Radio in November 2006, he called for the assassination of “militant” Palestinian leaders (meaning from Hamas and other resistance groups) and added: “They have to disappear, to go to Paradise, all of them and there can’t be any compromise.” He also wants all peace agreements (like Camp David and Oslo) abandoned, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas ignored, and earlier urged that Israeli Arabs be deported and Arab Knesset members who met with Hezbollah or Hamas executed.

Haaretz called him an “unrestrained and irresponsible man….a threat (to Israel for) his lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue (that may) bring disaster (to) the whole region.” Confrontation with Iran is one of his top priorities as well as continued illegal settlement expansions. Lieberman is hard-line and uncompromising. His party surpassed Labor to rank third in popularity.

Labor:

–13 seats compared to 19 in the previous Knesset. Founded in 1968 by the union of the Mapai, Ahdut HaAvoda, and Rafi parties. Its ideology is Zionist, neoliberal, and militant like the above three parties. Former prime ministers include David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ehud Barak. Barak is its current leader.

Shas :

– 11 seats, one less than the previous Knesset. Founded in 1984 by rabbis Ovadia Yosef and Elazar Shach, it’s an extremist right wing religious party led by Eli Yishai, Israel’s deputy prime minister in its 17th Knesset.

The National Union Party:

– 4 seats. Founded in 1999 by Rehavam Ze’evi and Avigdor Lieberman. Now led by Ya’akov Katz, it’s extremely militant, supports settlements in all the Land of Israel (as biblically defined), and advocates expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank, preferably on a voluntary basis.

Jewish Home Party:

– 3 seats. It was founded in 2008 by a merger of the National Religious Party, Moledet, and Tkuma. Modelet then broke away, and half of Tkuma rejoined National Union. Now led by Daniel Hershkovitz, it’s a moderate right wing, pro-settler, religious Zionist party.

Hadash-Democratic Front for Peace and Equality:

– 4 seats, a gain of one. Founded in 1977, it’s a Jewish-Arab party led by Mohammad Barakeh. Its ideology counters the above right wing bloc with little public support. It’s anti-Zionist, favors dismantling Israeli settlements, ending the occupation, and backs the right of return, full equality for Israeli Arabs, and a comprehensive stable peace.

New Movement Meretz:

– 3 seats compared to 5 in the previous Knesset. Founded in 1992, it’s a labor Zionist, social democratic party led by Haim Oron.

United Torah Judaism:

– 5 seats, one less than previously. Founded in 1992, its ideology is strict adherence to the laws of the Torah. Its current leader is Yaakov Litzman.

Balad:

– 3 seats compared to none in the previous Knesset. Founded in 1995, its ideology is Arab nationalism and democratic socialism. Its current leader is Jamal Zahalka.

United Arab List-Ta’al:

– 4 seats, up from none in the previous Knesset. Founded in 1996, it represents Israeli Arabs under its current leader Ibrahim Sarsur.

Israel has about 20 other minor parties. None got enough votes to win seats. The big loser was Gil. It had seven previously. Now it has none. Led by Rafi Eitan, it’s ideology is social welfare and pro-elder care.

Israel Shifts to the Right

On January 15, a Haaretz-Dialog poll showed widespread support for the Gaza war with less than 10% of Israelis calling it a “failure.” Despite mass slaughter, destruction, and human suffering, 82% of respondents believed the IDF hadn’t “gone too far.”

It played out strongly in the February elections with center to far right parties winning decisively - 104 of the 120 seats or 86.6% of the Knesset. In spite of mass global condemnation, Israelis stood firm on hard-line militarism, candidates favoring conflict over conciliation, and continued occupation of Palestine in lieu of peace.

Negotiations continue for a new government, but policy is clear whoever becomes prime minister. Under Tzipi Livni or Benjamin Netanyahu, Gaza’s siege will continue. So will West Bank oppression, conflict over peace, leaders affirming it in rhetoric and policy, and international community support will back them. Grim times persist for Palestinians, isolated and on their own after decades of occupation and abuse.

On February 11, Juan Cole’s web site headlined: “Right Wing Sweeps Israel” in an election that “sounded the death knell for the two-state solution.” One never existed, of course, because separation accelerates land annexation, and equity demands one democratic state for members of all faiths equally.

After the February 10 elections, that possibility is more remote than ever with figures like Avigdor Lieberman emerging as “kingmaker.” He rose in prominence on a racist platform against 20% of the population and now wants them “executed,” expelled, or at least forced to sign loyalty oaths.

Under a hard-line Netanyahu or Livni government, Cole sees one of three possibilities:

– a hardened apartheid giving Palestinians fewer rights than ever and no control over their land, borders, water and air; Palestinians won’t accept it, so conflict ahead is assured;

– a violent expulsion policy affecting all Palestinians, including Israeli Arabs to purify Greater Israel for Jews; Cole believes that “This option would almost certainly end the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan” because a population outflow this great would create tensions in both countries and they’d react; they and other Arab states might also ally with Iran and create a new problem for America and Israel.

– a single-state solution; impossible now but over time economic, technological, and political boycotts may force one.

As for Obama reviving the peace process and a viable two-state solution, both prospects aren’t possible given Israel’s shift to the right and the Israeli Lobby’s influence against it.

In a February 10 Nation magazine article, Neve Gordon disagrees. Headlined: “Few Peacemakers in Israel’s Knesset,” he believes it’s for “the world, and particularly the Obama administration, to respond,” unmindful of his one-sided Israeli support and reluctance to counter its policy.

Nonetheless, Gordon hopes that Obama “will make good on his promise for change and introduce a courageous initiative that will finally bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians” under a two-state solution “to resolve this bloody conflict once and for all.”

“With determination and political boldness he can do just that.” Perhaps so but he won’t. Obama is timid, not bold. He “crossed the River Jordan,” according to James Petras. His administration is filled with Zionist zealots professing unconditional support for Israel. With that team in place, Israeli interests matter. Palestinian ones don’t. Change awaits a new day in Israel and Washington, and given Tel Aviv’s likely government, it’s more in the future than ever.

Prospects are grim with Israeli Arab Knesset member (MK) Ahmed Tibi calling Livni “90% Lieberman and 10% Netanyahu.” For his part, Netanyahu is 100% hard-line, and won’t give an inch on compromise. As head of state, he promises to destroy Hamas. As 1996 - 1999 prime minister, his agenda was three “nos:”

– no Golan Heights withdrawal;

– no discussion, division, or relinquishing of Jerusalem, and

– no precondition negotiations with Arafat, meaning Palestinian relations depend on full compliance with Israel demands.

Today he’s more hard-line than ever, vows as prime minister to “thwart the Iranian threat,” and sabotage Tehran’s nuclear program once and for all by any means necessary. He also opposes the peace process, wants expanded illegal West Bank settlements, and, like Lieberman, called for “mass deportations of Arabs from the Territories.”

For her part, Livni is no less hard-line in vowing to overthrow Hamas if elected and finish subduing Gaza. As kingmaker, Lieberman won’t join any government that will “agree directly or indirectly to Hamas staying in power.” He opposed last month’s ceasefire that “prevented the IDF from finishing the job” and stops just short of demanding renewal.

As a result, AP reported on February 11 that Arabs see little chance for peace under any new government and fear the emergence of Israel’s far right. It cited Middle East newspapers decrying Lieberman’s rise, denouncing him as racist with Syria’s Al-Thawra saying: “The Israelis are electing war and extremism….so long as the Israel street is extremist and racist, the government would be like it.”

In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi called it “regretful” that all sides were hard-line in their campaigns. “Each party tried to show a more brutal, aggressive and pro-occupation face….” He added that Iran has no official position on the election as it doesn’t recognize any Israeli government.

Oraib al-Rentawi, head of the Al Quds Center for Political Studies, said a Livni government may market an illusory peace process, but under Netanyahu, “the mission will be far more difficult.” Others think it impossible no matter who’s prime minister given that 61 years of oppression prevented any from emerging thus far. With Israel’s far right shift, it’s less likely now than ever.

Forming A New Government

Under Israel’s Basic Law, the president (a symbolic, ceremonial post), lets one Knesset member form a new government and head it as prime minister.

The law reads as follows:

“When a new government has to be constituted, the President of the State shall, after consultation with representatives of party groups in the Knesset, assign the task of forming a Government to a Knesset Member (MK) who notified him that he is prepared to accept the task.”

Time constraints are imposed - a maximum 28 days but the President may extend it for an additional 14. If a government can’t be formed or if the Knesset rejects the one proposed, “the President may assign the task….to another Knesset Member who has notified him that he is prepared to accept the task….” No mention of a “she.”

“When the Knesset Member has formed a Government, he shall notify the President of the State and Speaker of the Knesset” within a designated period. The MK who “formed a Government shall head it.”

On February 16, Haaretz reported that Netanyahu “said earlier that he would begin forging a coalition with his party’s ‘natural partners’ as soon as possible” even though Kadima bettered Likud by one seat.

Livni said she’d only join a Netanyahu coalition on a rotating prime ministerial basis. Jockeying for position continues amid conciliatory and hostile rhetoric with one Likud MK (Silvan Shalom) accusing Livni of “shtick, tricks, (and) scheming (that could) sabotage the standard political process.” He added that election results affirmed Netanyahu as the rightful prime minister so allow him to “form a government as soon as possible.”

Prime minister Olmert mentioned post-election uncertainty and suggested that Livni join a Likud coalition “with Kadima as a central factor.” At the same time, Olmert advised Livni to head the opposition to ensure a clear victory next time.

On February 17, Labor’s Housing and Construction Minister, Isaac Herzog, told Haaretz that neither Livni or Netanyahu can form a new government that will hold. “At this rate, (he suggested) we will find ourselves in the midst of new elections within a few months” because Livni agreed to ally with Yisrael Beitenu.

Labor whip, Eitan Cabel was even more strident saying: “The scam that is Kadima has now been exposed before all. If the leftist voters who gave their ballot to Livni would have known (they’d be) in bed with Lieberman, they would have demanded their votes back.”

President Peres spoke about the complicated task he faces:

“On Wednesday (February 11) at 6PM, I will get the official results,” and will then try to form a unity government. “The nation told me to consider the election results honestly and as the law prescribes, so I will make my decision after I hear out all the parties.”

On February 15, the Jerusalem Post reported new developments in a story headlined: “Police have evidence of money laundering against Lieberman.” Quoting former National Fraud Unit’s Boaz Guttman, writer Yaakov Lappin said “Police amassed sufficient evidence to link….Lieberman” with these charges. It’s believed that he used Cypriot bank accounts under his daughter’s name - for money laundering and possible fraud and bribes. “The police source said there was no doubt about money laundering,” but that prosecution could be a long way off given complex hurdles to be overcome before charges lead to a trial.

Guttman added that fallout affecting Lieberman could be considerable since he’s now damaged goods. Forming a new government is more complicated and important positions for Lieberman are off-limits - including finance and public security.

On the same day, Tehran’s Press TV reported that “An Israeli defense strategy report for 2009 has tasked the military with making preliminary preparations for launching a war against Iran.” It calls the country “the No. 1 threat the IDF is now preparing for,” and cites Tehran as “a threat to Israel’s existence” without any evidence to prove it. There is none because Iran threatens no other country but is prepared to defend itself if targeted.

Nonetheless, “Israeli officials argue that a military attack is a legitimate option for taking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure” even though the IAEA says it complies with NPT provisions. Israel is a nuclear outlaw non-signatory.

Earlier, Tel Aviv asked the Bush administration for bunker-buster bombs, green light permission to attack, and overflight and refueling rights over Iraq. It was rebuffed in favor of covert sabotage efforts.

For its part, Iran is seeking sophisticated Russian S-300 long-range surface-to-air missiles. They can intercept aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles so pose a formidable defense against attack. Lexington Institute vice-president and Pentagon advisor Dan Goure said “If Tehran obtained the S-300, it would be a game-changer in military thinking for (targeting) Iran.” It might also prevent a Middle East holocaust if Washington and/or Israel seriously consider one, something even the Bush administration didn’t pursue.

On February 16, the UK Telegraph headlined: “Israel launches covert war against Iran” with writer Philip Sherwell calling it “an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran’s nuclear programme, US intelligence sources have revealed.”

It includes planned assassinations of “top figures involved in Iran’s atomic operations” as well as “sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime’s ‘illicit’ weapons project, the experts say.”

According to a former (unnamed) CIA officer, the idea is to slow progress without Iran knowing what’s happening. “The goal is delay, delay, delay until you can come up with some other solution” because the Obama administration may prefer non-military efforts for now.

Rumors are that Mossad was behind the mysterious 2007 “gas poisoning” death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, Iran’s top nuclear scientist at its Isfahan uranium plant. Other suspicious deaths were also reported, and according to an unnamed European intelligence official, “Israel (doesn’t hesitate) assassinating weapons scientists” or anyone else for that matter.

Israeli security and intelligence journalist, Yossi Melman, said that “Without military strikes, there is still considerable scope for disrupting and damaging the Iranian program, and this has been done with some success.” Tehran is alerted to the threat and has measures in place to counteract it.

Observers are following the rhetoric and watching as events unfold. In the meantime, jockeying and deal-making continue as Netanyahu and Livni try outmaneuvering each other to form a new government. Whoever wins, Palestinians, Israelis, and most others will be losers.

On February 19, AP reported that Lieberman endorsed Netanyahu, “all but guaranteeing that (he’ll) be the country’s next leader.” Haaretz went further saying that “65 MKs announced (for) Netanyahu (so) it appears that his path to the premiership is (now) paved.” Livni called it “the foundation….for an extreme right-wing government.” Lieberman wants Kadima in it. Likud said it would try to forge a broad coalition, and Peres may shortly announce Netanyahu will lead it.

Research related articles:

1. Our Land of Israel Offers spy Jonathan Pollard top spot on Knesset list
2. Robertson Advocates Israel Striking Iran Before The 2008 Election
3. Neocon Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran Between U.S. Election and Inauguration
4. Israel: No worries about our image
5. Binyamin Netanyahu to be Israel’s next Prime Minister
6. Israel hopes to colonize parts of Iraq as “Greater Israel”
7. Fallon talks sense into Israel on Iran
8. Netanyahu Says 9/11 Was Good For Israel
9. Israel is on its way to reoccupying all of the Gaza Strip
10. Binyamin Netanyahu targets Iran after he is appointed Prime Minister
11. Israel launches covert war against Iran
12. Israel Waging ‘Secret War With Iran’