Benjamin Netanyahu's key Wing Men one and all prefer Hillary Clinton for the 45th President of the USA ..... now even more than in June 2016

The prime minister knows Israel needs a US president who is measured, consistent and credible, all qualities Trump lacks.

Trump Netanyahu and Clinton. (photo credit:REUTERS)

This article is based on one and one conversations with Benjamin Netanyahu's key wing men DoreGold ( Director General f the Foreign Ministry) , Danny Danon ( UN Embassador) Ron Dermer ( USA Ambassador ) , Michael Oren ( Previously Ambassador to the US)  Tzipi Hotelevy ( Depurty Foreign Minister) and the Cabinet Ministers  Tzachi Hanegbi , Avi Dichter,Yuli-Yoel Edelstein,Zeev Elkin,Gilad Erdan.and Yuval Steinitz and just in the interest of complete disclosure , I have been a member of  the Likud Central Committee since 1988.

In his heart of hearts, and certainly not to be discussed with his political sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is probably hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory in November’s US presidential election. And despite what former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani believes, Israel’s right-wing leader will prefer dealing with the first woman president in America’s history than the flamboyant, uncontrollable and unpredictable Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Netanyahu hates surprises, and Trump’s whole candidacy has been one huge surprise, from his decision to run, his winning the Republican nomination and his sudden surge in the head-to-head polls against Clinton. More pertinently for Netanyahu, no one has a real clue as to where Trump stands on issues of vital importance to Israel.

Trump’s flirtation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, unlike our own Avigdor Liberman’s embarrassing endorsement of Putin’s democratic credentials when Liberman was foreign minister, would seriously endanger the West, and by extension Israel, were Trump ever get to sit in the Oval Office. A strengthening of Russia’s standing at the expense of the US would have serious knock-on effects in the Middle East, in particular boosting Russia’s de facto allies Iran and Hezbollah.

More widely, Trump’s willingness to discuss recognizing Russia’s land grab in the Crimean and his threats to weaken NATO would be a disastrous reshuffling of the post-Cold War order. Trump’s strident isolationism will certainly be setting off alarm bells in the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. Take a look at Trump’s remarks regarding his commitment to the NATO alliance: “I want to keep NATO , but I want them to pay,” Trump told a rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania, last week.

“I don’t want to be taken advantage of... We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in World War Three? ...Give me a break.”

In the past, Trump has also talked of his willingness to “walk” if countries like Japan, Germany or Saudi Arabia do not pay the full cost for American troops stationed in their countries.

Given Israel’s reliance on American military aid, this is certainly not music to Netanyahu’s ears. It’s surely no coincidence that after dragging his heels for over year, convinced he could get a better deal from the next US administration, Netanyahu has suddenly switched gears and begun to move decisively to reach an agreement with President Barack Obama over the next 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on US military aid to Israel.

With a reported $40 billion at stake, Netanyahu has belatedly realized it is not in Israel’s interest for this huge package to become a political football in what promises to be an exceptionally divisive American election campaign. For all Netanyahu and his supporters’ attempts to falsify history and portray Obama as the most anti-Israel US president in recent history, this MoU, once signed, will set the seal on Obama’s pro-Israel legacy and his commitment to Israel’s security.

Israel needs a US president who is measured, consistent and credible, all qualities Trump has already shown he lacks. Shooting from the hip on Twitter is amusing, from the Oval Office it would be a nightmare.

One day Trump says he is “neutral” on Israel and Palestine, and suggests that Israeli obstinacy is behind the difficulty of securing peace: “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”

The next day (when he happens to be addressing the AIPAC convention) he insists he “will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem,” if elected president, a promise regularly made but never kept by would-be American presidents. The Trump-inspired removal of support for the two-state solution from the Republican platform then places the party to the Right of Netanyahu, and offers no insight into resolving the Israel- Palestine conflict.

With Clinton, on the other hand, Netanyahu knows exactly what’s in store – more of the same, and from the prime minister’s perspective, what’s not to like? Despite the clear ideological differences between Netanyahu and Obama, and the clash over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the latter’s administration has never wavered in its support for Israel when it really mattered for Jerusalem.

And neither will Clinton. Her record as a senator and secretary of state is one of a clear supporter of Israel. Under her stewardship, the State Department increased military assistance for Israel every year, from $2.55b. when she took office to $3.1b. in FY2013, a nearly 20 percent increase, while diplomatically she ensured the United States blocked UN Security Council resolutions for Palestinian statehood.

Clinton and Netanyahu might not be friends, but Israel doesn’t need friends, it needs strong allies. A Trump presidency will see a weakening of US alliances across the world as America turns inwards, which is precisely the opposite of what Israel needs.

Benjamin Netanyahu's key Wing Men one and all prefer Hillary Clinton for the 45th President of the USA ..... now even more than in June 2016

The prime minister knows Israel needs a US president who is measured, consistent and credible, all qualities Trump lacks.

Trump Netanyahu and Clinton. (photo credit:REUTERS)

This article is based on one and one conversations with Benjamin Netanyahu's key wing men DoreGold ( Director General f the Foreign Ministry) , Danny Danon ( UN Embassador) Ron Dermer ( USA Ambassador ) , Michael Oren ( Previously Ambassador to the US)  Tzipi Hotelevy ( Depurty Foreign Minister) and the Cabinet Ministers  Tzachi Hanegbi , Avi Dichter,Yuli-Yoel Edelstein,Zeev Elkin,Gilad Erdan.and Yuval Steinitz and just in the interest of complete disclosure , I have been a member of  the Likud Central Committee since 1988.

In his heart of hearts, and certainly not to be discussed with his political sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is probably hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory in November’s US presidential election. And despite what former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani believes, Israel’s right-wing leader will prefer dealing with the first woman president in America’s history than the flamboyant, uncontrollable and unpredictable Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Netanyahu hates surprises, and Trump’s whole candidacy has been one huge surprise, from his decision to run, his winning the Republican nomination and his sudden surge in the head-to-head polls against Clinton. More pertinently for Netanyahu, no one has a real clue as to where Trump stands on issues of vital importance to Israel.

Trump’s flirtation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, unlike our own Avigdor Liberman’s embarrassing endorsement of Putin’s democratic credentials when Liberman was foreign minister, would seriously endanger the West, and by extension Israel, were Trump ever get to sit in the Oval Office. A strengthening of Russia’s standing at the expense of the US would have serious knock-on effects in the Middle East, in particular boosting Russia’s de facto allies Iran and Hezbollah.

More widely, Trump’s willingness to discuss recognizing Russia’s land grab in the Crimean and his threats to weaken NATO would be a disastrous reshuffling of the post-Cold War order. Trump’s strident isolationism will certainly be setting off alarm bells in the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. Take a look at Trump’s remarks regarding his commitment to the NATO alliance: “I want to keep NATO , but I want them to pay,” Trump told a rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania, last week.

“I don’t want to be taken advantage of... We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in World War Three? ...Give me a break.”

In the past, Trump has also talked of his willingness to “walk” if countries like Japan, Germany or Saudi Arabia do not pay the full cost for American troops stationed in their countries.

Given Israel’s reliance on American military aid, this is certainly not music to Netanyahu’s ears. It’s surely no coincidence that after dragging his heels for over year, convinced he could get a better deal from the next US administration, Netanyahu has suddenly switched gears and begun to move decisively to reach an agreement with President Barack Obama over the next 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on US military aid to Israel.

With a reported $40 billion at stake, Netanyahu has belatedly realized it is not in Israel’s interest for this huge package to become a political football in what promises to be an exceptionally divisive American election campaign. For all Netanyahu and his supporters’ attempts to falsify history and portray Obama as the most anti-Israel US president in recent history, this MoU, once signed, will set the seal on Obama’s pro-Israel legacy and his commitment to Israel’s security.

Israel needs a US president who is measured, consistent and credible, all qualities Trump has already shown he lacks. Shooting from the hip on Twitter is amusing, from the Oval Office it would be a nightmare.

One day Trump says he is “neutral” on Israel and Palestine, and suggests that Israeli obstinacy is behind the difficulty of securing peace: “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”

The next day (when he happens to be addressing the AIPAC convention) he insists he “will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem,” if elected president, a promise regularly made but never kept by would-be American presidents. The Trump-inspired removal of support for the two-state solution from the Republican platform then places the party to the Right of Netanyahu, and offers no insight into resolving the Israel- Palestine conflict.

With Clinton, on the other hand, Netanyahu knows exactly what’s in store – more of the same, and from the prime minister’s perspective, what’s not to like? Despite the clear ideological differences between Netanyahu and Obama, and the clash over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the latter’s administration has never wavered in its support for Israel when it really mattered for Jerusalem.

And neither will Clinton. Her record as a senator and secretary of state is one of a clear supporter of Israel. Under her stewardship, the State Department increased military assistance for Israel every year, from $2.55b. when she took office to $3.1b. in FY2013, a nearly 20 percent increase, while diplomatically she ensured the United States blocked UN Security Council resolutions for Palestinian statehood.

Clinton and Netanyahu might not be friends, but Israel doesn’t need friends, it needs strong allies. A Trump presidency will see a weakening of US alliances across the world as America turns inwards, which is precisely the opposite of what Israel needs.

After Mahboud Abbas. Quo Vadis Zion?

MK Ze’ev Elkin, Minister of Jerusalem Affairs plays down Israel’s ability to influence who succeeds Palistinian Authority  President Mahmoud Abbas  who is now 81.

The Netanyahu government would not allow PA elections in east Jerusalem and the Palestinians would not go forward with a vote without them.

At a conference Wednesday on “The Day After Abbas,” Jerusalem Affairs Minister Ze’ev Elkin played down Israel’s ability to influence the successor to the Palestinian Authority presidency, saying that Israel cannot shape the Middle East to its will.

Israeli politicians, former IDF officials, and experts brainstormed at the event at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (the BESA Center) in Ramat Gan on what will happen to the PA after President Mahmoud Abbas is gone.

“Everyone [in the intentional community] worries about how to strengthen Abbas,” Elkin said, adding that elections are one way for a transfer of power after his rule ends, but he (Elkin) does not see that happening.

This is because the Netanyahu government would not allow PA elections in east Jerusalem and the Palestinians would not go forward with a vote without them.

Zionist Union MK Amir Peretz warned that “for the Arabs there is time, for us there isn’t,” adding that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not solved politically, “demography will solve it.”

Despite the many ideas people are discussing as alternatives to the two-state solution, he continued, “I think two states is the correct solution to pursue.”

Peretz said 90 percent of West Bank settlers live in the large blocs.

Ehud Yaari, a Middle East commentator for Channel 2 and a Lafer International Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Palestinians tell us they want “runaway statehood without a price and if not we are running away from statehood.”

The PA is corrupt and it serves as an agent between international donors and its citizens, he said.

Yaari said there is no mechanism in place for passing power after Abbas leaves the scene.

Regarding jailed Fatah-Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for five murders and 40 years imprisonment for an attempted murder, Yaari said he tells visitors that he is going to be the next Palestinian leader. However, Yaari asserted that his popularity on the street is not so high.

Jalila Dahlan, the wife of another prospective Abbas successor, former Fatah Gaza strongman Muhammad Dahlan, goes on visits to Gaza hospitals, he noted.

Dahlan, a former security chief who is a rival of Abbas and living in exile, is busy trying to build support in the Arab world, in places such as Egypt and Jordan, but the Egyptians do not want to get too involved in internal Palestinian politics, he said.

“I don’t think he has the power [to succeed Abbas],” argued Yaari.

The Palestinian national movement was created with the rise of Zionism and seeks to destroy Israel, he continued.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen of the BESA Center, who served in the IDF for 42 years, said the day after Abbas is gone “we must disassociate from the idea of two states.”

“From a security perspective this idea is a potential disaster for the State of Israel,” he added.

He argued that if Israel would ever withdraw from the West Bank and return to pre-1967 lines, it would make defending the country more difficult.

Lt.-Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a research associate at the BESA Center, said that people “talk about the Palestinians as if there is one group with one agenda and one will and in one moment they will do what Abu Mazen [Abbas] tells them – this never was and it will never be.”

We try to knit solutions for the Palestinians from our Western perspective, but the Palestinian culture is closer to the Arab-Islamic world, he said.

Kedar’s plan is for each clan or family that rules each city, for example Hebron or Jenin, to be separate emirates as in the Gulf states.

Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the BESA Center, argued that “the Palestinians are not capable of creating a state,” but can only be expected to keep some control within Palestinian society.

“Negotiations won’t bring results,” he said, adding that we all can continue with the charade of peace talks, but “the international community doesn’t want to hear the truth – they don’t understand the Middle East.”

In the meantime, Inbar said, the Arabs are trying to build relations with us, because “they don’t trust the Americans to deal with the chaos and security challenges in the region.”

He called for “outside of the box” thinking and new paradigms.