Pres. Trump Gets Slapped Twice

Pres. Trump Gets Slapped Twice

In One Week at the United Nations

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

Pres. Trump added two new major mistakes last month to the long list of misguided foreign and domestic policy decisions throughout the year.

On December 18, 2017, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that called for the reversal of Pres. Trump’s announcement to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. Embassy to that city. All the other 14 members of the Security Council, including Britain and France, voted for the resolution which correctly asserted that “Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations.” It further called for all states to refrain from moving their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem.

The status of Jerusalem is a highly controversial and emotional issue for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed it in violation of international law. Israel considers Jerusalem its “undivided and eternal capital.” Palestinians, on the other hand, consider East Jerusalem to be the capital of an eventual Palestinian state. Immediately after the UN vote, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas announced his refusal to meet with Vice President Mike Pence during his upcoming visit to the Middle East. The trip was postponed to a later date. Thousands of protesters demonstrated in many Islamic countries against Pres. Trump’s decision on Jerusalem. The Palestinian leadership announced that they will no longer consider the United States as an honest broker of peace between the conflicting sides.

During the Security Council session, UN Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladinov warned that Pres. Trump’s unilateral action lessens the chances of peace, “undermining moderates and empowering radicals.”

Pres. Trump justified his decision by basing it on a 1995 law passed by Congress to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. However, all U.S. Presidents since then have signed a national security waiver postponing the move every six months. They did not wish to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations and inflame the passions of the Arab and Islamic world.

The fact that Trump had made a promise during his campaign to transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem cannot excuse his recent decision. As I wrote a year ago, Trump had made an unwise promise and keeping it could become dangerous.

To make matters worse for the U.S., the UN General Assembly, where the United States does not have veto power, overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on December 21, 2017, declaring Pres. Trump’s decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.” It is highly embarrassing for a Superpower like the United States to have 128 countries vote against it, only 8 other countries supported it, 35 abstained, and 21 were absent. Thus Pres. Trump has made the United States the laughing stock of the world, particularly since the U.S. and Israel were supported by tiny countries that most people have never heard of, such as Togo, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Palau.

In contrast, many of the major countries voted against the U.S. in the UN General Assembly: France, Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and dozens of others.

As if this embarrassment was not sufficient, Pres. Trump and his UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, proudly declared that the United States would cut off aid to any country that voted against the U.S. This is a ridiculous statement, as the United States is not going to eliminate aid from many of these 128 states. Furthermore, when a world power like the United States provides foreign aid, it does so to pursue its own interests. By cutting off aid, the United States would jeopardize its own national interests. Giving foreign aid does not mean that the United States automatically buys a country’s sovereign right on how to cast its vote at the UN and try to intimidate it into submission.

Regarding the Jerusalem issue, there was much discussion in the Armenian press about the appropriateness of Armenia voting against the U.S. at the UN on December 21. The fear was that Armenia would not receive foreign aid from the U.S. and would antagonize Israel.

In my opinion, both of these points are not valid. I am confident that Armenia’s many supporters in the U.S. Congress would restore the aid against the wishes of the White House, in the unlikely possibility that Pres. Trump would carry out his threat.

With regard to relations with Israel, Armenia does not have much of a risk as Israel has not been friendly with Armenia. It has no Embassy in Yerevan, has refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and has sold billions of dollars of lethal weapons to Azerbaijan to kill Armenians! Even Azerbaijan, despite its love-fest with Israel, voted against the U.S. decision. Needless to say, Turkey also voted against it.

Furthermore, abstaining from voting at the UN or being absent would have isolated Armenia from the rest of the world, from Armenian communities in Arab and Islamic countries, and contradict the wishes of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem which has condemned the US decision.

Finally, Israeli leaders should not celebrate Pres. Trump’s decision on Jerusalem, as it is not in Israel’s interest to antagonize the rest of the world and isolate itself. Israel needs to win over other countries, especially Palestinians, to arrive at a peaceful resolution through negotiations, not bullying or violence!

Israeli-Palestinian Problem and President Obama’s Swansong

Israeli-Palestinian Problem 

and President Obama’s Swansong

By Edmond Y. Azadian

The long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict once again grabbed the headlines because of the Obama Administration’s parting shots. 

This conflict has been one of the most intractable struggles in the world since 1948, when the state of Israel was created. However, many similar conflicts which initially seemed equally intractable have been solved, such as apartheid in South Africa, the independence of East Timor, the creation of South Sudan, the bloody Catholic-Protestant sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, and so on.

Yet the Palestinian question remains one of the topical issues of the world press and diplomacy, because the explosive ingredients of the problem will never neutralize each other. As much as the US wishes to play the role of an honest broker, there are compelling domestic issues which force each succeeding administration to arm and politically support Israel’s position, thus confining US policy to unproductive realms.

From the Armenian perspective, the issue is viewed in two different dimensions; one is moral and emotional, while the other one is rational. Armenians sympathize with the Jews in Israel who are survivors of the Holocaust. But the similarities do not stop there; they go back deep into history with Babylonian and Egyptian captivities and Roman occupation (Masada syndrome), all the way to Russian pogroms and expulsion from Spain in the 15th century.

Similarly, Armenians empathize with the Palestinians who have witnessed massacres, expulsion from their own lands and enduring harsh colonial rule to this day. Armenians have been expelled from Jerusalem and their lands have been expropriated like the Palestinians.

Therefore, on an emotional and moral level, we wish both parties may live in peace in their secure homelands.

As far as politics is concerned, Armenians have all rights to observe an equal distance from both sides; when Israel supplies $5 billion worth of sophisticated weaponry to Azerbaijan, knowing full well that the only target of those weapons is Armenia, Israel loses the pretense of being a friendly country. In addition, officially it continues to deny the Armenian Genocide.

On the other hand, the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, visits Baku and consoles President Ilham Aliyev with words reminding him that the Palestinians understand the Azeris’ pain, having lost their territory just like them.

As we can see, Armenia and Armenians are disposable on the world political marketplace with impunity.

But today, the issue has made news across the world again after the United Nations Security Council passed UN Resolution 2334 declaring settlements on the West Bank illegal. The resolution passed with a 14-0 vote, with the US abstaining. And then, Secretary of State John Kerry, blowing up with exasperation after eight years of negotiations, made an impassioned plea to the Israeli leaders not to bury the two-state solution, which may lead Israel to an impasse.

With the UN vote and Kerry’s six-point-solution proposal to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all hell broke loose. Responding to Mr. Kerry’s speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired back, “Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders.” And this only after a few weeks following the Obama Administration’s agreement to supply $38 billion in modern military hardware to the Jewish state.

The last eight years have been very uneasy between Mr. Netanyahu and President Obama, especially after the Israeli Prime Minister gave his abrasive speech in 2015 criticizing Obama for making peace with Iran, at a joint session of the US Congress, at the invitation of the Republican opposition, while snubbing the president.

In addition to unequivocal military support, the US has extended full diplomatic support for all Israeli actions, whether they harm US interests or not.

Douglas J. Feith, a member of the Neo-Con cabal, which has pushed the US into bloody misadventures, signed an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 29, 2016) titled “The War on Israel Never Ends,” as if the Obama administration had declared war against that country by refusing for once to back an illegal Israeli action that the world condemns. The paper’s editorial reinforces Mr. Feith’s line of thinking with the headline “Kerry’s Rage against Israel.”

The New York Times editorial on the same date, by contrast, validated the US position by the following statement: “President Obama has used the American veto and its diplomatic muscle more assiduously than any previous American president to shield Israel from unwarranted criticism. But nowhere is it written that an American president is obligated to shelter Israel from international criticism that is consistent with decades-old American policy and with American interests.”

That kind of logic does not cut much ice with the incoming president, who has tweeted, “Stay strong Israel. Come January 20, things will be different.”

Mr. Kerry recognized at the end of his speech that the incoming president might reverse the Obama policy and encourage the settlement policy. Since 2009, when Obama took office, the number of Israeli settlers on the West Bank has shot up by 100,000 to 400,000; that number has reached 208,000 in East Jerusalem from the previous 193,000. The current Israeli administration has been creating facts on the ground to render the two-state solution impossible. Although his right-wing coalition has given up on the two-state solution a long time ago, Premier Netanyahu continues to pay lip service to the formula to lull the world. The New York Times states in its editorial that “This cynical cycle of the settlement movement: when the world is silent, Israel can build settlements. When the world objects, Israel must build settlements. Under any scenario, settlements will grow and the possibility of a two-state solution will recede.”

The right-wing settlers are counting on continued US support and time to bury the two-state solution. A coalition partner, Naftali Bennet, declared, “The era of the two-state solution is over.”

While Mr. Kerry and friends like Thomas L. Friedman worry that down the road Palestinians will outnumber Jews which will hamper Israel’s desire to be Jewish and democratic, extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, the minister of defense, have other designs: to expel Palestinians to Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and solve the demographic disaster. Israel had already some secret plans with Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi’s administration to accommodate the expelled Palestinians in Sinai. That was one of the reasons for the downfall of Morsi.

Even in Mr. Kerry’s six-point proposal, there is no right to return for the Palestinian refugees. Once the precedent is set, the world will forget the refugees. Armenians lost their land and today no one asks or remembers their right to return.

At this time, the question is why did Mr. Obama choose this moment to enunciate his policy when his departure is around the corner. He has proven to be a compromiser who tends to avoid confrontation. He reconciled with Cuba and signed a nuclear treaty with Iran. He avoided invading Syria, even after Turkey created a false-flag operation by interjecting chemical weapons in the battlefield, to the extent that he was thought to be weak by his opponents. But he expelled the Russian diplomats and he confronted Israel. Those acts, especially the latter, will haunt him and will define his legacy.

President Jimmy Carter published his book in 2009, titled Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. For his stand, the news media almost rendered him a political pariah. Undeterred, last November he called on President Obama to recognize the state of Palestine before the end of his term.

Mr. Obama made this issue his swansong, recognizing that of all his actions, his last decision will weigh heavily in defining his legacy. After all, even President Roosevelt’s legacy is being revised for his tepid treatment of Holocaust survivors arriving at US shores.

The way politics is set up, there seems to be no immediate and equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But Mr. Obama is free to sing his swansong.

Israel Knesset’s Education, Culture, and Sports Committee Recognizes Armenian Genocide

 

Urges Israeli Government to Also Formally Recognize the Crime

JERUSALEM, Israel (A.W.)—Israel’s Knesset’s (Parliament) Education, Culture, and Sports Committee announced on Aug. 1 that it recognized the Armenian Genocide and urged the government to formally acknowledge the crime as such.

 

Chairman of the Education, Culture, and Sports Committee Yakov Margi in the Knesset on Feb. 24, 2016. (Photo: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

“It is our moral obligation to recognize the Armenian genocide,” said committee chair Yakov Margi at a committee meeting, reported the Times of Israel. During the meeting, Margi criticized the fact that the State of Israel does not currently recognize the 1915 genocide and urged Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein to officially do so.

Edelstein urged Israel to recognize the genocide earlier this month. “We must not ignore, belittle or deny this terrible genocide,” Edelstein said as the Knesset discussed the possibility of recognizing the genocide. “We must disconnect the current interests, bound to this time and place, from the difficult past, of which this dark chapter is a part,” he added.

Georgette Avakian, chairwoman of the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Jerusalem, said that after 101 years, the time has come for the Knesset to join parliaments around the world and the 31 countries who have already recognized the Armenian Genocide. “The Knesset and the President of the State must recognize the genocide of our nation,” she said.

Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin was a staunch supporter of Armenian Genocide recognition while he was Chairman of the Knesset. At the January 2015 United Nations (UN) General Assembly’s Holocaust memorial, Rivlin recognized the Armenian Genocide while he was defending Israel against what he called “cynical” accusations of genocide and war crimes in his country’s dealing with Palestinians.

“In 1915, the days of the Armenian Genocide, Avshalom Feinberg of the NILI underground [A Jewish spy network in Ottoman Palestine] wrote the following: ‘My teeth have been worn away by anger, who is next? I have walked on sacred and holy ground, on the road to Jerusalem, and asked myself if it is this time that we live in—1915–or in the days of Titus or Nebuchadnezzar? And I asked myself whether I may cry for the hurt of the daughter of My people alone and if Jeremiah did not shed his tears of blood also for the Armenians,” said Rivlin at the memorial.

source : http://armenianweekly.com/2016/08/01/israels-knesset-ag/
 

Leading Jewish Scholar Condemns Israel

Leading Jewish Scholar Condemns Israel’s

Sale of Murderous Weapons to Azerbaijan

 

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

 

In last week’s large-scale attack on Artsakh (Karabagh), the Azeri military killed and injured dozens of Armenian soldiers and civilians, using the sophisticated weapons purchased from Israel and Russia for billions of dollars.

 

The Armenian government and Armenians worldwide accused both Israel and Russia of responsibility for the innocent Armenian lives lost in the recent Azeri invasion.

 

Prof. Israel Charny, a righteous Jew and a staunch defender of human rights, could not remain silent knowing that his country -- Israel -- had a bloody role in the Armenian killings. As Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, Dr. Charny sent a scathing commentary to the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, under the provocative title: “Would Israel Sell a Used Drone to a Hitler?” Here is what he wrote:

 

“If the Nazis were not at all murdering Jews but ‘only’ were murdering say hated Slavs, Gypsies, and Jehovah’s Witnesses; and if our beloved State of Israel were in existence; would you agree to our selling arms to the Nazis?

 

“Israel is reported to have sold billions of dollars of arms including to governments that are killing or threatening to attack victim peoples. Last week, there came reports that an Israeli drone in the hands of Azerbaijan -- a huge arms customer of ours -- was responsible for the deaths of six Armenians in the Armenian enclave Nagorno Karabagh.

 

“I am ashamed!

 

“The Armenians were the victims of a major genocide 100 years ago that has even been called the ‘Armenian Shoah’ by some Israeli scholars, including from Bar Ilan University. A great deal of their national and cultural concern continues to focus passionately on the memory of that genocide (does that sound familiar to us Jews?). For many years now, we Israelis -- whether led by Labor or Likud -- have insulted and hurt the Armenian people by failing to recognize their genocide officially and formally. Would we ourselves tolerate another government -- say the U.S. or England -- failing to recognize the Holocaust because of their realpolitik interest with the perpetrator government?

 

“One senior Armenian official has written several of us in Israel to express his deep pain as well as indignation now not only at our cowardly and self-serving denials of the Armenian Genocide, but also at our thick military trade alliance with Azerbaijan. I am reminded of the prophet Nathan crying out to King David for an earlier though more delectable murderous act of self-interest: It’s bad enough that you killed him, are you also taking a profit from the sordid affair? The Azeris are a Turkic people who adhere to Turkey’s bizarre and fascist tradition of rewriting history and denying the Armenian Genocide.

 

“In general, how much do we Israelis want to strengthen our economy by lucrative arms sales? Of course, ‘everyone’ in the world is doing it, but do we have to also? Have we given up the image/dream of Israel as a moral leader of peoples on this planet? Is this idea tiresome, naïve, and childlike in a madly destructive and self-destroying world?

 

“An alternative concept could be that along with our building arms first and foremost for the defense of Israel, that we sell -- or contribute -- arms only to underdog peoples who are facing mass destruction, and/or to allies like the U.S., who are essentially committed to shared democratic values and peace. Of course, we will still be making some mistakes, but at least our conscience will be more clear that we have not delivered used arms to the ‘Nazis.’

 

“To my Armenian colleagues and friends, I can only say that as a Jew and as an Israeli, I am mortified -- and angry.”

 

Prof. Charny’s harsh words are fully justified as both Israeli and Russian officials have shamefully pledged to continue shipping more weapons to Azerbaijan!

 

Dr. Charny has never shied away from expressing his critical views on Israel’s immoral policies on Armenian issues. In a scathing letter in 2001, he told Israel’s Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: “You have gone beyond a moral boundary that no Jew should allow himself to trespass…. As a Jew and an Israeli, I am ashamed of the extent to which you have now entered into the range of actual denial of the Armenian Genocide, comparable to denials of the Holocaust.”

 

Prof. Charny should be highly commended for his bold and righteous stand, taking to task the callous leaders of his own country!

The Security of the Parliamentary Republic

The Security of the Parliamentary Republic:

the Model of Israel

Tracing the debate over the constitutional reforms in Armenia, we deemed it useful, based upon the results of three academic trips, to interview Major General Hayk Kotanjian — Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Armenia; Doctor of Political Science; Professor — about the Israeli model of the parliamentary republic in terms of effectiveness of the security policy.

E&O: Dear General, in your opinion, what is the similarity of the lessons learned by the Armenian and Jewish peoples from the national catastrophes they went through in the 20^th century?

H.K.:Notwithstanding the remarkable unique identity of these two ancient players in shaping civilization systems in West Asia and the Middle East, to my mind, they share political lessons learned from national catastrophes having experienced during the two World Wars of the 20^th century — the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the Genocide-Holocaust of the Jews of Europe. Both peoples responded to the national catastrophes following the World Wars having driven them to the verge of total annihilation, with the revival of the culture of their ancient millennia-old statehood and creation of independent nation states – the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel. Another important feature of similarities of these two re-established nation states is that the Republic of Armenia in 1918 and the State of Israel in 1948 were proclaimed parliamentary republics.

Dear Professor, how would you assess the current threats to the national security of Israel and the effectiveness of the parliamentary model of government in terms of guaranteed political security and sustainable development of the State of Israel?

Security threats to the State of Israel are not inferior to the level of security threats to the Republic of Armenia: the majority of Islamic countries consider the existence of Israel to be illegal (only Egypt and Jordan recognized Israel) and overtly express the need to eliminate it. Their policy and the activities of non-state actors of radical Islam manipulated by them pose external and internal threats to the existence of the State of Israel. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is called into question by the radicals of Orthodox Judaism as well (the Lord is the only Leader, and no one else can exercise power over the Jewish people).

Political and security analysts of Israel single out three components of strategic vulnerability causing existential threat to Israel, which are taken as a given in the National Security Strategy of the state: 1. Huge demographic advantage of the Arab (Islamic) countries; 2. Vulnerability of borders for lack of strategic depth (width of the territory of Israel in certain areas does not exceed fifteen kilometers); 3. Necessity to deter the enemy in a hard protracted conflict that requires investments of huge resources for defense needs (1947-1949 — Israel’s War of Independence, 1956 — Suez Crisis; 1967 — Six-Day War, 1967-1970 — War of Attrition, 1973 — Yom Kippur War, 1982-2000 — First Lebanon War, 1991 — Israel's participation in the Gulf War, 2006 — Second Lebanon War, 2008-2009 — Operation Cast Lead (Gaza War)).

The toolkit for resolving internal political conflicts, as well as successfully countering external threats in the Israeli model of parliamentarism has proved to be effective over 67 years: with the duration of the cadence of the Knesset for 4 years, the average length of activity of the convocation of the Parliament over the years of Israel's existence is quite high and is 3.5 years. In this case, the reason of productivity of political crises management lies in the consistency of Israeli parliamentary model reflecting the strategic interests of national security and sustainable development of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the system of World Jewry as a whole.

Dear Professor, as a political scientist and researcher in the field of political institutes and processes of national security, could you briefly present the essence of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel regarding the effectiveness of key actors and processes of making and implementing decisions of national scale?

First of all, it should be noted that, in response to the Genocide-Holocaust, the Founding Fathers of the State of Israel, resting upon the resolution of the UN Security Council, shared the conviction that in order for the Jewish state to become a safe heaven and beacon for the progressive and sustainable development both for the Jews living on the land of the Zion, and the World Jewry as a whole, the State of Israel ought to be created as an effective democracy. And now the State of Israel in practice is the only effective democracy in the Greater Middle East, as well as a beacon of sustainable democratic development for the entire World Jewry.

The political role of a nonpartisan President, who is elected by the Parliament—the Knesset, and takes the ceremonial and protocol role as the Head of the state, and is also endowed with strategically important political powers, is of exceptional importance in this parliamentary model. From the elected members of the Parliament he nominates the candidate for the Prime Minister mandated to negotiate with parliamentary parties for the formation of the government.

 

The Prime Minister of Israel—after the Parliament approves his Government—becomes the state center of guaranteeing the national security and sustainable development of the State of Israel. Receiving the proposal by the President, before the approval of the Cabinet he holds consultations with the parties which may support his Government, and clarifies their requirements both on political matters, and concerning the appointments in the ministries and other agencies. After the consultations with the parties, the Coalition structure and its program, as a range of coordinated guidelines making up the political strategy of the Coalition, are developed.

Based upon the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Coalition parties, the decision on distributing the ministerial posts in the Government is made. The tool for distributing the ministerial posts serves the “ministerial key”, i.e., the co-relation of the overall number of members of the parliament factions supporting the Prime Minister, to the number of ministers in the Government. The number of ministerial portfolios which every faction is to receive is decided by a number of members of that faction in the Knesset, divided by the “key”. The problem of “remainders” is solved via the appointment of deputy ministers and other officials. It is noteworthy that, given the fact that the majority of ministers and all deputy ministers are members of the Parliament, provides the Prime Minister with an additional resource in support of his policy and influence of the Cabinet upon passing the parliamentary decisions, especially in furthering the legislative initiatives by the Government. In the Israeli Government the post of the Vice-Premier is also available, and holding of more than one office is also possible.

Dear Professor, what are the specifics of Israel in terms of ensuring the legitimacy of the Government and the activity of its members in the Knesset at the parliamentary model of governance?

The election of the Prime Minister and the ministers from among the members of the Parliament asserts the legitimacy of not only the Premier, but also the Government at large. After being approved by the Knesset the ministers receive the vote of confidence both from “below” — the mass support, and from “above” — the Parliament, the elite support.  After consultations—on adequate grounds—the candidate for minister’s post if necessary may be nominated also a non-member of the Parliament (usually an influential specialist). The minister from among the Knesset members has limitations in his parliamentary activity: he may not make parliamentary inquiries, introduce his bills as an MP, cast a vote of no confidence in the government, be a member of Knesset committees. Sometimes a minister upon taking office renounces his parliamentary mandate; while his party (the Coalition) does not lose his seat—it is taken by the next person in the party list.

Unlike the practice in other states, the Deputy Minister in Israel is a political figure. In particular, according to the law, he must be a member of the Knesset (we would remind you that such a strict requirement doesn’t apply to the Minister), and he is also responsible for ensuring the liaison between the Ministry and the Knesset. The appointment and the dismissal of the Deputy Minister is not the Minister’s but the Premier’s prerogative (however, the Minister’s consent in this case is also obligatory). The Government reports on this to the Knesset, nevertheless the Parliament’s permission is not required. It should be noted that the above-mentioned parliamentary restrictions concerning the ministers, also apply to the deputy ministers.

Dear General, please briefly present the place and role of the National Security Council (NSC) in the system of parliamentary governance of the State of Israel.

The NSC of the State of Israel is a special tool of the Government’s power carrying out the development and coordination of interagency policy aimed at ensuring the national security and sustainable development of Israel. The coordinator of the activities of this special body, chaired by the Prime Minister, is the Secretary of NSC, who is appointed from among nonpartisan highly qualified specialists, and whose activities shall not be made public.

The interagency policy of national security, developed by the NSC chaired by the Israeli Prime Minister on strategic issues of foreign policy and security, is promptly carried out by the Prime Minister through the Security Cabinet (Narrow/Kitchen Cabinet) endowed with the necessary powers and resources.

Dr. Kotanjian, how do you view the use of the Israeli model and experience in the preparation and discussion of the draft of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia as the basis of the constitutional reform with the transition to a parliamentary model of state governance?

Indeed, the uncritical copying of Israel’s experience would be wrong, and the State Commission on the drafting of the Constitution did not allow it. As an example of the specificity of the Israeli experience we can note that the parliamentary model of governance in Israel successfully operates without any Constitution in the State of Israel. The legal regulation of the system of the government and the political activity of public institutions is carried out according to the system of Basic Laws.

Using the lessons of the guaranteed provision of the national security in the parliamentary model of Israel under the concentration of power (powers of the government-administration and resources) in the hands of the Prime Minister—the head of the ruling inter-party Coalition - (with a restricted role of the nonpartisan President with ceremonial and protocol functions) requires a pragmatic calculation — with a sober view of specificity of the political culture of the Republic of Armenia.

Dear Professor Kotanjian, what would you like to note as a conclusion?

In conclusion, I would like to mention the real democratic character of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel, at the origins of the State of Israel aimed at the development of political party system in the proportional elections to the Parliament with a low threshold for parties to the supreme representative body of power. Israeli politicians and experts themselves do not consider the experience ideal. Skillfully using the tools of public and confidential criticism, they work to identify shortcomings and overcome them. The democracy of the parliamentary model of the government in Israel is characterized by high political culture of pluralism and party competitiveness with continuous criticism, identification of flaws, and lessons learned from them for the improvement of the democratic Jewish state.

And of course, it should be emphasized that the people of Israel, being aware of its responsibility as a main source of power and using the tools of effective democracy, have the opportunity to do whatever is necessary within the limits of the guaranteed rights and freedoms, as well as civil liabilities to the State of Israel, that in its Parliament—the Knesset and then in the Government the most worthy representatives were elected.