Martin Sherman, Author at Israel Rising

December 30, 2020December 30, 2020

Has the Democrats’ push to depose Biden begun?

“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. … Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.” — Patience D. Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Dec. 14, 2020

“ … [A] majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the … Elections Commission’s mere advice into governing ‘law,’ thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of [the state’s] citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to uphold the law and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Dec. 14, 2020

“Investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China. … Some of those transactions involved people who the FBI believe sparked counterintelligence concerns, a common issue when dealing with Chinese business … .” — CNN, Dec. 10, 2020

The November 2020 elections were an extraordinary event in which the bizarre, even the outlandish, became an integral part of the everyday humdrum routine.

SPONSOR THIS STORY

The implausible and even more implausible?

This is not a politically partisan observation for it is valid no matter which side of the Democrat/GOP political divide one might happen to be on. After all, it is difficult to know what is more implausibly far-fetched:

(a) that, as the Republicans claim, there was pervasive electoral fraud on a scale so massive that it determined—indeed, inverted—the outcome of the ballot; or (b) that, as the Democrats claim, as a lackluster and lackadaisical candidate, perceptibly frail and aging, Joe Biden genuinely managed to amass the highest number of votes ever in a presidential election, surpassing former U.S. President Barack Obama’s previous 2008 record by almost 12 million votes.

Making this latter scenario even more difficult to accept at face value is that Biden’s running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, was hardly an electrifying vote-getter, having being forced to drop out quite early on in her own party’s primaries for its choice of a presidential candidate. Indeed, Biden’s choice of Harris as his prospective vice president was, in itself, more than a little incongruous, as she had viciously excoriated him during the primaries for his record on race relations, complicity with segregationists and sexual impropriety, adamantly proclaiming that she believed the women who had complained about his unwanted sexual advances.

‘Many doubt the fairness of November elections’

Indeed, in light of his anemic, largely “no-show” election campaign, in which he studiously avoided articulating his position on a number of crucial issues, Biden’s apparent electoral achievement is even more bewildering. Indeed, referring to the Biden campaign, one media outlet observed dourly: “There is no surge of feeling, zero passion. … Instead, the closest thing to enthusiasm … among voters is resigned, faint praise. ‘He’s a decent man’ … but you can’t move the needle of history with flaccid decency.”

Another noted: “Biden’s performance [in exceeding Obama’s 2008 record] is incredible considering the voter enthusiasm, especially among young people, that his former boss had … .”

Accordingly, the sentiment expressed by the chief justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, Patience D. Roggensack, was hardly surprising when she warned: “A significant portion of the public does not believe that the Nov. 3 presidential election was fairly conducted.”

These words were part of Roggensack’s dissenting opinion in a hearing on several challenges by U.S. President Donald Trump to Wisconsin’s election results. Although the motion was rejected by a 4-3 vote, at least one of the majority justices is on public record as being vehemently inimical to Trump, and the decision was severely criticized by the dissenting minority as being judicially unsound.

Thus, Justice Annette Ziegler, wrote, “The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier. … That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”

Abdicating constitutional duty

Disapprovingly, she chastised: “It is a game of ‘gotcha.’ I respectfully dissent, because I would decide the issues presented and declare what the law is.”

Accusing the majority of “abdication of its constitutional duty,” she lamented: “Unfortunately, our court’s adoption of laches as a means to avoid judicial decision-making has become a pattern of conduct. A majority of this court decided not to address the issues in this case when originally presented to us. … In concluding that it is again paralyzed from engaging in pertinent legal analysis, our court, unfortunately, provides no answer or even any analysis of the relevant statutes, in the most important election … of our time.”

Ziegler was at pains to underline: “To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.”

Expressing grave concern over the majority’s indecision, Ziegler chided: “While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues—as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does—it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches.”

Accordingly, she concluded that “the rule of law and equity demand that we answer these questions for not only this election, but for elections to come.”

Indeed, given the relative proximity of the court hearing to the actual ballot process, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in order to comply with the majority conditions for the motion to be heard on its merits, the Trump legal team would have had to submit its case against the alleged infractions before those infractions were committed.

SPONSOR THIS STORY

Covering corruption or not?

The apparent judicial reluctance to deal with allegations of widespread fraud leads us to another manifestation of partisan reticence, that of the mainstream media in their pre-election coverage of news highly pertinent to the voters’ decision at the ballot box—which seems to have drastically subsided in the wake of the elections.

Arguably, this was best capsulated in the Dec. 10 headline in an established Tennessee daily: “Uninterested before the election, national media now find the Hunter Biden story worth mentioning.”

The ensuing editorial shrewdly observed: “Too late to help the voting public form an objective opinion about their presidential choice, the national media has suddenly decided that the Chinese business dealings of Hunter Biden are worth mentioning.”

It continued: “We have long believed—and said—that the younger Biden’s business dealings, and his father’s major or minor role in them, was at least a disqualifying criterion for the elder Biden’s presidential election. It is clear, after all, that the younger Biden would not have been involved with various businesses in the Ukraine and China over the last decade had his father not been vice president at the time.”

Indeed, it is clear.

In a grave reproach of the mainstream media, it asserted: “National media outlets knew before last month’s election that federal prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, but they did not pursue the story.”

In a stinging rebuke, it charged: “They also refused to further investigate the New York Post pre-election story about e-mails allegedly contained on the younger Biden’s laptop pointing to shady dealings between Joe Biden and Ukraine. … In truth, they withheld critical information from readers and viewers so that Biden might beat President Donald Trump, the man they l[o]ve to hate.”

‘Too disgusting to repeat’

For example, leaked recordings exposed CNN’s president and political director blocking coverage of the New York Post’s explosive exposé on Hunter Biden“s shady business dealings overseas.

Thus, on Oct. 14, political director David Chalian was heard on a conference call, instructing: “Obviously, we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden.”

Just two days later (Oct. 16), CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker, informed his staff: “I don’t think that we should be repeating unsubstantiated smears just because the right-wing media suggests that we should.”

On Oct. 22, in a televised discussion, CNN anchor Jeff Tapper told his colleague, Bakari Sellers, that “ … the right-wing is going crazy with all sorts of allegations about Biden and his family. Too disgusting to even repeat here.”

The Media Research Center (MRC) conducted a review spanning the period Oct. 14-22 of ABC, CBS, NBC’s evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs, as well as ABC’s and NBC’s townhall events with Biden and Trump.

According to MRC: “Out of a total of 73.5hours of news programming, there were less than 17minutes (16 minutes, 42 seconds) spent on the latest scandals involving Joe Biden’s son.”

To be precise, the media watchdog found that ABC devoted zero (!) seconds to the reported Hunter Biden scandals, NBC just six minutes, nine seconds, while CBS led the broadcast networks with a “still-measly 10 minutes and 33 seconds.”

All-pervasive ‘Russian disinformation’

Moreover, even when the Biden story was mentioned, it was, by and large, denigrated as “Russian disinformation” (see for example here and here).

On Oct. 19, Politico published a report, dramatically headlined “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

It commenced with the following unequivocal pronouncement: “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of e-mails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’ ”

However, in the letter itself, the “former intel officials,” who—unsurprisingly—included the ardently pro-Biden and fervently anti-Trump John Brennan (former CIA director), and James Clapper (former director of National Intelligence), seem to be far less unequivocally clear-cut and strident. Indeed, they were at pains to insert a paragraph, clearly formulated to protect their professional “rear-ends”: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement. … [However], there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.”

This, of course, leaves the reader to puzzle over the question: If the “former intel officials” had no clue whether or not the e-mails were, in fact, authentic or the product of “Russian involvement,” how could they possibly make the determination that they were—and why would they lend they names and reputations to create a politically partisan impression, which, by their own admission, they could not substantiate?

Or were they counting on the assumption that few ever read beyond the headlines and the opening paragraph?

An abrupt change of heart

With the election over, there seems to have been a perceptible shift in the media attitude towards the allegations of malfeasance in the Biden family’s overseas business activities.

For example, CNN anchor Tapper seems to have undergone an abrupt change of heart as to the gravity of these allegations, having, prior to the election—as we have seen—dismissed them in the strongest possible terms. However, several weeks after the presidential election, with Biden preparing to become the 46th president, Tapper apparently had few qualms in raising the subject publicly and the Biden family’s business ties began to be gradually emerging as fair game to him (see here).

A similar shift in journalistic sentiment was evident in other media outlets.

Take, for example, The Los Angeles Times. As early as March 6, it ran an editorial headlined: “The GOP’s Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is a charade—and they know it,” proclaiming that the entire probe into the Biden’s far-flung business dealings was little more than flimsily disguised political shenanigans.

However, soon after the elections, this changed markedly.

On Dec. 9, LAT ran a report headlined: “Hunter Biden tax inquiry examining Chinese business dealings.” It disclosed that “the Justice Department’s investigation scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings, among other financial transactions.”

The report continued: “… The investigation was launched in 2018, a year before his father, Joe Biden, announced his candidacy for president”—i.e., months before the LAT editorial board dismissed GOP claims regarding the existence of such a probe as “a charade.”

Indeed, a little over a month after the polls had closed, it conceded that “the younger Biden has a history of business dealings in a number of countries, and the revelation of a federal investigation puts a renewed spotlight on the questions about his financial dealings that dogged his father’s successful White House campaign.”

Three days later (Dec. 12), LAT again raised the subject in a piece titled: “Hunter Biden subpoena seeks information on Burisma, other entities,” stating that a “subpoena seeking documents from Hunter Biden asked for information related to more than two dozen entities, including the Ukraine gas company Burisma … .” Significantly, it added: “The breadth of the subpoena, issued Tuesday, underscores the wide lens prosecutors are taking as they examine the younger Biden’s finances and international business ventures.”

SPONSOR THIS STORY

The harbinger of far-reaching political change?

This post-election metamorphosis of media mood could also herald the onset of a far-reaching political shift within the Democratic Party.

After all, in contrast to the accusations against Trump of colluding with Russia and conniving with Ukraine, based largely on third-party hearsay and innuendo, the evidence accumulating against the Biden family seems far more solid and compelling, including firsthand witness accounts and emails whose authenticity have yet to be denied.

As coverage on the alleged Biden scandal continues—and certainly if it turns out that Biden has been untruthful over his complicity in his family’s questionable business operations—his continued incumbency is likely to be increasingly challenged until it is no longer tenable, and he is compelled to transfer power to Harris.

Of course, there will be those who discount this possibility as being beyond the bounds of probability. However, they would do well to bear in mind that the overwhelming preponderance of the ideo-political energy in the party comes from the more radical left-wing, which has already proven that it can assert its will on the party apparatus in the past.

Recently, rumblings for changes in leadership within the party have begun, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) calling for a structural change in the party and for the old guard to be replaced with younger legislators to promote the radical policies she advocates. Indeed, she has even called explicitly for the replacement of the party’s congressional leadership of both Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House.

Will frailty and mendacity ensconce Harris as president?

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down and concede the presidency to Harris are gradually coming into focus.

With an ever-more critical press and an ever-more radical intra-party opposition, we may well be on the cusp of a new American (or rather un-American) revolution—a revolution in which a cardboard-cutout president is driven from office by people imbued with a political credo, forged by figures and ideas not only different from, but entirely contrary to, those that made America America.

It is indeed a scenario that risks transforming America into a de-Americanized post-America—an unrecognizable shadow of its former self.

That will be the terrible price the American electorate has inflicted on itself for submitting to the fit of puerile and petulant pique that molded its choice this November.

July 30, 2018

Israel Identifying the Enemy as the Enemy Is Not ‘Racism’

Originally Published in NewsMax.

One of the most mendacious and widely propagated myths regarding the Middle East conflict is that Israel’s defensive actions against hostile Arab initiatives, whose sole aim is to murder or maim Jews, simply because they are Jews, constitute “racism.”

The apparent reason for these grave accusations is rooted in the fact that some of the coercive measures, necessary for the effectiveness of these defensive Israeli actions, are carried out differentially (and therefore, allegedly, discriminately) against Palestinian Arabs, on the one hand, and Israeli Jews, on the other. ‏

Even Democracies Have Enemies

Of course, in principle, the claims that counter-offensive actions by a given collective, against hostile initiatives of an adversarial collective, are tainted by some sort of improper, indiscriminate group prejudice against that collective, are clearly unfounded — conceptually, morally, and practically.

In the particular case of the Israeli-Palestinian clash, such claims are even more baseless.

After all, to call on any collective entity to treat a rival entity, with which it is engaged in violent conflict, in precisely the same way that it treats its own members, is not only patently irrational, but also patently immoral. For, in effect, it includes the inherent demand to forgo — or at least, to gravely curtail — the right of self-defense, i.e. the right to protect both the collective and its members from the aggression of the rival entity.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the theory of democratic governance that precludes the possibility of a democracy — even one totally devoid of racial prejudices — from having enemies. Likewise, there is nothing to preclude the possibility that the ethnic identity of the enemy entity will differ from that of the majority of the citizens of the democracy.

No Ethical Flaw in Identifying the Enemy as the Enemy

So, does this mean that measures intended to thwart, deter, or punish aggressive acts against a democracy — and/or its citizens — violate some hallowed rule of proper democratic conduct? Moreover, how is it possible to claim any ethical flaw in the behavioral code of a democracy when it identifies its enemy as an enemy, and treats it as such?

When couched in these terms, the answers to these questions seem simple and straightforward — indeed, almost self-evident.

Sadly, however, this is not true with regard to Israel — especially when it comes to the conflict with the Palestinians.

In this conflict, democratic Israel is confronted with a bitter and irreconcilable adversary that harbors a profound desire to inflict harm on the Jewish state and its citizens — a desire, which is, for all intents and purposes, its very raison d’ etre.

Certainly, by the declarations of its leaders, the text of its foundational documents, and the deeds of its militant activists, the Palestinian collective has unequivocally defined itself as Israel’s enemy.

Accordingly, it would be wildly unreasonable to expect Israel to restrict the measures it employs to counter Palestinian enmity, to measures it employs against its own citizens — who harbor no such enmity!

Arab Enmity Not Arab Ethnicity

This, then, is the context, in which the various countermeasures that Israel undertakes against the members of the Palestinian enemy collective — but not against its own citizens — should be perceived — such as: travel restrictions on certain roads; intrusive security inspections at roadblocks and checkpoints; preemptive administrative detentions; demolition of convicted terrorists’ homes; dawn raids on households suspected of harboring members of terror organizations; and so on.

However, the enforcement of these coercive counter measures is not motivated by any doctrine of racial superiority, but by well-founded security concerns for the safety and security of Israel’s citizens — concerns that are neither the product of mere arbitrary malice, nor of some hate-filled delusional prejudice. To the contrary, they are the result of years of bitter experience, of death and destruction, wrought on the Jews by Arab hatred.

Of course, one might dispute the wisdom, the efficacy and/or the necessity of any — or even all — of these measures; but not the reason behind their use. This is, without a doubt, due to Arab enmity — not Arab ethnicity.

Accordingly, Israel would do well to clarify, forcefully and resolutely, this simple truth, which has been either unintentionally forgotten or intentionally obscured: Identifying one’s enemy as the enemy is not “racism” — it is merely an imperative dictated by common sense and by a healthy instinct for survival.

July 6, 2018

Israel Victory Initiative – Quo vadis?

It is unrealistic to expect that the Palestinians will experience a sudden “aha moment”, slap their forehead in epiphanic realization of the futility of their Judeocidal endeavors—and, of their own volition, docilely declare defeat

“… what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” – Winston Churchill, House of Commons, May 13, 1940.

As readers who follow this column will know, I have been a keen supporter of the Israel Victory Project (IVP) – see (here, here, and here), initiated by the Middle East Forum, and its president, Daniel Pipes.

Launched in the Fall of 2016, it was, to my mind, potentially one of the most important intellectual initiatives regarding the bloody, and seemingly intractable, conflict between Jews and Arabs for control of the Holy Land—and which, if it could impact Israeli policy, might well induce a much needed paradigmatic shift in the formulation and conduct of that policy.

At the heart of the IVP is the commendable recognition that the policy of unending concessions towards the Palestinian-Arabs has not only failed to achieve its goal of bringing peace and stability, but has, in fact, exacerbated the situation, making the chances of ending the conflict even more remote. Accordingly, peace, genuine and lasting, can only be attained if the Palestinian-Arabs acknowledge that they have failed in their quest to destroy the Jewish State and permanently relinquish their endeavor to do so.

For this to occur, Pipes himself stipulates that: “Palestinians will have to pass through the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair as they repudiate the filthy legacy of Amin al-Husseini and acknowledge their century-long error.”

In principle, this is a position with which I heartily concur. Indeed, it largely reflects the prescription I have long advocated—for more than a decade and half—when I chastised “the total futility of the Israeli government’s current policy towards the Palestinian violence”.

Since its launch two years ago, the IVP has, by means of a range of promotional events, succeeded in building laudable public awareness for the initiative, both in Israel and the US. However, judging by Israel’s reticent responses to the continuing violence along the Gaza border, the essence of the Victory concept appears to have made little inroads into the thinking of Israeli policy-makers—and even less into their consequent actions.

“Victory” cannot be all things to all people

On Wednesday evening, I attended the second IVP Conference in Jerusalem’s Menachem Begin Heritage Center, in which various aspects of, and perspectives on, the project were discussed and the progress, that has been achieved in promoting it, was presented.

I came away with a sense of unease and the distinct impression that an invaluable idea was being dangerously diluted in an attempt to make it seemingly sufficiently inclusive and accommodative in order to embrace a wide range of existing political credos and to avoid alienating potential critics.

In this regard, Pipes has been scrupulously and purposefully “policy agnostic”, studiously avoiding backing any of the specific action-oriented prescriptions.

Admittedly, I understand Pipes’s stated desire to make the idea of “‘Israel Victory’ as palatable as possible”, so as to render it to “appealing to a wide swathe of Americans”.

Likewise, I see his logic in distinguishing between the more conceptual objectives in the US arena and the inevitably more practical ones in the Israeli arena. He writes: “my goal is to change the foundation of U.S. policy, not to work out Israeli tactics… I am an American foreign policy analyst, not an Israeli colonel.”

While I might disagree with Pipes’s characterization of the Israeli challenges as “tactics” rather than “strategy”; and while I believe that they need to be addressed at levels far above the rank of “colonel”, I can accept the “division of labor” to which he alludes: In the US arena, the objective is to create a political climate that will permit Israel to fully implement a Victory-compliant policy; while in Israel, the objective is to formulate that Victory-compliant policy itself.

But such well-intentioned agnostics can only go so far. After all, “Victory” cannot be all things to all people.

Palestinians must suffer the “bitter crucible of defeat”

Clearly, policy prescriptions that were compatible with the previous pre-Victory, pro-concessions perspective are far less likely to be compliant with the pro-Victory ones (entailing subjecting the Palestinian-Arabs to Pipes’s prescribed “bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair”.

Indeed, the very concept of victory of one side in any conflict–which unavoidably entails the defeat of the other opposing participants—clearly calls for the adoption of some form of coercion, which results in the imposition of the will of one (the victor) over the others (the vanquished).

After all, it is, of course, wildly naïve to believe that, somehow, through some yet-to-be specified process, the Palestinian-Arabs will, autogenically, morph into something they have not been for over 100 years and show little sign of doing so in any foreseeable future. Indeed, in recent years, developments in Palestinian-Arab society would appear to have made such a benign metamorphosis distinctly less likely.

Accordingly, it is clearly unrealistic to expect that the Palestinian-Arabs will experience a sudden “aha moment”, slap their forehead in epiphanic realization of the futility of their Judeocidal endeavors—and, of their own volition, docilely declare defeat.

Indeed, they would rather go and fly a kite…

This, of course, us brings up back to the nature of the coercive policy—and what has to be wrought on the Palestinian-Arabs for Israel to attain victory—and what the Palestinian-Arabs must be subjected to in order to concede defeat?

The question of casualties

In previous articles on the IVP, I have raised the question of how many casualties Israel would need to inflict on the Palestinian-Arabs to induce them to admit bona fide defeat. This, of course, immediately interfaces with the previously-mentioned conditions that need (or can) be created in the US to facilitate such punitive measures.

As a somber reminder — and a very rough yardstick — in the 1948 War of Independence, Israel suffered over 6,000 fatalities and 15,000 wounded— around 1% and 2.5% respectively of the then-total Jewish population— without bringing about any thoughts of unconditional surrender.

Could Israel cause a commensurate number of Palestinian-Arab casualties — between 30,000-40,000 fatalities and over 100,000 wounded, depending on which demographic estimate one accepts — without incurring international censure and sanctions? Could Israel inflict such death and devastation without precipitating massive popular clamor for international — even military — intervention, across the Arab world and in other Islamic countries such as Turkey, Pakistan and Iran?

No less important, if this is the Victory-compliant strategy that Israel chose—or was compelled to choose—could the IVP in the US generate the political conditions to facilitate pursuit of such a policy?

Clearly this raises questions, which challenge the ability to remain indefinitely policy agnostic.

Post-Victory two-statism: What if…?

It also challenges the feasibility/validity of scenarios that envisage a sustainable two-state

Post-Victory reality—or indeed, any sustainable post-Victory scenario which allows for the continued presence of a large Palestinian-Arab population across the pre-1967 Green Line.

For if the kind of kinetic coercion required to sustainably subdue the Judeocidal impulses of the Palestinian-Arabs (as a collective) are unacceptable in the US and elsewhere, how is defeat to be inflicted on them or victory achieved by Israel?

This predicament is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike the oft-quoted examples of WWII, where Germany was not part of a larger Teutonic world, and Japan not part of a larger Nipponic world, the Palestinian-Arabs are of a larger hostile Arab/Muslim world—which can keep the embers of Judeocidal sentiment moldering, ready to burst into flames at some future moment.

Clearly, then, as long as a large Palestinian-Arab population remains resident in the areas across the pre-1967 lines, there will always be a tangible possibility that externally sourced insurgents and/or incitement will upend any post-Victory settlement. This, in turn, will require perennial Israeli surveillance and supervision to preemptively suppress any such threat, sowing the seeds of perennial Palestinian-Arab resentment…

Coerced into a state or coerced out of one?

So, what if to permanently break the Palestinian-Arabs Judeocidal urges requires kinetic coercion beyond the limits that even a Trump administration is willing to condone? And what if, even if it did, the Palestinian-Arabs would always be subject to subversive influences from hostile elements from their kinfolk in the wider Arab/Muslim world?

Somber prudence and sheer logic—as opposed to well-intentioned hope—would seem to mitigate towards the only other alternative Victory-compliant strategy that can result in a sustainable post-Victory reality: The physical relocation of the Palestinian-Arab population in third-party countries—preferably by use of non-kinetic means, such as economic inducements by setting up a comprehensive system of generous material incentives for leaving and daunting material disincentives for staying.

As I have discussed in great detail the political feasibility, moral acceptability, and economic affordability of this Victory-compliant paradigm elsewhere, I will not delve into these important issues here.

However, given past precedents, prevailing present realities and plausible projections for the future, the only policy prescription that can generate sustainable stability in any probable post-Victory reality—with acceptable levels of kinetic coercion—is that of incentivized emigration of Palestinian-Arabs (The Humanitarian Paradigm).

Indeed, in light of the preceding analysis, it would be clearly preferable to coerce the Palestinian-Arabs out of a state rather than to coerce them into one.

Neither policy agnostics nor purported pro-Victory two-staters can ignore this!

I would therefore urge the IVP team to forego its hitherto policy agnostics and embrace policy specifics; to progress from the conceptual to the operational; to advance from generic declarations of goodwill to promotion of actionable policy prescriptions, to move on from action and instead, opt for direction…

July 3, 2018July 3, 2018

Instability in Jordan: The impact on Trump’s “Ultimate Deal”

“Jordan sees largest anti-government protests in years” “Al Jazeera ”, June 4,2018.

“Jordanians take to the streets to protest austerity measures” CNN, June 4, 2018

“Jordan: thousands protest against IMF-backed austerity measures”, -“The Guardian , June 3, 2018

These are merely a small sample of the international media coverage of the wide spread unrest and protests against new IMF mandated austerity measures, that rocked the kingdom of Jordan last month. They raised troubling questions as to the long term durability of the country’s incumbent monarchical regime and of the ruling Hashemite dynasty.

Jury still out?

In response to public anger at the austerity measures, King Abdallah, the third member of the Hashemite line to rule Jordan since its inception in 1946, replaced his prime minster and ordered a review of the IMF prescribed reforms.

The jury is still out on whether these steps will placate public anger—and if so for how long. For, with persistently high unemployment (now hovering just under 20%), a national debt reaching 95% , rising inflation (the highest in years), sluggish growth and increasing poverty, Jordan faces daunting domestic socio-economic challenges.

However, beyond its own internal woes, the kingdom has been plagued by severe external problems induced by the tribulations of others in the turbulent region in which it is located. Thus, the war in Syria–and earlier in Iraq– led to a deluge of refugees into the hapless country—straining its social services to their very limits.

None of this augurs well for future stability—and even if reports that most of the public ire has been directed at the government rather than the king are true—there seems scant room for optimism as to what is to come.

Crucial strategic terrain

One of the possible repercussions of the challenge to the stability of the Hashemite regime, that has received meager attention in the public discourse, is the potential impact that political upheaval in Jordan may have on the feasibility of Donald Trump’s “ultimate deal” Mid-East peace plan which is rumored to be announced soon.

This is particularly pertinent with regard to the practicality and prudence of any territorial concessions this plan may call on Israel to make. After all, the identity of a prospective successor to the current incumbent regime in Amman is of tremendous consequence to Israel.

In the past, I have been at pains to convey, as graphically as possible, the crucial strategic significance of the territory designated for any envisioned Palestinian state—whatever its precise geographical parameters—have for Israel (see for example, here and here).

For the most part, this territory comprises limestone hills, that rise above Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, and totally dominate the country’s major population centers (where around 80% of the civilian population resides and 80% of Israel’s commercial activity takes place).

Crucial terrain (Cont.)

The same is true for a large portion of Israel’s vital infrastructure systems and installations (military and civilian) – including many of the country’s military airfields, IDF bases and its only international airport, Ben Gurion; its major seaports and naval bases; much of its principle transportation axes (road and rail); important desalination plants and water conveyance systems; power generating facilities; as well as crucial centers of civilian government and military command.

All of these would be in range of cheap, primitive weapons, readily available to renegade non-state actors (read “radical terror groups”)—of the kind already being used against Israel from territories relinquished by Israel in the past—who could at will disrupt Israel’s ability to maintain any semblance of socio-economic routine in the heart of the country. Clearly, such weapons could be used from any territory to relinquished in the future, with or without the tacit approval of any potential Palestinian “peace partner”

Back to the Trump plan: It is portions of this strategically vital territory Israel may be called on to yield.

Jordan is immediately adjacent to this territory from the east. It is separated from it by only by the Jordan Valley, whose steep slope constitute a formidable topographical barrier between the Hashemite monarchy and the strategic highlands of Judea-Samaria, making the Valley itself a vital military asset.

Back to the “Ultimate Deal”

Clearly then,, for Israel, who controls Jordan is a matter of critical importance—especially in light of the grim experience of the “Arab Spring”.

Indeed, despite all the grievances Israel may have regarding the repeated displays of diplomatic animosity by the current Jordanian regime, its seems highly implausible that any successor regime is likely to be more amicable. Quite the opposite. Barring some unforeseen development, pundits would generally agree that the most likely candidates to take over the reins of power are extreme Islamist elements, who would be more radical and more inimical to Israel by far.

Accordingly, when weighing any territorial concessions, it matters hugely whether Jordan is governed by a relatively moderate pro-western monarch or by an extremist Jihadist regime—whose territorial reach extends from the Jordan River to the western fringes of Iraq.

Putting aside for the moment the weighty question of whether any Palestinian interlocutor can be trusted to honor any deal struck with him, it is clear that in the latter case, territorial concessions are likely to be far more perilous than in the former. After all, the territory conceded will be far more accessible to hostile anti-Israel elements and far more susceptible to incendiary incitement from Jihadi elements.

Planning for “the day after”….

For Israel, then, strategic prudence dictates that its working assumption must be that the Hashemite regime has a limited “shelf life”.

The forces of instability in Jordan are beyond Israel’s control, and although it might be able to attenuate them in the margins, it cannot determine their eventual outcome—or who will seize, or sustain, command of the country.

So, whatever advantages might be entailed in the continued rule of Abdallah,

Israel must prepare for “the day after” and tailor its ability to accede any territorial concessions in the Trump peace plan accordingly.

June 22, 2018June 22, 2018

The Elements of Oslo: Drug trafficking & high treason?

The arrest of former Minister Gonen Segev, on charges of treason, constitute a regrettable vindication of my assessment of the man – over 25 years ago.

….the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments…. He rots the soul of a nation…he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist…The traitor is the plague—Marcus Tullius Cicero, (106-43 B.C.), on Treason.

It has been an eventful week—and several other topics could well have been the focus of this INTO THE FRAY column—for example, the court decision to quash the confessions extracted under duress from the suspects of the Duma arson; or the ineffective IDF response to the continuing violence emanating from Gaza; or the looming “ultimate deal”, which, it is rumored, is soon to be advanced by the Trump administration.

Tectonic impact

I chose, however , to deal with the announcement on Monday, that former government minister, Gonen Segev, had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran and detained on charges of treason involving “espionage, aiding an enemy in war time, as well as providing information to the enemy.”

The reasons for this choice were both personal and substantive: Personal, because of my acquaintance with Segev in the past when I warned of his grave character flaws; and substantive, because of the tectonic (albeit seldom conceded) impact these flaws have had on the fate of the nation since then.

Of course, this is not the first brush the ex-minister has had with the law, nor the first time he has brought disgrace to the political edifice of the nation.

Readers will recall that in 2004, he was arrested on charges of drug smuggling—along with credit-card fraud and misuse of an expired diplomatic passport—and subsequently convicted and jailed for several years. Following his imprisonment, Segev moved to Nigeria, where apparently, his initial contacts with Iranian officials were made—and his alleged espionage activities began.

Of course, it is yet unclear how much damage Segev’s suspected betrayal of his country in recent years has caused. There can, however, be little doubt as to the huge damage that his betrayal of his voters, 26 years ago, wrought on the nation—when he crossed ideological lines, abandoned his hawkish electoral pledges and facilitated the ratification of the Oslo Accords.

Segev & Oslo: The Ethical Parallels

Accordingly, up until Monday, we knew that the Oslo Accords, which:
– conferred international acclaim on the arch-murderer Arafat;

-cost thousands of Israelis their lives—and many more, their limbs;

– provided Judeocidal gangs access to military grade explosives; and

– allowed armed terrorist militias to deploy within mortar range of our nation’s capital;

owed their existence to a convicted drug smuggler that betrayed his voters, who sent him to the Knesset to prevent precisely the policy he permitted.

Since last Monday, we know that these appalling accords, that brought so much death and destruction to Israeli streets, buses, and sidewalk cafes, came about not only due to someone who dealt in drugs and who betrayed his voters—but someone who, it seems, betrayed his country and his people—in the very real sense of the word.

There are numerous parallels between Gonen Segev and Oslo.

Indeed, in many ways, Segev and Oslo are the moral (or rather “immoral”) reflections of each other.

While Segev himself represents a mark of shame on Israel’s public life and “point of singularity” in terms of deceit and duplicity; so too the Oslo Accords represent a mark of shame on our national history, a reprehensible nadir of broken promises, public deception and self-delusion.

Almost like Siamese twins

Moreover, in many ways, almost like Siamese twins, neither Segev nor Oslo would exist without the other—without the essential symbiosis between them. After all, without Segev and his uninhibited proclivity for treachery, there would be no Oslo. So too, without Oslo and the desperate desires of those who concocted it, there would have been no Segev in a ministerial post, which gave him access to the information he allegedly supplied to the enemy.

So just as Oslo embraced bitter enemies –so did Segev.

Indeed, in large measure, Oslo was a point of inflexion in the history of Zionism, after which nothing was as it was before. Everything once a hallowed virtue (such as attachment to the homeland and proactive Jewish settlement throughout it) became a heinous vice.

So too Segev, in large measure became a point of inflexion in the annals of Israeli politics, a point beyond which a sense of shame disappeared as a constraint on the behavior of elected incumbents, and after which “prostitution” of the profession of politics became acceptable, even expected. Political pledges became worthless and commitment to ideological principles, nothing more than bargaining chips to be swiftly exchanged if and when a more personally advantageous opportunity was detected.

Unbridled individual ambition became the supreme value, pushing aside any obstacle in the way of its pursuit and consuming any moral inhibition that might impede its fulfilment.

Oslo’s deadly derivatives

Earlier, I suggested that Segev’s treachery had a “tectonic” impact on events that subsequently unfolded.

Allow me to elaborate—and corroborate—this seemingly far-reaching condemnation.

After all, Oslo was not a stand-alone disaster. To the contrary—it was the harbinger of successive calamities, which inevitably arose from its implementation.

In large measure, Segev was their midwife—their indispensable facilitator.

For, as mentioned, Oslo owes its birth to Segev, who clearly had it in his power to prevent it–but chose to deliver it instead.

So, just as without Segev, there would be no Oslo, so without Oslo there would be no Second Intifada, there would be no Disengagement, there would no uprooting of Jewish communities in Gush Katif, there would be no Hamas takeover of Gaza, no terror tunnels, no arsenal of fearsome rockets aimed at Israeli cities and towns far removed from Gaza.

All of these, and more, were, incontrovertibly, the pernicious progeny of Oslo; each, demonstrably, a deadly derivative of that infamous and ignominious initiative, all the pestilent products of Segev’s perfidy.

But beyond the gory procession of failures that the Segev-facilitated Oslo Accords ushered in, there was a far more profound—and sinister—degenerative effect, which began to afflict the tenor of Zionist thinking. For once the Oslo process began to dominate the political stage in Israel, its continued sustenance called for a sea-change in what hitherto had characterized Zionism’s approach to Israel’s foes. Whereas in the pre-Oslo era, the emphasis had been on robust, uncompromising deterrence; in the post-Oslo era all this changed—since persisting with it would have resulted in the swift demise of the initiative. Instead, the political leadership now embraced appeasement and far-reaching leniency toward enemy excesses and violations of commitments.

The consequences of this tectonic conceptual shift, we see today in the raging fires, the burnt out fields and the charred forests in the areas surrounding Gaza…

A personal perspective

I first encountered Gonen Segev, in early 1992, when I served as the Secretary-General of the TSOMET movement. He then appeared out of nowhere, after years during which he had not been seen participating in any activities of the movement, to compete for second place in the TSOMET list for the Knesset. (For readers whose political memory does not go back 26 years, TSOMET was a non-observant, hawkish party, which vehemently opposed the “land-for-peace” concept , on which the Oslo Accords were based.

To many—apparently including the TSOMET chairman, former IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt-Gen. Rafael (“Raful”) Eitan—he appeared to be “the salt of the Earth”, a sturdy, good-looking young man, an authentic Israeli with a medical degree and a record of IDF combat service, who was both charismatic and charming. Many—apparently including Raful— were led astray by his deceptive charms–which eventually led to the demise of the movement in which they placed their trust and the decline in public support for the principles in which they believed.

Similarly, to many—apparently including former IDF chief-of-staff, Yitzhak Rabin—the Oslo Agreements were perceived as a refreshing and innovative initiative, a masterstroke of far-reaching and far-sighted statesmanship, ushering in a new era of regional peace and prosperity, in an EU-like “New Middle East”, stretching from Kuwait to Casablanca, from the slopes of the Atlas Mountains to the shores of the Persian Gulf.

Like Segev, so Oslo. Many—apparently including Rabin—fell prey to its deceptive allure (or rather, sinister spell) and allowed themselves to be led astray—until the disintegration of their “noble” vision.

A compulsive liar who gives deceit a bad name

In summation, allow me a brief lapse of modesty and a short personal epilogue.

As opposed to many, I was not deceived by Segev’s ample guiles. On the contrary, I quickly identified him as a compulsive liar, who “gives deceit a bad name”. As proof of this, the moment he was elected—with the support of Raful—to the number two slot on the TSOMET list, in place of the late Yoash Tsiddon, one of the most outstanding parliamentarians the Knesset has ever known, I withdrew my name from the list of contenders for other slots—and resigned from my post of Secretary-General .

The rest is history—and at times I wonder how different that history would have been if others had followed my lead…