Martin Sherman, Author at Israel Rising

November 2, 2016November 2, 2016

INTO THE FRAY: Condell on Clinton

By presenting the divide between Trump & the post-Obama surrogate, Clinton, as an “America vs Europe” one, Pat Condell understates the true nature of the dichotomy

It is unusual for American voters to get a real choice in a presidential election but this is a genuine fork in the road for America—and the world. It’s one direction or another from here.

Pat Condell, America’s Moment Of Truth, October 25, 2016

The upcoming US presidential election has been a topic I have tried to refrain from writing about. Indeed, I wished to avoid expressing any opinion of the depressing debacle of the US elections, consoling myself with the thought that, in comparison, Israeli politics look like a dignified exercise of the democratic process.

Condell on Clinton

Arguably, there has never been an election in which American voters have been asked to choose between two candidates , who—for very different reasons—are clearly so hopelessly unqualified and undeserving of their nation’s highest office.

Appalled at the choice with which the world’s most powerful democracy has presented its electorate, I was loathe to take a position for, or against, either of these deeply flawed candidates—neither of whom I, as a non-US citizen, can vote for anyway.

What changed my mind, and convinced me to take up the challenge of writing something I felt I could take a clear stance on, without compromising my journalistic integrity, was a withering anti-Clinton video put out by another non-US citizen – the ever-incisive British political satirist, Pat Condell.

Actually, this was not one of Condell’s best videos. Moreover, I did not agree with everything he said in it. However, it did crystallize for me that what was really at stake on November 8, was something that went far beyond a choice between two rather unappealing (to gravely understate the case) individuals.

It is, in effect, a choice between two incompatibly divergent socio-political paradigms, with historic and probably irrevocable significance—for both the US and the global community.

Two divergent socio-political paradigms

Condell characterized the sharply contrasting alternatives confronting voters as follows: “In broad terms you could describe it a choice between the American way and European way…”

Although I understand why he chose to frame the issue in this manner, I am not sure that I entirely agree. Indeed, I believe that the choice is even starker than he suggests. In essence, it is a choice between a chance to preserve a society based on traditional Western values and Judeo-Christian foundations to which they are tethered; or irreversibly abandoning that prospect.

I realize of course that some might find it a little “over-the-top” to attribute such epic dimensions to a clash between two such eminently unimposing and decidedly “unepic” protagonists, but—perhaps perversely—that is precisely how the matter stands.

For these elections are less about the candidates themselves, and more—much more—about the realities they herald…and those they don’t.

Please, don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting for a minute that Clinton or Trump is genuinely committed to the policies they espouse. It doesn’t matter that neither of them really embody the views that they profess to ascribe to, or even really believe in them.

For whatever their real personal political proclivities may (or may not) be,

the adversarial socio-political milieu that envelops their perceived political “identity”;
the rivalrous political allegiances they have formed to sustain their political careers,
the opposing political machinery which drives their political activities; and
the political constituencies on which they draw for political support;

will, after the elections almost deterministically, sweep them each along their divergent paradigmatic paths.

Extending “Obama-ism”

Condell elaborated on his “American vs European” dichotomy: “For the past eight years President Obama has tried to make America more European because he is a European social democrat at heart…”

He added acerbically: “He belongs over here in Europe with the rest of the open borders “nothing to do with Islam” crowd making life more dangerous for ordinary people for virtuous reasons. It’s what he tried to do in America with his so European reluctance to even name, let alone confront, Islamic terrorism.”

Regarding Clinton, he warned: “And his chosen successor, Hilary Clinton, if elected intends to up the ante on that score when she brings in all those third world Muslim migrants who are waiting in the wings…”

The perception of Clinton as an extension of the Obama incumbency is crucial for grasping the stakes in the coming election. In many ways, his 2008 victory was a point of inflexion in American history.

With the opportunity to undo it lost in 2012, its detrimental impact began to solidify. A Clinton victory will all but make that impact indelibly irremovable. After all, Clinton has not only by and large endorsed all of Obama’s past policies—regardless of their calamitous consequences—she was in fact a co-author of a considerable portion of them.

A deeper dichotomy

But as I mentioned previously, by presenting the divide between Trump and a post-Obama surrogate, Clinton, as an “America vs Europe” one, Condell understates the true nature of the dichotomy. Indeed, it is a dichotomy that goes far beyond a difference of perspectives within prevailing Western civilization. It is a dichotomy between what have been traditionally deemed “Western values” and values which are “non-Western”. Indeed, the less charitable might say, “anti-Western”.

Accordingly, as I wrote just prior to the 2012 presidential elections, this latter set of values display “the same strains of resentment and envy, suspicion of others’ achievement, the belief that the success of some was necessarily the product of exploitation pervades much of the anti-colonial, anti-American – and yes, anti-Zionist – philosophy of many members of the Non-Aligned Movement.”

As a result, I cautioned: “[Obama’s] interpretation of the international role the US should play, the nature of the country’s interests, and the manner in which they should be pursued; his perception of friend and foe and the attitudes that should be adopted towards them, all seem to entail dramatic and disconcerting departure from that of most of his predecessors” adding that: “In this regard, he is the first US president who is explicitly … unmoored, both cognitively and emotionally, from the bollards of America’s founding Judeo-Christian heritage….”

Deeper dichotomy (cont.)

In a piece entitled “Will the West withstand the Obama presidency?” published just after the ill-conceived Iran nuclear deal, I warned: “For anyone who understands that the US Constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document … it should be alarmingly apparent that the Obama-incumbency is a dramatic and disturbing point of inflection in the history of America and its ‘Western’ allies”,clarifying that: “By ‘Western’ I mean countries whose political practices and societal norms are rooted in Judeo-Christian foundations in a cultural rather than in any religious sense.”

Indeed, almost 18 months earlier I asserted: “In many ways, the election of Obama in 2008 was a watershed… not so much because for the first time a man of color was elected to the US’s highest office…[but] because for the first time, the person elected was someone whose political credo coalesced in an environment where many of its formative influences (both personalities and ideologies)… differed sharply (arguably antithetically) … from those that historically made America, America.”

As Obama’s perceived successor, Clinton will be bound to preserve and promote—whether of her own volition or not—these political perspectives, simply because of the political milieu in which she will be compelled to operate, the political interests she will be compelled to serve and the political allegiances she will be compelled to maintain.

Deceptive first appearances

Of course, at first glance, one could make a plausible claim that Clinton is eminently qualified to serve as president—certainly far more so than the current incumbent was prior to his election. After all, she was First Lady for eight years (1993-2001), served as a US senator (2001-9) and as Secretary of State (2009-13).

This makes an impressive résumé indeed—until one begins to delve into the details.

Putting aside for the moment all the earlier scandals that have plagued her and her spouse, in the last eight years, either as Secretary of State, as contender of the Democratic Party nomination and as a candidate for the US presidency, she has either been actively involved in formulating policy for the Obama administration, or endorsing its policies. She certainly has not distanced herself publically in any way from them—and hence must be inextricably tied—either directly or by association—to the succession of failures and fiascos of his administration—both domestically and abroad.

On the home front, this includes soaring levels of debt, plunging levels of workforce participation, yawning budget deficits and a failing health care reform, Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative, which earlier this month none other than Bill Clinton dismissed as “the craziest thing in the world”.

On the international front, things are, if anything, far worse, with debacle being followed by yet more debacles, and US influence and stature plummeting across the globe.

Failures and Fiascos

Thus, whether in Egypt or Libya, in Syria or in failed endeavors to “reset” relations with Russia, US policy and reputation are in tatters worldwide: The appalling Iran deal, allowing the tyrants of Tehran to acquire mountains of cash to finance global terror and weaponized nuclear capability, in exchange for a promised deferral , the estrangement from Saudi Arabia, the heightening tensions with the Kremlin.

These are all disasters that Clinton is tainted with—whether they occurred “on her watch” as Secretary of State, or as Obama’s designated replacement.
But gross policy failures are not the only disqualifying stain on Clinton’s candidacy.

Arguably, even more damaging is the perception of corruption/corrosion of the organs of governance that are associated with her. This was perhaps best highlighted by the embarrassing House hearing with FBI director James Comey, when he inexplicably recommended Clinton not be indicted, while actually citing a litany of reasons why she should be! Indeed, the absurdity of the situation prompted Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to exclaim disapprovingly: “…my real fear is…this double track justice system that is… perceived in this country…if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be….

Clintonesque corruption

In an acerbic analysis of the Clinton candidacy, Indian-born commentator Atul Singh writes: “Hillary Clinton is a deeply damaged candidate with far too many skeletons in her cupboard.” And skeletons galore there are: The Email scandal, the Benghazi tragedy, and “pay-to-play” allegations surrounding massive donations to the Clinton Foundation from Mid-East tyrannies ,whose societies reflect the very antithesis of the values Clinton professes to stand for.

Singh makes the withering observation: “She has been in power far too long and, as someone wise once said, power corrupts… Earlier this year, she ironically delivered a speech on income inequality in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket. It evoked Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal comment about the starving sans culottes: “If they have no bread, let them eat cake.” Actually, the irony is worse because the Clintons claim to represent les sans culottes while gorging on foie gras…”

Of course none of this should be construed as a portrayal of Donald Trump as a paragon of virtue. Quite the opposite. Singh again: “While Trump might be a lying braggart and an obnoxious bully, Clinton [is] a wolf in sheep’s clothing and would persist with a status quo that is untenable.”

Indeed, much opprobrium can he heaped on Trump. He is vulgar, petty, easily distracted and I am far less convinced than Condell, who extolls Trump’s sincerity and commitment, as to the depth of his conviction in his own political pronouncements.

But what would you rather have—Trump’s glaring character defects, or Hilary’s declared intention to flood the country with un-vetted and unregulated immigrants from the Mid-East and South America?

Trump: Cut from the same cloth as “Brexit”

In many ways, Trump is the creation of Obama and Clinton – a reaction of millions of Americans to the unwanted metamorphosis of their nation. Indeed, he is cut from the same cloth as Brexit. He is a response—undeniably an inelegant one—to what is perceived as an attempt to decouple America from its roots and its heritage.

However, as such, it is a response that is relatively benign. If it is rebuffed—brace yourselves for far more drastic ones in the future. For as Condell points out, Trump is a “necessary antidote to the poison of political correctness … destroying Western society’s immune system”. If this antidote fails to be administered, its successors are guaranteed to be far more virulent.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)

[huge_it_share]

August 7, 2016

Jews Living In a Palestinian-Arab State. What?!?

“There is no reason, concretely and in principle, why Jews should not be able to live in a future Palestinian state”– Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, July 28, 2016.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former – attributed to Albert Einstein

I realize of course that juxtaposing these two excerpts might seem to some to be an overly caustic castigation of our esteemed envoy in Washington. But things are getting out of hand. In recent weeks, the Israeli public has been subjected to a barrage of imbecility from its leaders – with each statement/declaration/proposal attaining new levels of naked absurdity. It is an absurdity that must be exposed and expunged from the political discourse in Israel.

Cavalcade of the crackpot and the crazy

In past columns, I have discussed some of the more demented ideas that have been raised in the national discourse by prominent individuals and/or organizations as allegedly serious policy proposals.

For example, in “Gaza: A port is no panacea for poverty” (May 27, 2016), I dealt with the harebrained and hazardous proposition made – among others, by Israel Katz, Minister of Intelligence(!) and Transport, to build a detachable port for Gaza on an artificial off-shore islet.

In “Imbecility squared: Parts 1 & 2” (June 10 &17, 2016), I wrote of the perils inherent in the “plan” advanced by a group of over 200 former senior security officers called “Commanders for Israel’s Security” to convert the areas of Judea-Samaria into a giant South Lebanon, unilaterally transforming “disputed territories” into “occupied” ones.

Likewise, in “Utterly unconscionable”, (July 1, 2016), I detailed the fatal folly of the so-called “reconciliation” accord, concluded by the Netanyahu government with Erdogan’s Turkey, warning of its many ill-advised defects – particularly giving the increasingly theocratic and tyrannical Islamist regime, closely allied to the Muslim Brotherhood, a firm foothold in Gaza.

So in some respects, Ambassador Dermer’s staggeringly stupid remark was merely another component in the continuing cavalcade of the crackpot and the crazy that has become the depressing norm in the conduct of Israeli politics.

Core essence of Zionism

But in some respects it was even more disturbing and detached from any grasp of reality.

Made at an event held by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the remark highlighted the impossible dilemma in which Likud-led coalitions have been trapped since Netanyahu’s ill-advised Bar Ilan Speech, in which he declared his willingness – in violation of his electoral pledges – to accept the possibility of Palestinian statehood. Moreover, Dermer’s remark also reflected the dismaying degree by which the core values of Zionism have been obscured, eroded and forgotten

Sadly – but not unpredictably – the latter is an inevitable product of the former.

In its barest essentials, Zionism comprises conveying Jews from living under alien sovereign rule to living under Jewish sovereign rule This is particularly true for Jews living under an inhospitable alien sovereign authority. That is the verysine qua non of the Zionist ideal, enshrined in the words of the national anthem, Ha’Tikva:

“Our hope of two thousand years will not be lost.

To be a free people in our own land, the land of Zion…”

Absent this component, the notion of Zionism is left bereft of any substantive content.

But this is precisely what Dermer’s remark is prescribing—and worse.

Perversion of Zionism’s essence

For it is not only suggesting that this core element of Zionism be set aside, but that, in fact, it be inverted. Perversely, this prospect of the sacrifice of Zionist essence is to be made at the altar of the disproven -but somehow never discredited, and certainly never discarded -political deity of “Two-States”.

So Dermer is utterly wrong—on all counts.

There is every reason – both in principle and concretely – why the notion of Jews living in a Palestinian-Arab state, under Palestinian-Arab sovereignty would be unacceptable. Indeed, his envisioned outcome was made all the more preposterous – even grotesque – by his raising the possibility that “settlers living deeper in the West Bank should, in the event of Palestinian statehood, be given the option of gaining citizenship in that state”.

It is unacceptable, in principle because it entails not only the annulment – but the antithesis – of the quintessential Zionist aspiration. Not only does it not entail bringing Jews living under non-Jewish sovereignty to live under Jewish sovereignty, it entails the precise opposite – abandoning Jews living under Jewish sovereignty to life under non-Jewish sovereignty.

But when we move from the realm of “principle” to that of the “concrete”, the notion that Jews should live in a future Palestinian state becomes even more bizarre and unthinkable.

“…there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…”

For when Dermer envisions Jews being left to live in a “future Palestinian state”, we are not talking about some benign Judeo-philic – or even Judeo-neutral – sovereignty, but a regime nurtured by decades of Judeo-phobic hatred and filled with Judeo-cidal intent.

Indeed, both the Hamas Charter and Fatah Constitution call for the eradication of all the Jews and the elimination of every vestige of Jewish life between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea-by force of arms.

So foremost among the “concrete reasons” for discounting the prospect of Jews living in some future Palestinian-Arab state is the rather “prosaic” one: The very tangible probability of them being torn limb from limb by some incensed mob, enraged by the very sight of their mere existence.

Indeed, the thought of leaving Jews – and Israeli citizens – to the tender mercies of a regime, that has demonstrated its true and heartless colors, is so appalling that it must be removed from the realm of acceptable debate before it gathers any currency.

Two things make raising this perverse possibility even more vexing. The first is that it was a clear slap in the face for the pro-Israel elements in the Republican Party, who had expunged the idea of the two-state formula from their party platform. The second was that it apparently was intended to mollify less supportive Democrats, still mindlessly obsessed with the macabre dogma of establishing yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny as the panacea for all the ills of the Middle East.

Contorted politically-correct gobbledygook

It is a sad spectacle to see Israeli diplomacy so mired in the two-state morass of its own making that it has lost any semblance of coherence, thus inevitably resulting in the kind of anti-Zionist declarations made by Dermer.

Instead of channeling all efforts into removing the idea of Palestinian statehood from the discourse, Israeli diplomacy insists on sustaining it. By paying formal lip service to the doctrine of two-statism Israel has ensnared itself on an irresolvable contradiction – committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, on the one hand; yet unable to make the perilous concession to allow its implementation, on the other.

It is this impasse that begets the kind of outlandish utterances made by Dermer. Instead, of making it clear that—absent some wildly implausible best-case scenario, with no realistic basis in fact – a Palestinian state is incompatible with its the long-term survival as the nation state of the Jews, Israel finds itself scrambling to square the circle – trying to defend an indefensible policy with indefensible arguments…

Instead of conveying to the world—and the Democratic Party – that Israel cannot relinquish – “in principle or concretely” – any portion of Judea-Samaria to Arab sovereignty, Dermer is forced into contorted politically correct gobbledygook – attempting to justify the construction of Jewish communities not on the basis of moral and historical rights – but on the basis of their possible future transfer to Arab rule.

Only the most fevered of minds

Today, only the most fevered mind can suggest that the establishment of a Palestinian state in the hills that command the heavily populated coastal plain is even remotely in Israel’s national interest. Not only would the Jews left behind in the Palestinian-Arab state be in deadly danger, so would those inside the shrunken Jewish state.

To grasp the veracity of this caveat, all one needs to do is look at the outcome of the failed experiment of trying to foist self-rule on the Palestinian-Arabs in Gaza. After three large scale military campaigns against Arab aggression since relinquishing the territory, and removing any remnant of Jewish presence there, Israel is again bracing for a fourth encounter.

Indeed, as time passes, instead of threats dissipating they intensify. Today, Israel is planning on surrounding Gaza not only with a 10 meter high wall above ground but a 10 meter deep one below it, to contend with the threat of attack tunnels. It not only recently completed a project to fortify over 10,000 homes in the communities adjacent to Gaza, providing them with newly constructed bomb shelters, but in the case of renewed fighting, plans to evacuate the civilian population in a 7 km swathe around the Strip.

Hmm!! Remember how they told you Israel had to leave Gaza because the “occupation “was… expensive??

“Fraying Palestinian Political Entity in ‘West Bank’…”

Now imagine having to duplicate that effort, if like Gaza, Judea-Samaria were surrendered to Arab sovereignty.

Imagine if, instead of having to build a 10m barrier above and below ground along a 50 km. front, as in Gaza, Israel would have to do this along a 400-500 km front in Judea-Samaria.

Imagine if instead of having to fortify 10,000 homes, Israel would have to fortify hundreds of thousands…

Imagine if instead of planning to evacuate the civilian population in the sparsely populated largely rural South adjacent to Gaza, Israel would have to plan on evacuating the heavily populated largely urban areas adjacent to Judea-Samaria…

But if the sheer-physical parameters are daunting, the socio-political processes inside Judea-Samaria are, if anything, more so.

In a new study, graphically entitled “The Fraying Palestinian Political Entity in the West Bank”, veteran Arab affairs analyst, Pinchas Inbari, paints a gloomy picture of socio-political realities in Judea-Samaria, and of the direction of the developing trends there.

He describes a society descending into inter-clan rivalry and gang violence against the backdrop of declining authority of any semblance of centralized governance. He cautions: “The Palestinian Authority is failing to control extensive parts of the West Bank. As a result, some districts of the West Bank are developing in different directions…accelerating the process of the PA’s disintegration…”

Stop already!!!

So there you have it.

Both bitter experience of past precedents and the dismal prospects of future trends portend ill for the two-state paradigm. To understate the case, its chances of success are slim and the cost of failure, grim. It therefore seems inexplicable that the Government of Israel persists in the shabby charade of supporting it. Perversely, many holding senior office today built their political careers on opposition to Palestinian statehood. Yet now that their positions have been vindicated, they persist in feigning support for it.

The time has come to stop this masquerade

Instead of trying to artificially sustain the dangerous delusion of a future Palestinian state, coexisting in peace and prosperity with a Jewish state, instead of nurturing this ill-fated illusion among overseas audiences, Israeli diplomats should be engaged in efforts to apprise them of the fatal flaws of the failed doctrine of two-statism.

That – and not consigning Jews to Arab governance – is the true challenge of Israeli diplomacy today.

July 24, 2016July 24, 2016

Potential Payoffs and Pitfalls for Israel if the GOP Wins

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

Rejecting decades-old policy, the Republican Party approved on July 12 a [2016] platform that does not include a call for a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.—Forward, July 10, 2016

We believe the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would be destabilizing and harmful to the peace process. – 1980 Republican platform that brought Ronald Reagan to the White House.

We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state; its establishment is inimical to the security interests of Israel, Jordan, and the US. We will not support the creation of any Palestinian entity that could place Israel’s security in jeopardy. –1988 Republican platform that brought George H. W. Bush to the White House.

These three excerpts spanning over a quarter-century relating to the GOPs attitude towards the establishment of a Palestinian state include two important lessons for Israel.

Breathtaking erosion

One of these lessons relates to the past; the other to the future.

Israel will ignore either at its peril—or at least, to its grave detriment.

With regard to the past, these excerpts underscore the breathtaking erosion that has taken place since the late 1980s in the GOPs opposition to Palestinian statehood—from utter rejection; to retraction of opposition (1996); to explicit—albeit conditioned—endorsement in 2002. It is only now that the GOP is setting aside its ill-considered support, and has thankfully begun to revert—albeit it still partially—to its former position.

What makes this spectacular erosion—from un-conditional rejection to conditional acceptance—even more remarkable is the fact that it took place over a period in which for the overwhelmingly greater proportion of time, the incumbent Israeli government was headed by Likud, which until mid-2009 (Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan Speech) explicitly opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Indeed, for the twenty-two years (between 1980 to 2002), Likud-led coalitions were in power for about double the time that Labor-led ones were.

This is clearly a grave indictment of the Israeli “Right’s” inability to convincingly convey the validity of its political credo, and to undermine that of its ideological adversaries on the “Left”.

The need for soul-searching

The gravity of this indictment is further compounded by two factors that make it even more damning.

The first is that this dismal outcome emerged despite the highly favorably point of departure, which opponents of Palestinian statehood enjoyed. After all, no effort was required to win over the GOP to this “rejectionist” position, for it was staunchly behind it to begin with. Yet despite this, the “Right” was unable to sustain this like-minded support, which by 2002, had for all intents and purposes, been totally eroded.

The second is that this erosion occurred despite the fact that the “Right’s” opposition to Palestinian statehood was completely validated by facts on the ground – i.e. by the bloody events that tragically arose from the fatally failed attempt to implement it.

So, sadly, the “Right” was not able to marshal the distinct dual advantage it had of a highly favorable point of departure and overwhelming empirical corroboration of its credo to sustain the GOP’s natural inclination to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This in itself is reason enough for intense soul-searching among “Right” wing activists, but it acquired even greater pertinence and urgency, precisely because of the encouraging signs that the GOP is reverting—at least, partially and cautiously—to its past position of opposition to Palestinian statehood.

For today, the challenges Israel may have to face in a post-two-state era could well be as dire—perhaps even most so—than those that the perilous two-state paradigm posed.

A word of warning

It is no secret that enthusiasm for the two-state concept is waning—even among ardent erstwhile adherents. Indeed, recently, some obsessive two-staters such as New York Times’s Tom Friedman (February 10, 2016), New York University’s Alon Ben Meir (Huffington Post, April 7, 2016), and recently the Jerusalem Post’s Gershon Baskin (July 20, 2016) have acknowledged that, (gasp!), the Palestinians may actually have contributed to the accelerated irrelevance of the two-state idea.

Thus, and without wishing in any way to diminish the sterling efforts of those who helped bring about the welcome change in the 2016 GOP platform, this was, to some extent, as Rafael Medoff points out (Algemeiner, July 20, 2016) a sober and clear-sighted response to the changing realities on the ground.

Of course, according to conventional wisdom in “Right-wing” circles, the changes in the GOP platform are a development that bodes well for Israel, as it signals growing awareness of the futility and dangers entailed in continued pursuit of the two-state chimera as the only route to a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs.

While this, of course, is undoubtedly true, a word of warning is called for.

With the passing to the two-state paradigm as a relevant policy option, new perils will immediately emerge. Planning on how they should be contended with is a pressing imperative for the Israeli “Right”—and one that, hopefully, it will display greater acumen and competence in contending with than it did in dealing with the two-state menace.

If not two-states, what?

With the growing prospect of the two-state option being abandoned, the question of what alternative paradigm Israel should adopt is becoming a question of increasing relevance.

It is also one which the Israeli “Right” has been appallingly remiss in addressing.

Indeed, for the better part of two decades, the “Right” limited itself to underscoring the myriad defects and dangers entailed in the two-state proposal, but largely refrained from articulating and advancing some cogent and comprehensive alternative prescription for its preferred vision of a permanent-status arrangement with the Palestinian-Arabs.

As a result, the “Right” found itself unable to respond effectively to the pointed and very pertinent question from adversarial two-state adherents: “So what’s your alternative?”

Failure to provide an adequate response to this question, eventually led to a drastic erosion of the Likud-led opposition to the two-state formula until its acceptance by Netanyahu in 2009.

But the recanting of support for the two-state formula by the GOP, and its waning attractiveness elsewhere, will create a dramatically different and challenging reality for both the reluctant Likud-like two-staters on the one hand, and for still die-hard two-state opponents, on the other.

For not only will it be increasingly less plausible to invoke “irresistible international pressure” for reluctant acceptance, under duress, of a two-state compliant policy; but it will also no longer be possible to confine oneself to criticism and rejection of the two-state formula.

To the contrary, with the declining dominance of the two-state concept, its opponents will be obligated to proactively produce and present a plausible and practical Zionist-compliant alternative…or suffer the consequences of its generally accepted default option: a multiethnic un-Jewish state-of-all-its-citizens.

Alternatives worse than two-state option?

As mentioned earlier, until lately, two-state opponents long eschewed presenting some persuasive, sustainable long-term blueprint for the outcome of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs.

In recent years, however, a spate of such alternative proposals has emerged. Sadly, not everything that is not a two-state compliant proposal is preferable to the perilous two-state principle itself.

And indeed, nearly all the major alternatives being advanced today by prominent figures on the “Right” are – notwithstanding the sincere goodwill of their authors—no less inimical to the long-term survival of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

Thus while I bear none of them any personal rancor, I am firmly convinced that if these “alternatives” are advanced as tangible policy options to replace the two-state concept, the consequences for Israel and the Zionist ideal will be grave.

Indeed, in broad brush strokes, these proffered “alternatives” to setting up a Palestinian state can be divided into three major categories.

The first is that proposed by those who favor “managing—rather than resolving–the conflict”, which basically consists of “kicking the can down the road”. In effect, it calls for letting the problem fester, until some unspecified event(s) occur to—hopefully and inexplicably—facilitate resolution.

The other two—somewhat more proactive—suggestions can be divided into those that will, almost inevitably and demonstrably, lead to either:
(a) the Lebanonization (and later Islamization) of Israel by incorporating the Palestinian-Arab residents of the territories across the pre-1967 lines, into the permanent enfranchised population of Israel; or
(b) the Balkanization of Israel by trying to encapsulate the Palestinian-Arab population in disconnected autonomous enclaves in these areas.

None of these three categories can pave the way for Israel—as the nation-state of the Jews—to a sustainable long-term situation that is any less menacing than that entailed in the two-state scenario.

“What’s wrong with ‘The Right’…”

In a series of past articles, I have—with varying degrees of acerbity/exasperation—laid out in considerable detail, the manifest shortcomings of these alternative proposals, to which I urge readers to refer. See:

What’s Wrong With The Right — Part I: As demented and disastrous as the two state “solution” is, most alternatives proffered by the Right would be no less calamitous.

What’s Wrong With The Right – Part II:The Right must realize that between the river and the sea, either exclusive Jewish or exclusive Arab sovereignty will eventually prevail.

Brain Dead On The Right?: The only thing more dangerous, delusional and disastrous than the Left’s proposal for a two-state solution, is the proposal now bandied about by the Right – for a one-state solution

To My Colleague Caroline, A Caveat:I strongly concur with Caroline B. Glick’s diagnosis of the fatal failings of the two-state formula, and disagree just as strongly with the prescription she offers to remedy them.

Sovereignty? Yes, But Look Before You Leap: Extending Jewish sovereignty over Judea-Samaria is imperative, but some proposals for this imperil Israel no less than the two-state folly.

Islamizing Israel – When The Radical Left And Hard Right Concur:The almost unavoidable result of annexing the territories & enfranchising their Arab population would be to eventually create a Muslim-majority tyranny.

Annexing Area C: An Open Letter To Naftali Bennett:Between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, there can — and eventually will — prevail either exclusively Jewish, or exclusively Arab, sovereignty.

Sovereignty? Yes, But Beware Of Annexing Area C: Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will solve none of the problems Israel faces today, and exacerbate many

The most urgent & important issue today

In these articles I show why:

– “managing the conflict” is an exercise in futility—and self-delusion—that will only carry the country on a perilous downward spiral, with prevailing problems increasing in both scale and intensity;

– proposals that prescribe including the Palestinian Arabs in the permanent population of a post-two-state Israel would almost inevitably turn the country into a Muslim-majority tyranny within a few generations—even if the optimistic demographers are right and, initially, the Muslim population will comprise a 35-40% minority;

– proposals that advocate partial annexation and limited autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs, concentrated in disconnected mini-enclaves will result in wildly torturous and contorted borders, virtually impossible to demarcate and secure, thus emptying “sovereignty” in the annexed areas of any meaningful content.

None of these proposals offer a sustainable alternative paradigm to the two-state formula that can ensure Israel’s survival as a viable nation-state of the Jewish people.

The GOP’s new platform can indeed herald a great new opportunity for Israel, especially—but not necessarily, only—if it wins the November elections.

But to reap the potential benefits that this entails, Israel must prepare. It must formulate a cogent, comprehensive paradigm to replace the two-state folly, which addresses both its geographic and demographic imperatives for survival—lest it promote a proposal that threatens to make it untenable geographically or demographically–or both.
It must be a proposal that ensures that Israel retains its vital geo-strategic assets in Judea-Samaria and drastically reduces the presence of the hostile Arab population resident there—preferably by non-coercive means such as economic inducements…which, by the way, is what brought the bulk of the Arab population here in the first place.

Initiating debate on this is a matter of paramount urgency and importance. I can only hope that this essay will help initiate it.

July 18, 2016

Israel and US Liberal Jews

The real reasons for the rift: Incredibly, according to Israel’s “liberal” detractors, the only remedy for Israel’s “democracy deficit” is to establish yet another Muslim-majority tyranny.

Israel’s accomplishments have been remarkable. Israel has created a thriving economy, and has been a refuge for hundreds of thousands of the displaced and the needy. Israel has generated a rich and diverse cultural life and its scientific and educational achievements have been exemplary. In spite of these achievements, however, Israel in my view has gone astray…sadly, after a life and career devoted to Jewish community and Israel, I conclude that in every important way Israel has failed to realize its promise for me. A noble experiment, but a failure.

– Rabbi David M. Gordis, Reflections on Israel 2016, Tikkun, February 22, 2016

Like the United States of America, the modern state of Israel is a country born from the aspiration for freedom, and standing out among the nations as a beacon of democracy and humanity. Israel is…an exceptional country that shares our most essential values. It is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are found. Therefore, support for Israel is an expression of our Americanism

– Republican Party’s 2016 Platform

‘Name a single country in the history of the world faced with internal and external threats comparable to those faced by Israel that has ever had a better record in human rights; a better record with compliance of the rule of law; a better record of concern for civilians?’ I have been asking that question now for 20 years probably to a million people around the world, and I’ve never gotten a single person even to stand up and name a country, because you can’t do it.

– Alan Dershowitz, a longstanding supporter of Democratic Party, Jerusalem, June 9, 2015

In recent years there have been frequent reports of a growing rift between liberal Jewry in the US and Israel, and of the increasing difficulty liberal American Jews—particularly the younger generation—have in identifying with the Jewish state.

Neither inevitable nor irreversible

This is of course an entirely absurd state of affairs.

After all, if logic, common sense and truth had any significant role to play in determining the “liberal” discourse on Israel or “liberal” attitudes toward it, Israel would be enthusiastically embraced by all who purport to cherish liberal values, such as civil liberties, socio-cultural diversity and religious tolerance. Indeed, Israel would be held up as source of pride, celebrated as a shining example of how such values can be sustained in the most inclement of circumstances, which in many other places might well have been considered justification for considerably more authoritarian governance (see Dershowitz’s quote above).

Various profound explanations have been proposed to account for the emerging disconnect between the “liberal” Jews in the US and Israel, ranging from philosophical differences to divergent societal shifts in both countries. But while there might be some measure of validity to these claims, to my mind, they largely miss the point and the dominant reason for the rift is far more mundane.

Accordingly, this alleged “animus” is neither inherently inevitable, as several pundits appear to have to resigned themselves to, nor is it inherently irreversible—other than by some far-reaching transformation of Israeli society.

Narcissistic hypocrisy vs indolent incompetence

At the root of the “liberal” Jews disaffection with the Jewish nation-state lies a dual fault—the one of “liberal” Jewry, the other of the Jewish nation state itself.

On the one hand, liberal Jewry in the US has been gravely afflicted by a narcissistic hypocrisy, which sets unattainable standards for the Jewish state to avoid being the target of its disapproval. On the other hand, Israel, as the nation-state of the Jews, has been deplorably derelict in presenting its case to the world in general and to US Jewry in particular. This has left them gravely misinformed, allowing disapproval of its policy and disinformation as to its nature to go unchallenged—and hence to flourish.

Indeed, much of the disappointment expressed by liberal Jewry is rooted in a misperception of what Israel once was, and what it has become today.

In order to illustrate this, the moronic—and often self-contradictory—lament by David Gordis (not to be confused with his nephew Daniel Gordis) as to Israel’s alleged moral degradation, is perhaps a good place to start (see introductory excerpt).

After summarily dismissing Israel’s “remarkable accomplishments” in creating “a thriving economy”, providing “refuge for hundreds of thousands of the displaced and the needy” and generating “a rich and diverse cultural life and…scientific and educational achievements [that] have been exemplary”, Gordis perversely declares Israel a failed experiment—despite its staggering successes.

Totally detached from fact & reason

Gordis then goes on to elaborate on his abstruse indictment of Israel today:“Jewish life and thought have successfully navigated between three pairs of values that are in tension with one another. First, the Jewish experience has balanced the rational with the affective, the assertion with the question…Second, it has embraced both particularism with universalism, probing Jewish interiorities but looking out to the larger world, recognizing the common humanity of all people. Third, it has shaped positions which looked to the past for sources and inspiration but at the same time projected a vision for a world transformed in the future into something better than its current reality.”

Then in a wild diatribe, totally divorced from any semblance of reality, he blares:

“Present day Israel has discarded the rational, the universal and the visionary. These values have been subordinated to a cruel and oppressive occupation, an emphatic materialism, severe inequalities rivaling the worst in the western world and distorted by a fanatic, obscurantist and fundamentalist religion which encourages the worst behaviors rather than the best”.

In reality, “present day Israel” is—demonstrably—far closer to the model of Gordis’s ideal than it ever was, certainly far more than it was back in the days for which he allegedly yearns.

Wrong on every count

Today Israeli society is driven far less by ideological zeal; it far less ideologically monolithic, far less under the sway of a doctrinaire socialistic hegemony, for which Gordis waxes nostalgic. How does that make it less rational?

Israel has been in the forefront in extending aid to “the other” whenever disaster has struck: In Nepal, in Haiti and even in providing life-saving medical treatment to the victims of the Syrian civil war–to name but a few of present day Israel’s humanitarian initiatives. How is that indicative of “the worst behaviors rather than the best”?

Israeli innovation and inventiveness in medicine, agriculture, water conservation is saving/improving the lives of multitudes across the globe? How is that indicative of Israel discarding the “universal?”

And Israel’s cutting edge activities in the field of space research and exploration have put it in the world’s top five countries in this sphere of human endeavor. So has Israel really discarded the visionary?

This is merely a small sampling of how intellectually dishonest the derogatory drivel of Israel’s “liberal” detractors has become.

This narcissistic hypocrisy was aptly exposed in a perceptive piece in a Washington Post blog by David Bernstein, professor of Law at George Mason University. He wrote: “Israeli Arabs have never been more integrated into Israeli society, or made more rapid economic and social progress, than…under Netanyahu… surrounded by hostile enemies, absorbing about four times its original population in refugees, very few of whom came from countries with a longstanding liberal or democratic traditions, expecting a progressive utopia to emerge was ridiculous. Creating a reasonably liberal, multiethnic, democratic state with religious freedom in a region where there aren’t any others should be more than enough to satisfy all but the most starry-eyed idealists.”

Indeed, it should.

Beneath the disingenuous gobbledygook

Of course, denigrating Israel because it fails to meet some unattainable criteria of human behavior, conjured up by disenchanted “liberal” Jews, serves no useful purpose other than to expose their self-centered insincerity—especially when they refrain from applying the same stringent standards to any other country, including their own.

For, once one strips away all the disingenuous gobbledygook, one comes to the core reason for “liberal” chagrin with Israel. This has nothing to do with how diverse or tolerant Israeli society has become, or the level of humanitarian relief it may extend to others, or how Israeli enterprise contributes to the betterment of mankind at large. It has to do with one – and only one—politically partisan issue—Israel’s interaction with the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 Green Line (a.k.a. the “Occupation”). The only remedial measure that “liberals” advance to deal with the “undemocratic blight” is to implement a “two-state-solution”.

Incredibly therefore, according to Israel’s “liberal” detractors, the only panacea for Israel’s “democracy deficit” is to facilitate the establishment of yet another Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks will be homophobic persecution of homosexuals, misogynistic discrimination against women and girls, intolerance of religious diversity, and repression of political dissent.

But this is not only wildly irrational in terms of its internal logic, it is equally imprudent in terms of its operational implications. After all, every time Israel has transferred territory to Arab control, it has sooner or later, become a platform to launch deadly attacks against it. Yet with unswerving doctrinaire zeal “liberals” cling to the perilous prescription of touting tyranny and bringing hundreds of kindergartens within the range of rockets and mortars along Israel’s eastern flank.

Down to the last Israeli

It would thus seem that much of US Jewry is so blinded by its obsessive attachment to the failed formula of two-states-for-two- people that they are prepared to defend it—paradoxically under the banner of liberal political philosophy – down to the last Israeli. Indeed, in its mindless subscription to the two-state notion as the touchstone of Israeli democracy, “liberal” Jewry disregards Israel’s many merits and highlights its inevitable defects—thus greatly contributing to its international de-legitimization across the globe. After all, who better for the Judeophobes to cite than the Jews themselves?

But beyond disregard for Israel’s virtues, US liberal Jews seem to be blind to the nature of its adversaries. Despite ample evidence, they refuse to acknowledge that Arab (including Palestinian Arab) animosity is not rooted in anything the Israel does—or does not do; but in what Israel is: Jewish. Concessions will not satiate Arab appetites, only whet them.

But if US “liberal” Jews frown upon the coercive measures that Israel is compelled to use against the Palestinian-Arabs, were they to apply the same criteria to their own country, they would have good reason to feel even more disenchanted. For when faced with threats far less severe than those faced by Israel, the US has responded far more vigorously and less discriminately than Israel, whether in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Yemen, with “collateral” civilian casualties dwarfing anything Israel has been accused of.

Yet strangely, few if any, embittered Jewish liberals have distanced themselves from the USA because they have been disappointed by American brutality and its failure to live up to their immaculate standards of state behavior.

Expose and inform

Given the facts on the ground, Israel should in fact be the proverbial “apple of the eye” of US liberal Jewry, an object of pride it is eager to be identified with—especially in light of the harrowing circumstances under which it is forced to exist.

Sadly, Israel has done inexcusably little to harness the facts to rebuff the attacks on its democratic credentials and has allowed imperative coercive actions to ensure the security of its civilians against an implacable foe, to be portrayed as racist brutality.

Thus, Israel is losing the support of the US diaspora by default. By spending a pittance on public diplomacy, it is by its own incompetence and impotence fostering the narratives of its adversaries.

The Spring 2016 edition of the Columbia University journal, “Current”, ran an interesting piece entitled “Reclaiming Alienated Liberals: Israel’s Imperative for Diaspora Jews” by Benjamin Davidoff, self-professed pro-Israel advocate. There are many things I disagree with in the article -such as the need for a Palestinian state and the call for Israel to empower J-Street, but on one matter Davidoff was spot on. He conveyed the feeling that pro-Israel advocates had been abandoned by Israel. He aptly notes: “Israel has an obligation to aid in pro-Israel advocacy on university campuses. Israel has largely ignored those fighting for Israel on campus and has failed to offer any true support for diaspora Jews… this issue directly affects the viability of the Israeli state in the future and should be of primary concern for Israel.”

On this he is quite right – and Israeli officialdom will ignore this obligation at the nation’s peril.

July 11, 2016July 11, 2016

Who Has the Moral High Ground?

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

As many of you know I have long been promoting an alternative Humanitarian Paradigm, to replace the failed Two-States-for-Two-People (TSS), that has dominated the discourse for decades. This alternative paradigm involves the funded relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian-Arabs living beyond the 1967-Green Line, in third party countries.

Putting aside the question of feasibility for the moment I should like to focus on the relative morality of the two paradigms. (After almost a quarter-century of failed endeavors to implement it, the TSS has proved itself a fatally unfeasible fiasco. It certainly can claim little advantage in terms of feasibility over an alternative that is based on the eminently plausible proposal that economically hard-pressed individuals will accept a generous financial grant to enhance their economic well-being).

So in answer to the numerous critics, who have excoriated the Humanitarian Alternative, allegedly on “moral” grounds, I suggest reflection on the following question:

WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?

Those who promote the establishment of (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, which will comprise the diametric opposite and utter negation of the very values its advocates invoke for its establishment – and whose hallmark would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance and oppression of political dissidents?

Or:

Those who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques, who have controlled their lives and led them astray for decades?

Why does promoting the former make one “moderate and liberal”; while advocating the latter, makes one a …“right wing extremist “?

Moreover, why is it considered morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes in order to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it considered morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes in order to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

2. TIME FOR REFLECTION

I have decided to take a break from writing my weekly column to catch up on some much neglected administrative tasks and to reflect on the possible restructuring of my future pro-Israel activities. I am coming to the conclusion that my current mode of operations rapidly exhausting its potential and is beginning to yield diminishing returns on effort invested. Involving very long hours, seven days a week (apologies to my observant readers) virtually all pro-bono, it is certainly becoming very onerous for me both in terms of my economic, and apparently, health situation.

Faced with an unsympathetic and uncooperative Establishment, on the one hand (even the relatively likeminded portions thereof), and heavily funded ideological adversaries, on the other, it is becoming increasingly difficult to effectively drive our message home—no matter how much thought is invested in its argumentation, and effort in its formulation.

Accordingly without the ability to harness greater resources to enhance the impact presently being made, serious doubts must be raised as to the efficacy of continuing in the current format.

I am working on a few ideas in this regard, which I will share with you in the near future and most probably request your involvement/participation.

3. THE TURKEY THAT ONCE WAS.

Further to my recent article on the Israel-Turkey deal:

FORMULA FOR STABILITY: TURKEY PLUS ISRAEL by Çevik Bir and Martin Sherman (2002)

www.meforum.org/511/formula-for-stability-turkey-plus-israel#_ftnref1

This is an article advocating strong Turco-Israeli ties that I co-authored with General Çevik Bir, former deputy chief of staff of the Turkish armed forces from 1995 to 1998, who negotiated several landmark Israeli-Turkish military agreements.

Sadly nothing that was relevant then is relevant today. Apart from its geographical location and size, nothing in Turkey is as it was then.

To underscore the dramatic metamorphosis: It was Bir’s military, who arrested Erdogan in 1998 for “inciting hatred based on religious differences”, while about 14 years later, Bir, arguably the major architect of Israeli-Turkish ties, was arrested by the Erdogan regime for “overthrowing the Turkish government [of Islamist Necmettin Erbakan] by force”

See also NYT lead story on Turkey (July 4, 2016). http://tinyurl.com/jqdchyr

Hardly reassuring!!