Author: Martin Sherman

Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net ) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org)
Posted on

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]

 

lev-haolam-international-pressure

 

 

 

Posted on

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

Ron Dermer Two-State Solution

“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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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!!

Posted on

Utterly Unconscionable

The real reason for the rupture of relations with Turkey is not because of anything Israel has (or has not) done. It is a result of what Turkey has become.

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

Israelis have no conscience, no honor, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism. – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (7/19/2014)

National honor is not just something people talk of on the street…It has strategic significance– Moshe (Bogey) Yaalon, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, (8/17/2011).

The recently announced reconciliation accord—or rather “deal” between Israel and Turkey—is utterly unconscionable—and incomprehensible. From an Israeli point of view, it is devoid of any logic on every imaginable level—national, ethical, security and even commercial—except perhaps in the immediate short-term.

Resounding rejection

For this “deal’ to produce any beneficial results for Israel, beyond those that would accrue to it anyway without it, would be extremely implausible, defying all probability, evidence and common sense – a stunning victory for unfounded optimism over sober assessment of prevailing realities.

Just how detrimental the “deal” would be for Israel is underscored by its overwhelming rejection by the Israeli public, reflected in opinion polls conducted just after news of its impending conclusion broke. According toChannel 10, a majority of almost 2 to 1 in the overall population opposed the “deal”. In the Jewish population, the ratio of opponents to proponents rose to almost 3 to 1. By contrast, in the Arab sector, the numbers supporting the “deal” was nearly five times higher than those opposing it!

This is an interesting statistic in assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the “deal”. After all, unless one ascribes to the (largely non-Zionist) Arab population a more astute grasp of the national interest of the Jewish nation-state than one ascribes to the (largely pro-Zionist) Jewish population, the significance of this finding is crystal clear—for anyone with the moral courage and intellectual integrity to acknowledge it.

The Zoabi index

But perhaps the most reliable measure of the detriments of the “deal” was the undisguised display of joy and satisfaction with which it was received by Arab Knesset member of the anti-Zionist Balad faction, Hanin Zoabi, ade jure Israeli citizen, with full civil rights, who has spent years denigrating her country and consorting with its enemies. Much of Zoabi’s approving glee was due to what is perhaps the most infuriating and disturbing aspect of this ill-conceived deal: Israel’s agreement to pay compensation of $20 million to the families of the homicidal thugs (whom Zoabi accompanied), killed while attempting to disembowel IDF naval commandoes, after they rappelled onto a Turkish vessel in 2010, to prevent it breaching the legal quarantine of the Hamas-ruled terrorist enclave of Gaza.

Flushed with victory at the macabre precedent of compensation being paid for the consequences of the attempted lynch of IDF combatants, she crowed: “The agreement by Israel to transfer the compensation to Turkey constitutes an admission of guilt to the murder of nine human beings…This shows that they were not terrorists but victims of [unprovoked] violence”.

Regrettably, but inevitably, many will believe her.

All Israel’s denials and explanations that this ill-considered “gesture” does not constitute acknowledgement of wrongdoing on its part will be of no avail. Few will be convinced that, if truly blameless, Israel would consent to pay multi-million dollar compensation, merely to allow its Turkish detractors to establish relations with it, relations which Turkey desires no less (and probably more) than Israel does.

Perilous permit

Not less alarming and ominous is the fact that according to the terms of the “deal” Israel will allow Turkey to build infrastructure projects in Gaza, such as a hospital, power station and desalination plant; and to transfer unlimited (!!) humanitarian aid and equipment to Gaza, as long as it goes through the Israeli port of Ashdod.

It is difficult to conceive of a permit more perilous than this. After all, it is clear that with the initiation of these “projects”, huge (indeed, “unlimited”) amounts of dual purpose materials – such as cement, metals and chemicals—will flow into Gaza.  Inspections in Ashdod will be of little value—since after any materials enter Gaza, Israel will have little control over what their final destination—or who their end-users—will be.

Furthermore, if the construction of Turkish projects involves the presence of Turkish workers and/or experts in Gaza, another—no less worrying—scenario is likely to arise: If Israel is (again) compelled to use force against the terrorist organizations deployed throughout the area, there is a tangible risk of Turkish civilians—perhaps even Turkish security personnel—being hit, especially if these organizations operate from within (or from underneath) the projects’ perimeters. Clearly, it is not difficult to identify the potential for a dangerous deterioration in the relationship between the two countries.  Indeed, even the specter of possible armed clashes (something Erdogan himself has threatened) cannot be discounted.

At minimum, the presence of Turkish citizens and assets in Gaza is liable to constitute a serious constraint, inhibiting Israel’s freedom of action—both political and military—against the terrorist forces that operate in, and out of, Gaza.

Gas as an excuse?

The question of finding export markets has been cited as a major driving force for the “deal” with Turkey, which is robustly seeking to reduce its dependency on Russia, the source of   over half its gas requirements.

However, on closer consideration, the matter of gas seems more an excuse than a substantive reason justifying the “deal”.  Indeed, it is hard to identify the prudence in a policy, which creates massive dependency on a single customer (that costly construction of conveyance infrastructure would entails), thus mortgaging much of the future of the gas export trade to the vagaries of an inherently inimical, petulant and unpredictable leader.  Indeed, with Erdogan at the helm, every crisis or dispute over a range of topics, on which Israel and Turkey may disagree, is liable to bring about a threat to discontinue Turkish purchases.

Energy expert, Professor Brenda Shaffer, cautions against falling prey to the notion that supplying gas can act as an impetus for improved bilateral relations. She writes (The Marker, (12/ 28/2015): “To date there is not a single case where the lure of supplying gas or oil contributed significantly to resolving conflict…Energy trade does not cause peaceful relations; it reflects peaceful relations”.

She warns: “The trade of gas rarely, if ever, creates dependency [of the importer]…Indeed the trade can in fact produce dependency of the exporter [on the importer]”.

Israel would do well to heed this warning.

The impact on others

The crisis in Turco-Israeli relations led to a blossoming of ties with several other countries, all of whom have some degree of tension in their relationships with Ankara, such as Russia, Greece and Cyprus.

It is highly unlikely that any “deal” that benefits Erdogan will not have some negative impact on the budding bonds with these countries, and the amount of trust they feel can they place in Israel as an ally. Moreover, there can be little doubt that, as Erdogan is a fervent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, any bolstering of his standing in Gaza will cause rancor and resentment in Cairo, where the amenable Sisi government is under constant threat from the Turkish ruler’s Islamist protégés.

I differ with newly appointed Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman on a range of topics, but I find it difficult to disagree with his critical assessment of the impending entente, expressed several months ago, prior to his joining the coalition: “Erdogan leads a radical Islamic regime, the Turks… are at odds with Russia…We have made considerable efforts in recent years to establish ties with Greece and Cyprus and have reached important agreements with them… [The agreement with Turkey] will harm them…It will also harm our ties with Egypt…”

Impact (cont)

Indeed, in an analysis of the Turco-Israeli “deal”, entitled “After the Israel-Turkey Agreement, Turkey and Hamas Will Still Collaborate”, Yoni Ben Menachem former Director General of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, now a senior Middle East analyst for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote: “Although so far Egypt is keeping mum, in the past it expressed great displeasure at the possibility of Israel giving Turkey any sort of foothold in Gaza.”

There is little reason to believe that Egyptian displeasure with the current deal will be in any way diminished.

Moreover, on Monday (6/28), the Israeli business daily, Globes, warned “Russia, from which Turkey imports 55%-60% of its natural gas, will do everything in its power to prevent this project [Israeli supplying gas to Turkey] from getting off the ground.”

The paper also noted: “The proposed pipeline between Israel and Turkey would pass through Cypriot economic waters–requiring the country’s approval. But relations between Cyprus and Turkey have been frosty [for decades]…A Cypriot energy executive was furious at the deal between Israel and Turkey [saying] ‘a gas export deal between Israel and Turkey is a point of no return for Israeli-Cypriot ties’”.  According to the deputy Ambassador of Cyprus to Israel “his country would not authorize the construction of a pipeline…”

Quoting a former senior Israeli diplomat, Globes reported that: “The deal with Turkey will hurt relations with Greece and likely Cyprus.” Referring to an agreement, signed in January between Cyprus, Israel and Greece, calling for strengthening trilateral ties, he remarked: “Israel gave Cyprus and Greece the illusion that it was onboard; signing a deal with Turkey is a sort of betrayal.”

Superfluous surrender

Even commercially, there seems little point in the “deal”. While political ties between governments may have soured, relations between the two business communities have strengthened considerably.

Thus, despite the breakdown of diplomatic ties, business between the two countries has increased almost five-fold since the pre-Erdogan 1990s, and roughly doubled since 2009 (the year before the Gaza flotilla incident)—reaching almost $5.5 billion in 2014.

But beyond this, if Erdogan has truly undertaken a fundamental reassessment of Turkish interests, and rapprochement with Israel is now perceived as an important national goal, would he really be prepared to sacrifice it for a paltry $20 million dollars compensation or the dubious privilege of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza? There are only two possibilities:

Either he would; or he wouldn’t.

If he would, this demonstrates how little store he places in renewed ties with Israel, and should be expected to disrupt them for a myriad of less-than-weighty pretexts in the future. Hence Israel should eschew any concessions to attain such ties.

If he wouldn’t, there is no need for Israel to make any concessions for renewed ties with Turkey, since Ankara would be compelled to establish them anyway—whether the $20 million dollars or the provision of aid to Gaza was forthcoming,  or not.
Simple logic, isn’t it?

Real reason for rupture

The loss of Turkey as a strategic ally is a huge blow.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that the real reason for the rupture of relations was not because of what Israel has – or has not – done. It is a result of what Turkey has become. Indeed, it would be foolish to believe otherwise, for virtually the only thing unchanged in Turkey since the ascent of Erdogan’s party to power is its geographic location.

Today, Turkey is a very different country from what it was in the 1990s, the heydays of the bond between the two countries, when it was a constitutionally decreed secular nation, pro-Western and largely detached from its geographical environment in terms of its aspirations, affiliations and desired future development.

Since then, Turkey has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis in its socio-cultural and political “DNA” –and until it undergoes a comparable “counter-revolution”, the chances of any genuine repair are slim indeed.

However, as long as the principle author of the country’s current Islamist revolution (Erdogan himself) remains in power, the odds on any counter-revolution taking place are negligible.

Accordingly, the most plausible way to promote conditions likely to induce an authentic, durable enhancement of Israeli-Turkish relations, is to undermine Erdogan, let him wallow in the morass of problems his own arrogance and bluster have created for him, so that his domestic adversaries can grow stronger and eventually replace him.

Regrettably, the current “deal” does precisely the opposite!

It allows him to boast of achievements and helps extricate himself—even if temporarily—from his current self-made difficulties. As such it serves to bolster his standing and this, necessarily, weakens his opponents, who strive to replace him.

Beyond official “spin”

Accordingly, beyond the official “spin” extolling the far-reaching benefits that will allegedly accrue to Israel as a result of this unfortunate and unnecessary “deal”, it is difficult to grasp how it will advance Israel’s interests in any meaningful way.  Sadly, it is far more likely that quite the reverse will prove true.

 

Posted on

Egregious Ehud

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

Rather than an indictment of the ruling coalition, Barak’s recent “fire and brimstone” address was a harsh condemnation of the Israeli electorate for its infuriatingly stubborn refusal to disregard past experience.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones –A proverb on prudence (or the lack thereof) and hypocrisy; origins traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer (1385)

Note to readers: I have taken a break from the multi-part critique (Imbecility Squared) of the so-called plan put forward by the organization that goes by the name of “Commanders for Israel’s Security” (CIS), to analyze and rebuff Ehud Barak’s outrageous attack on the intelligence of the Israeli people, which he delivered at the end of last week. I felt his unfair and unfounded onslaught could not go unanswered. I will continue with my analysis of the CIS proposal—which Barak seems to endorse—in coming weeks – MS

Evidence of how deluded the Israeli political discourse has become was starkly on display last week at the prestigious Herzliya Conference.

However it was towards the end of the event, with the closing address by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak that new pinnacles of Kafkaesque absurdity were reached.

Fire and brimstone rhetoric

Barak launched into a derogatory diatribe, viciously vilifying the current government, which was (inexplicably?) voted into power in the (annoyingly?) free and fair elections, conducted barely a year ago. As such, it was less an indictment of the ruling coalition, and far more a harsh condemnation of the Israeli electorate for its (infuriatingly?) stubborn refusal to disregard past experience and vote for parties, whose political credos, presumably similar to those that Barak professes to hold, have been proven—repeatedly and tragically—misguided.

With a torrent of fire-and brimstone-rhetoric, Barak warned ominously of what lay in store in the incumbent government if it was not replaced, or at least, if it was not coerced by popular pressure, to adopt the policies of its ideological adversaries, defeated not long ago at the polls.

In his tirade, he managed to invoke virtually every pejorative adjective in the Hebrew language to brutally berate the Netanyahu government, which he characterized as “weak, flaccid, raucous, devious, and extremist, that has failed again and again, to ensure security…It has undermined the fabric of Israeli democracy, failed in managing relations with the US and in shaping Israel’s image in the world; it repeatedly misses diplomatic opportunities, suffers from paralysis in effectively managing the conflict, even in the absence of any ‘partner’”

The shortest term in history

Ironically—and for the purposes of this analysis, significantly—Barak’s tenure as prime minister (a mere year and 245 days) was in fact the shortest in Israel’s history, following which he was forced to resign and suffered a stinging defeat in the ensuing election, forced on him because of his dismal performance in almost every sphere, but particularly in security—his purported field of expertise.

Rather than invoke any sense of humility, this dubious “honor” did nothing to deter Barak from preaching, presumptuously, pretentiously and pompously, to the very person, who, in stark contrast to himself, has held the post of PM longer than any of his predecessors—apart from Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion.

Full disclosure: I am not an uncritical advocate for either Netanyahu or his government. Quite the opposite. In the past I have expressed deep concern regarding many of his decisions, and grave misgivings as to his approach to numerous issues. But against the backdrop of Ehud Barak’s harsh words of censure, the spectacle of him presuming to don the mantle of some redeeming and sagacious oracle has a distinctly distasteful and disingenuous ring to it—falling somewhere between the delusional and the detestable.

Should occupants of glass houses be hurling rocks?

We are thus compelled to believe that Barak must be counting on severe memory loss on the part of the Israeli public, which, hopefully, will have erased all recollection in the minds of the populace of what transpired under his administration—when debacle followed hard on the heels of disaster.

Take, for example, his accusation that the government “has failed again and again, to ensure security”. It would, indeed, be difficult to conjure up in one’s mind a more archetypically illustrative example of an imprudent occupant of a fragile glass house hurling rocks at his neighbors.

After all, it was Barak who initiated and orchestrated the IDF’s hasty and undignified unilateral retreat (2000) from the Security Zone in South Lebanon, abandoning the area to Hezbollah, who promptly converted it into a fearsome arsenal—with almost 15,000 high-trajectory weapons aimed at civilian population centers throughout the country, and the well-armed forces of the Islamist terror organization deployed up to the very fences of Israel’s Northern border.

This highly volatile situation, created courtesy of Barak, who capitulated to Left-leaning civil-society pressure groups, such as Four Mothers, led inevitably to the Second Lebanon War in which scores of Israeli were killed and millions huddled in shelters for over a month, as many of the aforementioned 15,000 rockets and missiles rained down on them. Since then the enemy stockpile of armaments has grown almost ten-fold in quantity, and improved greatly in quality, precision, and destructive power—while recently a new peril has emerged: The specter of trans-border attack tunnels that give many residents of the North sleepless nights.

Way to go, Ehud!

Brazen impudence

But this was not the only security related fiasco to stain the brief Barak incumbency. After all, it was on his watch that the 2001 Second Intifada erupted. The ensuing violence lasted over five years, bringing dread and death to Israel’s streets, cafes and buses—and resulted in the murder of about 1000 Israelis and the maiming of nearly 10,000. (Significantly, some pundits attribute the start of the Second Intifada, at least in part, to perceived Israeli flaccidity, which Barak’s hurried evacuation from South Lebanon, barely a year previously, conveyed to the Palestinian-Arabs, emboldening them in their confrontation with Israeli security forces.)

Likewise, after he returned to politics, during the period in which he served as Defense Minister in the governments of Ehud Olmert (2007-2009) and (heaven forfend) Benjamin Netanyahu (2009-2013) the security situation in the South deteriorated so severely that the IDF was forced to act to restore calm to the area in two large military operations, “Cast Lead” and “Pillar of Defense”.

Regrettably, at the end of both campaigns, after weeks of combat, Hamas emerged defiantly undefeated, with its stature—despite the heavy damage inflicted on it—enhanced, and its military capabilities—after a relatively short time period—significantly upgraded.

Accordingly, in light of his disturbingly poor performance in the security field, it is difficult to avoid concluding that Barak’s caustic castigation of this government’s alleged ongoing failure to “ensure security” is nothing but brazen impudence, both shameless and baseless, as unfounded as it is unfair.

Dismal political performance

But of course Barak’s failures were not limited to security.  Debacles of similar magnitude characterized his performance in domestic politics as well.

Thus, in 2001 not only did he lose by a huge margin to Ariel Sharon in the then prevailing personal one-on-one election of prime minister, after which he chose to withdraw from politics, but his return, several years later, did not herald any stunning success.

In late 2004, Barak announced his return to Israeli politics, and began to run for leadership of the Labor Party, but, in light of his weak poll showings, dropped out of the race. However, in 2007 did regain leadership of the Labor Party—after a narrow victory in the intra-party primaries, which must be surely ascribed to the acute amnesia of its members who seemed to have totally forgotten the devastation he wrought on their faction a few years previously. Two years later in the 2009 polls, Barak led Labor to its worse electoral defeat ever, which left it as the fourth largest party in the Knesset, with only 13 seats to its credit.

Moreover, less than three years later Barak further eviscerated the party he was elected to lead, and formed a breakaway faction, called “Independence”, with four other Labor MKs. However, as the 2012 elections approached, and polls predicted that Barak’s new party would have little chance of winning enough votes to reach the minimum threshold level required for eligibility to the Knesset, Barak deserted his colleagues, abandoned his endeavor to be elected and returned to private business.

Not norms expected of a minister  

Apparently Barak does not have too much to boast about when it comes to personal ethics either.

After his return to political life, and with his appointment as Defense Minister in Ehud Olmert’s government, the then State Comptroller, Micha Lindenstrauss, was called upon to check whether there were any conflicts of interest between the duties of Barak’s newly assumed public position and his private business activities—which according to Barak, he transferred as a “gift” to his three daughters just prior to assuming the role of Defense Minister.

However, in a report published in 2011, the Comptroller asserted that the “transfer process was flawed and Barak’s actions were not consistent with the norms expected of a minister” (NRG website, May 17, 2011). In similar vein, the business daily, The Marker, wrote: “The report that the State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss published today [May 7, 2011] on the Minister of Defense…is an extremely serious public rebuke to Minister Barak.”

The headlines in Globes, another business daily, proclaimed “Comptroller blasts Barak for violating public norms”, going on to quote the then Chairman of the Knesset State Control Committee, as declaring: “This is one of the most severe reports ever published against a minister in Israel…Ehud Barak’s attempt to defraud the public and to create the appearance of a mere technicality has collapsed in view of the ugly findings revealed by the State Comptroller.”

Strangely (or not?) there was no tenacious follow up by the mainstream media. Image the frenzy had it been Netanyahu…

Like manna from heaven for Israel’s foes

In his unrestrained and unjustified harangue, Barak did not baulk even at inflicting severe harm on his country’s image and the government’s international credibility.  Indeed, several of his more fanciful allegations were undoubtedly gleefully embraced like manna from heaven by some of Israel’s worst detractors, who work tirelessly to demean, delegitimize and demonize the country in international forums.   After all, what more could they hope for when a former prime minister of Israel himself warns of signs of “budding fascism” appearing in the Israeli regime?

Of course, the very fact that such a severe indictment of the ruling government could be freely articulated without fear of retribution, and the wide prominence it was given in Israel’s unfettered main-stream media, make an utter mockery of the suggestion that any danger of fascism is at hand.  After all, such openness and tolerance of so blatant an effort to blacken and belittle the incumbent powers is hardly the defining hallmark of a country descending into impending fascism, now is it?

Of course, it is not difficult to imagine the massive media storm that would have erupted had it been Netanyahu, rather than Barak, who hurled such grave incriminations at his adversaries; it is not difficult to envision the horrified howls, protesting a policy of “hatred and division” that would have filled the airwaves, the social networks of cyberspace and emblazoned headlines across the front pages of mainstream dailies…

The man who proved he couldn’t

I could go on of course and repudiate almost every line of invective in this inappropriate and infuriating speech by one of the worst political leaders in the nation’s history, but there is after all, just so many mean-spirited falsehoods one can rebut in a single opinion column.  All that remains now it to hope that the Israeli public is savvy and sane enough not to be led astray by the ridiculous rants of a man who has demonstrated time and time again that, well, …he  couldn’t.

Posted on

Imbecility Squared – Part 2

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

A comprehensive Israeli policy declaration accepting, in principle, the Arab Peace Initiative (API), with requisite adjustments to accommodate Israel’s security and demographic needs, as a basis for negotiation.

Key political measure in plan entitled “Security First”, proposed by “Commanders for Israel’s Security”, which claims to “Improve Israel’s Security and International Standing”.

The Arab Peace Initiative does not need changing or adjusting, it is on the table as is…Why should we change the Arab Peace Initiative? I believe that the argument the Arab Peace Initiative needs to be watered down in order to accommodate the Israelis is not the right approach. – Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, Paris, June 3, 2016.

Last week I began a critical analysis of a plan put forward by a group calling itself “Commanders for Israel’s Security” (CIS) comprised of over 200 former senior officers/officials from the IDF and other security services.

To recap briefly:

I argued that the plan, which purports to offer a formula “to extricate Israel from the current dead end and to improve its security situation and international standing”, is a deeply flawed policy prescription, both in terms of the political principles on which it is based and the practical details which it presents.  As such, it is highly unlikely to achieve the objectives it sets itself. Indeed, it is far more likely to precipitate precisely the opposite outcomes, exacerbating the very dangers it claims it will attenuate.

To recap briefly, the major political components which comprise the plan call for Israel to:

(a)  Proclaim, unilaterally, that it forgoes any claim to sovereignty beyond the yet-to-be completed security barrier, which, in large measure, coincides with the pre-1967 “Green Line”, adjusted to include several major settlement blocks adjacent to those lines; but,

(b)   Leave the IDF deployed there—until some “acceptable alternative security arrangement” is found – presumably the emergence of a yet-to-be located pliant Palestinian-Arab, who will pledge to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation-state; and

(c)    Embrace the Saudi Peace Plan–a.k.a. Arab Peace Initiative (API), subject to certain—but significantly, unspecified—changes which the Arabs/Saudis recently resolutely refused to consider.

Learning lesson of Gaza; ignoring lesson of South Lebanon

CIS claims (pp.28-29) that it has learnt the lesson of the unilateral Gaza disengagement, when the IDF evacuated the territory, allowing the Islamist Hamas to take over. Accordingly, their plan “calls for the IDF to remain in the West Bank and retain complete security control until a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.”

So while CIS may indeed have learnt the lesson of Gaza 2005, it seems to have forgotten the lesson of Lebanon 2000.

Indeed, as I underscored last week, the combination of the first two elements—the forswearing of claims to sovereignty over Judea-Samaria, on the one hand; and the continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other—replicate precisely the same conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the hasty retreat by the IDF in 2000.  This unbecoming flight was orchestrated by then-PM, former IDF chief of staff and Israel’s most decorated soldier, Ehud Barak, under intense pressure from Left-leaning civil society groups such as “Four Mothers”, to extricate the IDF from the “Lebanese mud” and “bring our boys back home”.  Thus abandoned to the control of Hezbollah, the area was swiftly converted into a formidable arsenal, bristling with weaponry capable of hitting almost all major Israeli cities.

Unsustainable political configuration

Today, after the poorly conducted military campaign by the mighty IDF against a lightly armed militia, left defiantly undefeated after five weeks of fighting, this arsenal has reportedly swelled almost ten-fold in quantity and improved immensely in terms of quality/precision.  Indeed, were not Hezbollah mercifully distracted by the need to support its erstwhile benefactor, the beleaguered Bashar Assad, it is far from implausible that this terrible stockpile would have already been unleashed against Israel.

For anyone with a modicum of foresight, it should be clear that CIS’s prescription of deploying the IDF for an indeterminate period in territory over which it lays no sovereign claim—and hence, by implication, acknowledges that others have such claims to it—creates an unsustainable political configuration, which sooner or later will generate irresistible pressure on Israel to evacuate it—leaving the country exposed to the very dangers the IDF deployment was intended to obviate.

Indeed, as pointed out last week, if implemented, CIS’s proposal would, in a stroke, convert Judea-Samaria from “disputed territory” to “occupied territory” and IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”. Worse, it would do so by explicit admission from Israel itself.

Formula for open-ended occupation

Moreover, by conditioning the end of IDF deployment on the emergence of “a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians [which] ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements”, what CIS is in fact promoting is a formula for open-ended occupation, whose duration is totally dependent on the Palestinian-Arabs.

After all, according to CIS’s plan “the IDF [is] to remain in the West Bank and retain complete security control”, until some suitable Palestinian  interlocutor appears, sufficiently pliant to satisfy Israel’s demands for said “permanent status agreement and concrete sustainable security arrangements”, but sufficiently robust to resist more radical domestic rivals, who oppose any such agreement/arrangements.

And what if such an interlocutor fails to emerge? Clearly, CIS’s plan prescribes persisting with the Israeli military presence in the territory because, as CIS itself concedes: “The situation on the West Bank require …continued deployment of the IDF until satisfactory security arrangements are put into place within the framework of a permanent status agreement”.

Therefore all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in what will inevitably become the “West Bank mud”, an easy target for guerilla attacks by a recalcitrant population backed by armed Palestinian internal security services, is…well, nothing.  All they need to do is wait until mounting IDF casualties in a “foreign land” create increasing domestic pressure to “bring our boys back home”, and mounting international  impatience with open-ended “occupation” create growing external pressure, which make continued IDF deployment no longer tenable—and withdrawal becomes inevitable, without any “permanent settlement” or “concrete sustainable security arrangements”.

Renege or replace?

But even in the unlikely event that some Palestinian partner could be located, who agrees, in good faith, to conclude a permanent status agreement and implement acceptable security arrangements that allows the IDF to evacuate Judea-Samaria, how could Israel ensure this agreement will be honored and these arrangements maintained over time? Clearly it could not!

Once the IDF withdraws, Israel has no way of preventing its Palestinian co-signatories to any accord from reneging on their commitments—whether of their own volition, due to a change of heart, or under duress from extremist adversaries. Even more to the point, barring intimate involvement in intra-Palestinian politics, Israel has no way to ensure that their pliant peace-partner will not be replaced—whether by bullet or ballot—by far more inimical successors, probably  generously supported by foreign regimes, who repudiate their predecessors pledges. Indeed, it is more than likely that it would be precisely the “perfidious” deal struck with the “nefarious Zionist entity” that would be invoked as justification for the regime-change.

But whichever of these outcomes emerges in practice, Israel is likely to be confronted with a situation where it no longer has security control in Judea-Samaria and a hostile regime perched on the hills overlooking the runways of Ben-Gurion airport, adjacent to the trans-Israel highway, and within mortar range of the nation’s capital.

It would be intriguing, indeed, to learn how CIS members, given theircumulative 6,000 years of experience in Israel’s various security agencies, see this situation as one that would  achieve their plan’s principle goal: “to enhance personal and national security.”

Resisting attrition; not repulsing invasion

To be fair, CIS do assure us that: The IDF [as] by far the most potent military force in the region… can provide effective security and address all challenges within … any future borderline as agreed-to by our government and endorsed by our people…”

But of course, the question is not only whether the IDF can secure the borders, but at what cost in terms of both resources and casualties (both military and civilian).

It is of course true that, for over four decades, Israel has not faced a tangible threat of large-scale invasion by conventional Arab forces. However, today, with the changing pattern of Arab enmity, the major challenge to Israel’s existence as the Jewish nation-state is no longer repulsing invasion, but resisting attrition.

The Arab stratagem is no longer the cataclysmic annihilation of the Jewish state, but the ongoing erosion of Jewish will to maintain the Jewish state, by making Jewish life in it unbearable – both physically and psychologically.

Attrition vs Invasion (cont.)

Of course, the looming specter of a nuclear Iran may, on the one hand, reinstate the cataclysmic approach; on the other, it may “merely” provide a protective umbrella under which attrition can continue with greater intensity – and impunity.

Indeed, one of the most explicit expressions of this attrition-oriented intent came from Yasser Arafat in Stockholm, in an address to Arab diplomats, barely a year after being awarded the Noble Peace Prize: “The PLO will now concentrate on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps…We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare… I have no use for Jews. They are and remain Jews…”  This overt admission of malice, echoed repeatedly elsewhere by other Palestinian-Arab spokespersons, should have removed any doubt as to what lay ahead.

Now, imagine if after forgoing sovereignty beyond the security barrier as per  CIS’s prescription, the IDF pulled out of Judea-Samaria –whether pursuant to some accord or a combination of domestic pressure and international chagrin. Imagine, if in the absence of any agreement or despite prior agreements, this territory falls—as it almost inevitably will—to the control of some radical regime with no commitment to any understandings—implicit or explicit—with the “Zionist entity” Imagine how much more ominous and onerous that attrition would be along the almost 800 km frontier, abutting Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain  and from the heights commanding its urban and commercial centers.

Capitulation masquerading as “initiative”

No less disturbing is CIS’s embrace of what is perversely called the “Arab Peace Initiative” (API), which prescribes: (a) Complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines including the Golan Heights (b) a “just solution” to the problem of Palestinian refugees, a clear allusion to the “Right of Return”; (c) the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on “the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital”.

Alarmingly, on its website, CIS declares: “We believe that the government of Israel can and should formulate a regional initiative based on an appropriate response to the positive potential encapsulated in the Arab Peace Initiative.”

Sadly, the growing acceptance of the API does not, as CIS would have it, reflect faith in military strength but rather psychological weakness. It is not a sign of confidence but a symptom of resignation, even desperation. Indeed, its acceptance is driven by the fact that the API is the only thing that the Arabs do not reject. Thus, to reject the API is to admit the unpalatable truth that there exists no path to a mutually agreed resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Indeed, for all intents and purposes, the API is a document of capitulation. It reflects acquiescence to virtually all Arab demands that successive governments, over a decade and a half, have rejected as unacceptably hazardous. It forgoes virtually all the gains of the 1967 Six Day War, and imperils some of those of the 1948 War of Independence. Willingness to agree to it, even as a basis for negotiations, is a clear signal that every Israeli “No,” however emphatic initially, is in effect a “Maybe” and a potential “Yes” in the future.

Reservations rejected.

Apparently aware that, as currently formulated, the API is too pernicious to be approved by the Israeli public, CIS tries to preempt criticisms of its acceptance of the so called “peace initiative” by adding a proviso that it should be adjusted “to accommodate Israel’s security and demographic needs, as a basis for negotiation”.

But suggestions that “adjustments” might be made were rapidly and resolutely rejected by both the Saudis, who authored the initiative and theArab League, who endorsed it. And why wouldn’t they? For as CIS’s proposal clearly shows, continued Arab intransigence is sure to engender further Israeli compliance …

To be continued.

Posted on

Imbecility Squared – Part 1

(This article was originally published on Arutz Sheva)

“Commanders for Israel’s Security” are a group I would much rather respect than ridicule, but drivel is drivel, even when it comes from men with an illustrious past and an accumulated 6000 years of security experience.

One does not have to be a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967 (Deputy PM Yigal Allon, former commander of Palmah strike-force, 1976).

…historians a thousand years hence will still be baffled by the mystery of our affairs. They will never understand how it was that a victorious nation, with everything in hand, suffered themselves to be brought low, and to cast away all that they had gained by measureless sacrifice and absolute victory…Now the victors are the vanquished… (Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons, 1938).

The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse… Then we will move forward (Abbas Zaki, PLO ambassador to Lebanon, 2009).

It genuinely distresses me to have to write this article—but I feel I have little option.

Despite my personal bias

I confess that I have a strong personal bias in favor of men who have devoted years of their lives to the defense of their country and endangered themselves to protect others. The members of the Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS) certainly fit that bill – comprising a group of over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.

Today, however, we are faced with the bitter irony of a spectacle, in which scores of ex-senior security officials, who spent most of their adult life defending Israel, are now promoting a political initiative that will make it indefensible.

Recently, CIS, an allegedly non-politically partisan organization, which ran a virulently anti-Netanyahu campaign in the run-up to the March 2015 elections, published what purports to be a “plan” to break the ongoing deadlock over the “Palestinian issue”, appealingly but misleadingly,  entitled “Security First: Changing the Rules of the Game–A Plan to Improve Israel’s Security and International Standing”  .

In broad brush strokes, the seminal elements on which the entire proposal is based are that Israel should:

(a)    Proclaim, unilaterally, that it forgoes any claim to sovereignty beyond the yet-to-be completed security barrier, which in large measure coincides with the pre-1967 “Green Line”, adjusted to include several major settlement blocks adjacent to those lines; but,

(b)    Leave the IDF deployed there—until some “acceptable alternative security arrangement” is found – presumably the emergence of a yet-to-be located pliant Palestinian-Arab who will pledge to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation-state; and

(c)    Embrace the Saudi Peace Plan–a.k.a. Arab Peace Initiative (API) subject to certain changes which the Arabs/Saudis recently resolutely refused to consider.

Noxious brew of the fanciful, the false & the failed

According to the CIS folk (p.7), implementation of this so-called “plan” will:

– Enhance personal and national security.

– Preserve conditions for a future permanent status agreement with the Palestinians.

– Increase prospects of Israel’s integration into regional security/political arrangements with pragmatic Arab states.

– Improve Israel’s international standing and ‘pull the rug’ from under BDS-like movements.

Sadly, little analytical acumen is needed to show that not only will the CIS plan fail to achieve the objectives it claims it will,  but in all probability, it will precipitate precisely the opposite results, exacerbating the dangers it was designed to ameliorate.

Admittedly this is harsh condemnation of the public positions of a large group of prominent figures. However, over the coming weeks, I will be at pains to substantiate my severe censure of their policy recommendations.

Indeed, as I read the CIS proposal my sense of despair and dismay deepened. It is a document so embarrassingly implausible, it seems inconceivable that men who boast of 6,000 years of accumulated security experience would allow – much less, wish –their names to be associated with it.

For what it presents is little more than a disturbing brew of the fanciful, the false and the failed—deeply flawed both in the political principle on which it bases itself and the practical details which it prescribes.

Attempting to eschew being labelled yet-another (and largely discredited) attempt to achieve peace, something which it concedes is “currently unfeasible” (p.10), the CIS plan is presented as focusing primarily on enhancing security—hence the title “Security First”.

Taking the name of “security” in vain?

Curiously, however, throughout its almost 70 pages (in the English version), the proposal deals only scantily with security, the professed forte of its authors, and then only in a very general manner, with virtually no stipulation of operational details. By contrast, it devotes much time to political assessments, municipal administration, water supplies, employment , even suggesting (see pp. 45-47) that Israel intervene in the internecine Palestinian feud between Fatah and Hamas.

These are, of course, issues of considerable importance in their own right, with pursuant impact on overall security, but hardly ones in which CIS, as an organization, can claim any special professional expertise, on the basis of their long experience in the military or the security services.

But it is precisely these accumulated years of service that CIS invoke for the authority they attribute to their policy prescriptions.

After all, however admirable it may be in its own right, the battle-tested experience of an intrepid armored corps commander hardly provides any professional edge in stipulating how Jerusalem should be administered, or determining why the Palestinians have not developed wastewater treatment plants, or in assessing the state of Palestinian agriculture—all of which comprise elements of significance in the CIS policy proposal.

Accordingly, one might well be excused for feeling a sense of uneasy suspicion that CIS just might be taking the name of security in vain—to further a political agenda, which they strenuously deny they have.

“Based on our cumulative 6,000 years of experience…”

Thus, on its well-endowed bilingual website, the fellows from CIS attempt to sweep aside any dissent from mere mortals, enlisting their formidable security credentials to launch into the promotion of a political initiative that has been rejected not only by successive Israeli governments—including some of the most Palestinian-compliant (PC) in the nation’s history–but also by a sound majority of the Israeli electorate.

Accordingly, they proclaim:

“Based on our cumulative 6,000 years of experience in Israel’s various security agencies, we emphatically state that:

– Political agreements and security arrangements with the Arab World, including the Palestinians, are vital Israeli national security objectives.

– Local and regional realities make it mandatory and urgent to pursue these objectives. They also make them attainable.

– The IDF [as] by far the most potent military force in the region… can provide effective security and address all challenges within the present or any future borderline as agreed-to by our government and endorsed by our people…”

In terms of recommended policy elements, this translates (see p.8), among other thing, into Israel:

-Accepting, in principle, the Arab Peace Initiative (API), with requisite adjustments to accommodate Israel’s security and demographic needs as a basis for negotiation.

-Reiterating its commitment to resolving the conflict through negotiations towards a permanent status agreement based on the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’.

-Foregoing claims to sovereignty over West Bank territories east of the ‘security fence’, but continuing to exercise control over them in a custodial capacity until alternative security arrangement are put into place within the framework of a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians

– Freezing the construction of new settlements, the expansion of existing ones or the development of civilian infrastructures east of the ‘security fence’

The most glaring defect?

Clearly, then, this is not a non-partisan ,apolitical position but a clear endorsement of the longstanding predilections of the concessionary Israeli left, which have failed so dramatically over the last quarter-century, and now are allegedly “justified” anew by ongoing changes in the region, which, if anything, make them more implausible, irresponsible and inappropriate than ever.

As I noted previously, CIS’s plan is so deeply flawed, both in principle and in detail, that it would require far more than a single opinion column to expose and analyze them all. Accordingly in this week’s column, I will limit myself to a far-from-exhaustive discussion of what is, arguably, its most glaring defect, postponing debate on further flaws and faults for the coming weeks:

This is the a-priori (read “unilateral”) renouncing of any claims to sovereignty over the territory beyond the security barrier.

CIS wish to sidestep criticism of their plan, that could be ascribed it, given the dismal failure of the unilateral evacuation of Gaza (and South Lebanon), and the consequent emergence of a Jihadi-controlled enclave, with an arsenal bristling with weapons capable of reaching virtually the whole of Israel.

Accordingly, they claim (pp.28-9): “In contrast [to] the unilateral withdrawals Israel carried out in 2000 (from South Lebanon) and 2005 (from Gaza), the ‘Security First’ Plan calls for the

IDF to remain in the West Bank…until a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.”
This of course raises the intriguing question of how CIS imagine events would have unfolded in, say, Gaza, had their plan been adopted, and the IDF remained deployed there, waiting with bated breath until some Palestinian emerged to “usher in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.”

Unilateral withdrawal in principle

Indeed, despite all the semantic acrobatics, the unilateral capitulation inherent in the CIS proposal cannot be camouflaged by rhetoric. For whichever way you spin it, the CIS prescription comprises a unilateral acknowledgement, without any commensurate quid-pro-quo, of Arab sovereignty over the territory east of the ‘security barrier’.

In effect this constitutes a “unilateral withdrawal in principle”, entailing the abandonment of positions long held by successive Israeli governments’ for over a half-century and a clear admission that Israel has been unnecessarily and unjustifiably intransigent for decades. Even if this is not CIS’s intention, there can be little doubt that this is how it will be eagerly interpreted by a hostile international community—and an affirmation that the anti-Israel campaigns against Israel were, in fact, justified.

Indeed, for all their 6000 years of accumulated security experience, CIS seem to have lost sight of a recurring lesson of history: Giving in—or at least pledging to give in—to the demands of despots will only whet their appetite, not satiate it.

It requires little imagination to envision the pernicious political predicament such an injudicious move would create for Israel, were it to heed the CIS counsel of an open-ended deployment of the military in territory over which any claims to sovereignty are eschewed.

A giant South-Lebanon

In a stroke, Judea-Samaria would, by Israel’s own admission, be converted from “disputed territories” to “occupied territories”, and the IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”.

This reality would replicate—only on a much larger scale and much closer to the urban center of the country—the realities that prevailed in pre-2000 South Lebanon when the IDF was deployed in the security zone, despite the fact that Israel made no claims to sovereignty over it.

The manner in which that episode ended—with the ignominious flight of the IDF—should provide a sobering reminder of what CIS measures are liable to lead to.

(As an aside, it might be edifying to note that both the situations in South Lebanon and Gaza, which CIS apparently wish to avoid, were the result of policy decisions made by men with “impeccable security credentials”… Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak.)

Of course, under the CIS plan, the time that IDF will be required to deploy in Judea-Samaria will be entirely determined by the Palestinian side, until they agree to “acceptable alternative … security arrangements”—something which is highly unlikely, since less pliant competing factions could plausibly point out that, if the Jews are confronted with sufficient resolve and violence, they will concede all for nothing.

Thus, the IDF will be ensnared in the “West-Bank mud” as it was in the “Lebanon -mud”, subject to increasing attack from a hostile alien population, and unsympathetic international opinion with increasing domestic pressure to “bring our boys home”.

And so the unilateral withdrawal in principle will inexorably become a unilateral withdrawal in practice—with no agreement with the Palestinian side and Israel exposed to all the dangers CIS hoped to avert.

Imbecility squared

As readers might sense – I have barely scratched the surface in my endeavor to expose the myriad of internal contradictions, non-sequiturs and grave errors in the CIS formula “to extricate Israel from the current dead end and to improve its security… and international standing”.

But from what I have written they may already understand why I chose to entitle this and coming columns – “Imbecility squared”.

Posted on

Like Manna From Heaven – For Israel’s Detractors

“Israel has been infected by the seeds of fascism …There are no serious leaders left in the world who believe the Israeli government.” – Former PM, Ehud Barak, Channel 10, May 20.

“Today we have a country afflicted with ultra-nationalistic extremism, infected with the seeds of fascism and chauvinism.” –Head of opposition, Isaac Herzog, Knesset, May 23.

“Israel has truly become today the last bastion of fascism, colonialism and racial discrimination in the world.” – Nabil al-Arabi Secretary-General of the Arab League, Cairo May 28.

“I fought with all my might against the phenomena of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society that are threatening our national resilience and are seeping into the Israel Defense Forces; in fact already harming it… But to my great regret, extremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud party.” – Former defense minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon, Resignation speech, May 20.

“Today Israel is suffering a process of ongoing radicalization and increasing extremism, which has brought criticism from senior Israelis against their government. They all say that Israel behaves in a fascist and racist manner. They say so. Like the deputy chief of staff of the IDF said ‘Our behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis prior to WW II.’”– Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the Palestinian Authority, Cairo, May 28.

May was a very good month for the myriad of eager Israel-bashers across the globe.

Beyond wildest Judeophobic dreams

With no effort on their part, the recent rash of stupid, ill-considered — and gravely misleading — public proclamations provided them with more to bash Israel with than they could have wished in their wildest Judeophobic dreams.

What more could they have hoped for? Some of the most senior figures in the Israeli establishment have now publicly corroborated precisely what they have been trying to convey in their toxic tirades against the Jewish state for years. Now they have it on the best of authority — straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak:
The Jewish state is a fascist, racist entity — indeed, one of an evil kind in today’s world.

Who could argue with them now? Israel is descending inexorably in to the lowest depth of human depravity comparable to the darkest times humanity has known in modern history.

Indeed, they need not even make these horrific accusations themselves — and expose themselves to charges of antisemitism. All they need do is quote the vitriolic condemnation of Israel by its own political and military leadership. And if they embellish or distort them slightly — who would notice, or even care enough to wrangle over details. After all, when the principle has been made so indelibly clear, who has time for splitting fascist hairs?

Abominable analogy

The point of departure for this deplorable and distortive portrayal of Israel can be traced to the abominable analogy made by the IDF’s deputy chief of staff,  Maj-Gen. Yair Golan at a Holocaust commemoration ceremony on May 4. Golan suggested — or, at least, could plausibly have been interpreted by Israel’s fiercest detractors as suggesting — that Israel is undergoing  a process reminiscent of those that heralded the advent of fascism and the rise of Nazism in Europe in the 1930s. He proclaimed:  “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it’s the identification of the horrific processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then…and detecting signs of them here among us today in 2016.”

It matters not whether that such a parallel was his intention or not.  Once the anti-Israel cohorts could spin it that way, it took on a life of its own.

But Golan went on further, painting — or giving Israel-bashers the opportunity of painting — a grossly distorted picture of the emerging trends in Israeli society. He pontificated: “There is nothing easier than hating the “other”, nothing easier than fear-mongering and instilling panic. There is nothing easier than to adopt callous, thick-skinned bestiality and holier than thou self-righteousness.”

Irrelevant and unrepresentative rebuke

This apparent rebuke raises two issues.  Firstly, if Golan chose to articulate it, he clearly must believe that the objectionable features he mentions, comprise a significant trend in Israeli society. Otherwise why bring it up — especially in a Holocaust commemoration speech? But if they are not, it is a rebuke that is totally irrelevant.

Secondly, if Golan feels that these features do represent significant propensities he is hopelessly out of touch with the dominant characteristics of Israeli society — and his implied rebuke is wildly unrepresentative.

Perhaps he missed the wide coverage of Israeli humanitarian missions to disaster areas such a Haiti and Nepal among a host of other afflicted countries to which Israel extends aid. Hardly indicative of “callous thick-skinned bestiality.”

Other things might have slipped his mind, like the extensive medical treatment provided to casualties of the gruesome civil war in Syria.  Or the hospital services given to the family members of Israel’s sworn enemy, Hamas — including those of its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh. Indeed, Haniyeh’s  own mother-in-law, grand-daughter and daughter were all admitted to Israeli medical facilities in 2013-14, the latter “just weeks after a 50-day war [Protective Edge] between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist movement” (The Telegraph, October 20, 2014). OMG – just how much “hate for the ‘other’” can a country harbor!

“Providing weapons to Hamas propaganda…”

Perhaps one of the better gauges of  just how damaging Golan’s remarks — and those of others that followed them — were to Israel, is an interview with journalist, Ben-Dror Yemini, on Tel Aviv Radio (May 4). For the record, Yemini is a left-leaning publicist and self-confessed supporter of Herzog’s left of center Zionist Union in the last election.

At the outset of the interview, Yemini described Golan’s abhorrent allusion as an “appalling mistake” especially for anyone who has any idea of ongoing developments regarding Israel in the world.  He went on to remind listeners that Israel was fighting “on two fronts, and today the PR front is no less important than the military front”

He lamented: “To compare Israel to Nazi Germany reflects a kind of insanity that, regrettably, is beginning  to dominate us…If the deputy leader of the British Labor party…who we accuse of antisemiticsm …had have said that, he would have been thrown out of the party.”

With evident bitterness, Yemini claimed: We are providing weapons for the Hamas’s propaganda…I have been engaged in a world-wide effort to repudiate the false accusations against Israel, and suddenly someone like [Golan] comes along and ruins years of work.

Greatly agitated, Yemini continued: “Anyone who compares Israel to the Nazis is not someone who usually wants to criticize Israel. It is someone who does not want Israel at all!…Moreover it is all a lie! But when he [Golan] says it, it gives them a boost. The whole social network is abuzz. All the anti-Israel and antsemitic sites have made him a hero”.

“As damaging as a terror attack…”

With a touch of drama, Yemini informed the interviewer: “I was in Auschwitz, at a conference on the Nuremberg Trials, when I heard Golan’s remarks. I was there! Right there! I spoke with some of the participants, who were not right-wing people. The general perception was this [Golan’s speech] was equivalent to a terror attack. No less!…”

Still greatly troubled, Yemini penned an article five days later entitled “A PR terror attack” (Ynet, May 9). In it, he strongly refuted any slide toward large-scale fascism or racism in Israel, which despite the grave threats to its existence, still compares favorably, in terms of the liberalism and tolerance, to other European democracies. By way of comparison he cites Sweden, often a vehement critic of Israel, where “dozens of refugee centers were burnt” and “polls show up to 15% backing for a party representing neo-Nazi supporters.”

True, like any other society, Israel has its blemishes. There are instances of hooliganism, social intolerance and even ethnic bias.  But there are no politicized movements of any significance, and certainly none with any electoral prospects, that promote doctrines of racial superiority or promulgate the principles of fascism.

Accordingly to suggest that Israel is in anyway afflicted with the seeds of fascism is not criticism. It is indeed  as Yemini states, a blood libel.

Hollow ring to cries of dismay

Any allusion by any Israeli of prominence that any such phenomena exist, betrays not only a poor grasp of the socio-cultural realities in the country, but also raises grave questions as to his/her motivations and/or quality of judgement.

Of course the chorus for dismayed voices warning of the impending advent of fascism/racism/extremism was amplified in the wake of the Golan address by the replacement of Moshe Ya’alon as defense minister by Avigdor Lieberman.

Admittedly, I have serious reservations as to what to expect from Lieberman, and as to the rationale for appointing him to such a crucial post in the wake of what was a devastating electoral failure at the polls last year (with his faction diminished by over half and reduced even further by his most prominent MK — Orly Levy — quitting the party). However, that said, the distraught cries by many of his detractors as to the danger he poses to Israeli democracy, have a decidedly hollow ring to them.

Indeed, many of his current critics have, in fact,  served with him in governments in the past, without expressing undue alarm as to the grave threat he posed to Israeli democracy — even when his electoral success was far greater. Indeed, Lieberman has served, including as deputy prime minister, in every government since 2001, when Arik Sharon wrested power from Ehud Barak.

It is thus difficult to avoid the impression that the current deluge of opprobrium for him is motivated more by political and personal chagrin than any real genuine concern for the future of democratic governance in Israel.

Tolerating terror as anti-fascist litmus test

Take for example Ehud Barak, who served as deputy prime minister together with Lieberman both in Ehud Olmert’s government (2006-9) and in Netanyahu’s (2009-13), with nary a concern expressed for Israeli democracy.

In his Channel 10 diatribe (see opening except), Barak sought to illustrate his point  regarding the “seeds of fascism” taking hold in Israeli society by referring to legislation promoted by members of the current coalition. Among these allegedly “egregious” undemocratic initiatives was the law to lift the parliamentary immunity of Knesset members who support terrorism (Haaretz, May 20).

This of course leads one to wonder whether, according to Barak, the litmus test of democratic governance is giving elected legislators in the national parliament license to support terror organizations, dedicated to the destruction of the society that that parliament represents, secure in the knowledge that they will be  immune  from any punitive action.

Apparently in Barak’s eyes, for a country to avoid being afflicted by the “seeds of fascism”, it must give priority to the rights of legislators to support terror over the rights of intended victims of that terror to life.

This is, of course, an “interesting” perspective and one that might explain why in the past Barak proclaimed that, if he had been a Palestinian, he too would have engaged in terror.

Isaiah 49:17

The howls of dismay at the approaching demise of Israeli democracy are utterly unfounded and uncalled for.

When they come from highly-placed Israelis, who put short-term personal and political interest before the long term national one, they inflict incalculable, perhaps irrevocable harm on the country, inevitably compelling us to recall the words of Isaiah 49:17

“Thy destroyers and thy demolishers shall emerge from within thee. “

So it would seem.