Category: Politics

Posted on

AIPAC and the progressives “uncompelling” case

In pursuit of bipartisanship AIPAC should strive to persuade “progressives”, not pander to them”; to convert them, not coopt them.

The progressive narrative for Israel is just as compelling and critical as the conservative one – AIPAC PresidentMort Fridman, March 5, 2018.

Almost two weeks have passed since the last AIPAC conference and much of the Israel advocacy world is still abuzz over the brouhaha created by the explicit endorsement by the organization’s leadership of two-statism—a position out of step with that of the current governments of both the US and Israel—who, at best, pay highly dubious lip service to the idea.  

 

An ill-founded & ill-advised call.

In several respects the uproar is a little surprising. After all, almost identical sentiments were expressed by senior AIPAC officials at last year’s conference.

Thus, mid- way through his 2017 address, AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr called on the US to undertake “steps [that] could…create a climate that encourages the Palestinians to negotiate in pursuit of the goal we desire: a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a demilitarized Palestinian state ”.

This of course is virtually indistinguishable from the contentious call he made mid-way through his address this year, proclaiming: “We must all work toward that future: two states for two peoples. One Jewish with secure and defensible borders, and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future.”

Last year, the alleged rationale of the embrace of the two-state formula was the endeavor to cultivate bipartisan support for Israel by avoiding alienating Democrats in Congress, who tend to support the idea.

This year, the professed rationale was essentially similar, with a slight shift of emphasis from retaining support of Democrat legislators to retaining the membership of “progressive” Jews from whom the two-state paradigm has almost sacred significance.

It is a call that was ill-founded and ill-advised last year—and is no less ill-founded and ill-advised this year.

 

Touting tyranny in pursuit of bipartisanship?

Indeed, immediately following the 2017 conference I published a column entitled, AIPAC – Touting tyranny in pursuit of bipartisanship, .

In it, I urged that “Instead of trying to resurrect the decrepit zombie of two-statism in pursuit of bipartisanship, AIPAC would do better to assist in promoting Zionist-compliant alternatives.”

After all, as I pointed out, as important as bipartisanship is, it is in fact a means to achieving a goal – not a goal in itself—and it is crucial that this distinction be kept clearly in mind.

Thus, in his 2017 address, Kohr declared: “…we are here because we are the bipartisan voice in America needed to help keep Israel safe in a dangerous world.

It is clear therefore that AIPAC’s objective is “keeping Israel safe in a dangerous world” and bipartisanship, a means to achieve it.

In my previous INTO THE FRAY column, I posted several graphic photos, showing how hopelessly vulnerable Israel would be if it relinquished the highlands of Judea-Samaria—the territory earmarked for a future Palestinian state—to Arab control.

They dramatically underscored how setting up such a state would make “keeping Israel safe” immensely more difficult and its world, vastly more “dangerous”—which also makes AIPAC’s endorsement of two-statism starkly self-contradictory—even self-obstructive.

 

Dangers dramatically depicted.

Significantly, these dangers were vividly articulated by none other than the late Shimon Peres in his Oslo-era book, “The New Middle East” (1993): “Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands? And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists?

Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

This echoes an earlier warning which Peres issued a decade-and-a half earlier, cautioningt: “The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept”. (Tomorrow is Now, Jerusalem: Keter, 1978, p. 48).

One can hardly believe that there is any cause for enhanced belief in Arab credibility since then—given the myriad of subsequent Arab breaches of agreements.

Accordingly, rather than endorsing the two-state formula in an effort to entice liberal leaning legislators to support Israel and to persuade progressive Jews to persist in their membership of the organization, AIPAC should embark on a totally different course

 

A particularly perverse political paradox

However, it is not only in the realm of security that promoting the two-state principle is counter-productive for AIPAC. If anything the moral case for rejecting it even more compelling.

Thus, perhaps one of the most perverse political paradoxes that prevails in the discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict is the support of those who profess to cherish liberal values for the establishment of yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be gender bias against women/girls, persecution of homosexuals, the prosecution of political dissidents and religious intolerance against non-Muslim faiths.

Indeed, no two-stater has, to the best of my knowledge, ever advanced a persuasive argument why the entity, which two-state advocates endorse, will be anything but the antithesis of the very values they invokes for its establishment.

Accordingly, given past precedents, present realities and future projections, it is difficult to see how two-state advocacy is anything other the endorsement of the establishment of a mega-Gaza overlooking greater Tel Aviv (see here) dominating Israel’s only international airport (see here) and abutting its major transport axes (see here). .

So unless one assumes the wildly improbable, implementation of the two-state principle—and the establishment of a Palestinian state—will culminate in realities that are the utter negation of the very values for which it was purportedly supported.

This is something that AIPAC must seriously consider in assessing its support of two-statism. For in its quest for bipartisanship by strongly endorsing the perverse two-state prescription in order to mollify miffed Democrats, AIPAC is in fact….

How should I put this? Touting tyranny?

 

Gaza: The ghoulish gruesome culmination of two-statism

Just how delusional and detached from reality “progressive” support for two-statism is, was underscored earlier this week by an attempt by unknown assailants to assassinate the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority who was visiting Gaza for the inauguration of a new, foreign funded water purification plant.

The event further underscored—if any additional proof were required—just how little progress has been made over the last quarter century in advancing the cause of Palestinian nationhood.

Indeed, despite:

– virtually worldwide political endorsement of their cause,

– highly favorable international media coverage,

– massive financial aid; and

– numerous compliant Israeli governments,

all the Palestinians have managed to establish is a corrupt kleptocracy in Judea-Samaria and a tyrannical theocracy in Gaza, with a dysfunctional polity—which, for over a decade, has been unable to conduct proper municipal elections, never mind legislative or presidential ones; and a feeble economy—crippled by corruption and cronyism with a bloated public sector and a miniscule private one, utterly dependent on foreign aid.

Nowhere is the appalling failure more evident than in Gaza, where the ill-fated experiment of foisting self-governance on the hapless Palestinian-Arabs was first attempted—amid much fanfare and celebration.

The dismal results are not difficult to discern.

Awash in flows of raw sewage, with virtually all natural sources of water undrinkable, with perennial and prolonged power outages disrupting the regular operation of desalination and water purification plants, with polluted beaches becoming a grave public health hazard, and with much of the enclave’s resources being diverted from the civilian sector to building military infrastructure to battle the hated “Zionist entity”—the outlook for the average Gazan looks bleak indeed, with little hope of any respite on the horizon.

For this, Gazans have two-staters—and two-staters alone—to blame.

 

The “progressives” utterly un-compelling narrative.

The jury is no longer out on two-statism!

When it first became the centerpiece of Israel’s Mid-East policy, back in the early 1900s—after being considered border-line treason for decades—there were two-state proponents, who promised that sweeping benefits would be reaped; and two-state opponents who warned of the dire dangers it would wreak.

Today—a quarter century later—the results are unequivocal. None of the benefits, which the proponents promised, have been fulfilled, while all the dangers, of which the opponents warned, have indeed materialized.

Thousands of Jews and Arabs have paid with their lives and limbs on the altar of the false deity of “progressive” political correctness.

So when the AIPAC president declares that “The progressive narrative for Israel is just as compelling…as the conservative one”, it it difficult to know on what he bases such a contention. For it is demonstrably untrue.

It is—to be charitable—un-compelling in terms of its security implications for Israel. It is un-compelling in terms of its moral ramifications. It is un-compelling in terms of its political pretensions. It is un-compelling in terms of its socio-economic outcomes—just ask the folk in Gaza.   After, all it is they who bear the full brunt of “progressive” two-statism

 

Progressive poppycock

In a recent article, threateningly titled, AIPAC won’t win back progressives until it faces hard truths about Israel, two professed progressives, Jeremy Ben-Ami and Jill Jacobs, write: “the argument that ‘Israel’s security cannot be fully ensured and its promise cannot be fully realized until she is at peace with all her neighbors,’ which AIPAC’s CEO Howard Kohr shared with the crowd during his welcoming remarks, is one that we have each made time and again.”

Could it be that the authors are trapped in a time warp! Apparently they haven’t heard that Israel is doing fine in “realizing its promise”. On the cutting edge of nearly every field of human endeavor, with its GDP per capita overtaking a number of  EU countries, its technology sought after worldwide, expanding its influence and exports in Asia and Africa…

Of course it would be more than intriguing how they would recommend Israel reach peace with all its neighbors. By surrendering the Golan to Syria?? (Just as well the “progressives didn’t prevail on that score). By withdrawing from Gaza and removing every vestige of Jewish presence. (Oh Yes. We did that.) Or by withdrawing to the international border with Lebanon (Drat! That didn’t work). Or by evacuating the entire Sinai—now being taken over by brutal Jihadi gangs?

Indeed, in the face of blatant balderdash, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile calls for embracing a progressive narrative with genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish nation-state—at least on planet Earth.

Persuade rather than pander; convert rather than coopt

As I mentioned earlier, the pursuit of bipartisanship is a worthy goal for AIPAC—but not if it means sacrificing its core mission to “help keep Israel safe in a dangerous world”.

Thus, in its endeavor to achieve its goal of bipartisan support for Israel, AIPAC should focus efforts on persuading “progressives” to forsake their regressive two-state agenda, rather than pandering to them by embracing it.

By highlighting two-statism’s perilous security implications, its pernicious moral ramifications and calamitous socio-economic consequences, AIPAC should convince “progressives” that two-statism is the utter negation of all the values they purport to cherish, and will result in precisely the realities they would wish to avoid.

Accordingly, AIPAC should seek bipartisanship by converting progressives—not co-opting them.

That is the only way its leadership can save this proud organization from sinking into irrelevance.

Posted on

Will Israel keep the draft?

The conflict over drafting Haredim has given birth to a coalition crisis that may yet bring about new elections. A good account of the political twists and turns can be found here, if you really want to know the details. But what about the whole question of the IDF, the draft and its place in Israeli society?

The situation of the Haredim is a highly visible part of the problem. In 1947 Ben-Gurion made a deal with the Agudat Yisrael party, which represented the more observant elements of Orthodox Judaism in the pre-state yishuv, which established a “status quo” for matters of religion and state. In return, party leaders agreed not to oppose the declaration of the state.

The agreement was very general and Ben-Gurion promised that details would be worked out in the constitution for the state that was supposed to be written in the next few months. Needless to say, no constitution was written, and the uneasy status quo developed informally over the years. In 1948, during the War of Independence, Ben-Gurion agreed to exempt some 400 exceptional yeshiva students from the draft, as long as Torah study was their sole occupation (the torah umanuto arrangement). As time passed – and as the religious parties often held the balance of power in coalition governments – the arrangement expanded, until tens of thousands of Haredi young men were exempted(61,000 in 2010, the latest figure I could find).

The Supreme Court found the current situation unconstitutional in 1998, and the legislative and judicial wrangling has continued until today. Recent attempts to draft Haredim against their will gave rise to massive, sometimes violent, demonstrations. The latest proposed draft law, a compromise that is supposed to end the current crisis, has been described as saying “Haredim will enlist in the IDF, unless they don’t feel like enlisting in the IDF.”

One can understand why secular and national-religious people who are asked to give up three years of their lives plus the possibility of a month of reserve duty every year until they are 40, object to the free ride given to the Haredim, many of whom are by no stretch of the imagination “scholars.” For their part, the Haredim claim that the accommodations made by the army for their religious lifestyle are insufficient, and they view the draft as antisemitic persecution.

Some Haredi men are choosing to be drafted, but they are few and their communities treat them badly. The solution, however, can’t be to try to coerce them by threats of jail time, because they will find other ways to escape from service and will certainly contribute nothing until they do.

Over the years, geopolitical and technological changes have resulted in a reduction of the period of regular service, a lowering of the age at which one is released from reserve duty, and a reduction in the amount of reserve duty. When I served in the 1980s, I was called for six weeks every year with no exception; two weeks of training and four weeks of duty. Today, most men and virtually all women are not called in any given year and the number of days they serve when they are called is smaller.

Especially during periods of mass immigration, army service has served to integrate new arrivals into Israeli language and culture, exposing young soldiers to elements of the population that they might not otherwise meet, and serving as an object lesson in the costs of defending the nation. Universal service guarantees a degree of military literacy which makes it possible for Israelis to understand security-related issues, and vote more intelligently on them. Compare this to the US, where many citizens don’t even know anyone who serves in the nation’s professional army. And in opposition to criticism that calls Israel a “militaristic” nation, the first-hand knowledge of war that most Israelis have make it the opposite, a profoundly peace-loving nation.

But there are some downsides to universal conscription, and as time goes by they are becoming more serious. Not every draftee belongs in the military or can be of use to it, and the IDF has to spend a great deal of time and money finding something useful for them to do, warehousing them, or getting rid of them. One can only imagine the difficulties of integrating tens of thousands of unhappy Haredim who can’t eat the kosher food provided by the army and who can’t interact with women as in secular or even non-Haredi Orthodox society, assuming that it were possible to draft them.

Because the number of recruits is so large compared with the needs of the IDF, the length of regular service has been reduced to 32 months for men and two years for women. This means that resources have to be expended on training of new recruits for jobs that they will only be qualified to do for a few months.

Many observers have said that Israel would be better off with a fully volunteer, professional army. The money that would be saved by reduced training of new recruits could be spent on better equipment and good pay for soldiers who would do their jobs for long enough that their expensive training would be justified. It’s argued that modern warfare requires more highly trained specialists and fewer “grunts” who can be given a rifle and pointed in the general direction of the enemy.

One objection to this is that Israel can’t afford a large enough standing army to protect it in the event of an emergency. In the past, virtually the entire able-bodied male population could be called up to fight. But if conscripts were replaced with a professional army, then there would no longer be a pool of trained reservists who – as happened in 1973 – could join their units at a moment’s notice, ready to fight.

On the other hand, with the reduction in training of reservists in recent years, the mass emergency call-up may already be a thing of the past. And perhaps those who believe that in present-day conditions it will not be needed are right.

Moshe Feiglin, a right-wing religious politician who is nevertheless a strong libertarian, makes this suggestion:

The solution is simple: Israel must stop funding tens of thousands of soldiers who are not really needed and do nothing but make more work and expense for the system. Everybody should be drafted for a brief training period of one or two months. The IDF will choose the cream of the crop, who will remain in the army of their own free will for a long period of time. Those soldiers will get the best training and will receive excellent salaries.

The universal training period will at least produce some familiarity with military life, terminology and capabilities, even if it will not produce a supply of “grunts” to be called up in an emergency.

Any changes in this area would have to be made very slowly and thoughtfully. Today, army service is connected with almost every aspect of everyday life in Israel. Unlike the US, students usually defer their studies until they finish their service, and therefore take them more seriously. Employers hire people that they knew during their service, or who served in particular units. Young people often meet their future spouse during their time in the army. The first thing someone asks about a man who wants to work for them or marry their daughter is “what did he do in the army?” (No, they do not ask that about women – yet).

Paradoxically, some of the best things in Israeli life come from the years of compulsory servitude dictated by universal conscription. But the IDF is already moving in the direction of professionalization. The combination of increasing population size and the evolution in the nature of warfare make it unavoidable. Perhaps the revolt of the Haredim will speed up the process.

Originally Published on Abu Yehuda

Posted on

PACKER’S CORNER: Coalition Woes, Syrian War, and Near Assasination of PA Prime Minister

Fireworks in the Israeli coalition government this week! For the first time since anyone can remember, there was a real crisis within the government coalition this past week. The reason: the potential draft of yeshiva students and/or the Prime Minister’s alleged desire for elections based on Likud’s strong showing in recent election polls.

Without going into tremendous detail, basically, the Supreme Court recently invalidated the current system of exempting yeshiva students from the army. Therefore, a new law has to be passed to replace the old one. The Haredi/ultra-orthodox parties wanted this done before they would vote for the budget. There was a set deadline to vote for the budget, so time was running out. Majorly complicating things was Avigdor Lieberman’s party’s virulent and vocal opposition to the law being proposed without coordination with the defense ministry. They promised to vote no, Netanyahu would then fire those that voted “no” and disband the government for elections in June.

The conclusion: the conscription law was read in the Knesset and passed a first vote. This was done with the approval of the Rabbinical council that directly the ultra-orthodox parties as to how to vote. It must pass others to become law and that won’t happen until the next session of the Knesset – after Pesach. The budget was passed and the coalition is fully intact. Remains to be seen what will happen next session – probably won’t be smooth sailing like it had been up until this most recent crisis. There still another year and half until scheduled national elections – looking doubtful right now if this government will make it to then.

President Trump fired his Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson – and replaced him with the former head of the CIA – Mike Pompeo. Unclear how this will effect US policy in the Middle East, but Pompeo is said to very much oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Will be interesting to see how aggressive he is about that opposition, which he shares with President Trump. (Trump also appointed the first woman to lead the CIA, but no one on the right is surprised and no one on the left seems to care. go figure)

War rages on numerous fronts in Syria. Death toll for civilians way over 1000 in Eastern Ghouta, just outside of Damascus. Turkey continues to gain ground in the northwest of Syria against the Kurds. Not clear what will happen if Afrin does fall to Turkey – both to the civilians and the fighters. Could be the same fate…

Oh, and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was almost assassinated in Gaza this week. Seems the attackers blew up the wrong car as the convoy made its way into Gaza. There were injuries, but only to security. Of course, this does not bode well for PA-Hamas reconciliation.

Posted on

[Premium] Trump’s Tariff’s Will Force Israel to Choose Between India and China

With all the flack President Trump has received on his steel tariff’s from the MSM, most observers are missing the point of the decision. Trump understands that China and the USA are already engaged in economic warfare, with China winning.  The tariffs are designed to balance out China’s trade policy.

More important than the effects of the tariffs, the signal from the Trump administration is that China is essentially American enemy number one.  This has a tremendous effect across the world.  With alliances consolidating from the east to west, Trump is trying to nudge allies to make a decision.

Israel is not immune to this challenge.  Since the early 2000’s it has courted both India and China with tremendous success.  Of course India is seen as more important and has been raised to the level of a strategic ally, which places Israel in the middle of the Indo-Chinese rivalry.

Up until now, Israel has been able to stay neutral on issues of dispute between China and India, yet with the USA making China into enemy number one, Israel appears to be heading towards a crossroads.  Of course, the decision in many ways was helped along by China’s actions towards India and its support of Pakistan which is an enemy of India and adversary of Israel.  China’s disregard of civil rights, persecution of opposition dissent, and the now appointement of President Xi for life make Israel’s decision that much easier.

What About the Chinese Investment Potential

While its true Israel will have to do away with Chinese money, the investments China has made seem to be part of a larger strategy of control.  One just needs to ask Zambia on how their ability to have self determination has gone since the Chinese have taken over the copper and coal industry there.

Zambia Reports published the following a few days ago: “The Zambia Association of Timber and Forestry Based Industry has alleged that about 5,000 mukula laden containers from Zambia have been exported to China following the ban on the exportation of timber species in 2017.”

According to the report the government appears to be working with China to help illegally export the mukula.  Of course China loves to insist that it is positively investing in Zambia.

Israel has deftly avoided going down the same route as Zambia and although the lure of Chinese investments can be great, Jerusalem realized early on that dealing with China is like a drug that feels great in the beginning but can be deadly down the line.

Trump’s tariff decision has now begun to force the concretization of new alignments that have already been underway.  As the trade wars and potential direct conflicts between China and the USA heat up, look for even more increased partnerships between Israel and India and a dampening of Israel-Chinese relations.

 

Posted on

Modi and Netanyahu’s Gujarat Roadshow: India-Israel relationship – Is it Destiny???

It was the BJP government back in 2003 when former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon paid his last visit to New Delhi. Since then, there has been a lull period in Indo-Israeli relationship. Again, the ice was broken by a BJP led government in 2014. Today, after 15 long years, India is warmly welcoming Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu on hid 6 days historic visit with First Lady Mrs. Sara Netanyahu and a powerful delegation.

The warm welcome by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu was more than a mere reciprocation what Mr. Modi received on his recent historic visit to Israel. Salute from India to Israel was display of deep bonding and an excellent camaraderie that these two leaders share between them. Whenever, we see the two leaders together, their body language speaks volumes of a relationship that has risen over diplomacy and mutual interests.

There have been many adjectives used to describe the Indo-Israeli relationship. Many recent ones were taunting and funny. The questions were: Is it a one night stand or a long term relationship? Is it flirting, mutual interest or common enemies? So many questions were asked especially in the backdrop of India’s UNGA vote and the Spike ATGM deal.

As soon as the news of India’s UNGA vote spread, there was an unprecedented but a very heartening outcry on social media and otherwise too. Many Nationalists and Social Media users, Independent activists and experts stormed in support of Israel. There were banners by many Hindu Nationalists which read “Country – Israel , Capital – Jerusalem. This was not a symbolic gesture. It appeared to exemplify deep bonds that has developed between the people of both countries, more so in recent times. Bond that knows no compulsions, and is driven by a strong sense of belonging with each other.

India-Israel relationship is not about commercials, cosmetics or optics. The bond that has developed so largely, comes from “Destiny”. Both countries are lead by destiny and even if, we still have not totally come to terms with this unexplored fact, the signs of this belief in ‘destiny’ growing has immense potential and well, on course. It was destiny when around a 100 years ago, Haifa found a new hero in Major Dalpat Singh.

No matter how unbelievable it may sound to a rationalist mind the historical facts would keep singing this tale of valour of how a modern army weilding machine guns were run over by heroes weilding swords and lancers. This valour is still seen in our modern day defence personnel who may have a little handicap on the modern weaponary that they require but their motivation is so tall that it dwarfs such temporary handicaps.

In the India-China war in 1962, it was Israel that had helped us with 81 mm and 120 mm mortars, howitzer artillery guns with ammunition that we desperately needed. In the 1971 Indo-Pak war, Israel delayed sending back the Pakistani F-86 Sabre aircraft that were sent to Israel for maintenance. Not to forget the help Israel offered in bombing Kahuta Nuclear facility located in Pakistan in the year 1981. An indecision, that to me was the biggest blunder that lead Pakistan to flourish as Nuclear Monster that now threatens to be the hub of a Global Nuclear Catastrophe.

The modern Indo-Israel realtionship has grown from such amazing historical events and has evolved into an ever flourishing relationship that has been written by destiny itself. The future of this relationship is going to be space high. India and Israel can together bring in big breakthroughs in every field be it Space Technology, Trade and Commerce, Defence and Aerospace, Farming, Medicine and the most important of them all have been pioneers in leading the world in maintaining world peace and prosperity.

As of now there is a difference between the work cultures of both the countries and that to me is a temporary hindrance and a gift of the lackadaisical approach of the previous regimes in strengthening our functionary processes. However, with the current ruling NDA government lead by Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi, there is a sea of constructive reforms taking place, which has been evident to the world more as demonetisation and GST. These are the more talked about issues but there are 100s and 1000s of other such big and small steps taken by the government to evolve a work culture that is performace and deliverables driven sans any red-tapism.

However, one would like to see this relationship, from whichever spectrum deemed fit but to my eyes I see India and Israel in each others destiny and in time not just the people of both the countires but the entire world will start seeing the same.

Vande Mataram.

Originally Published in Wise Indian Tongue