Category: Politics

Posted on

Does Israel have a Biafra Strategy?

In 1914 the British took three distinct areas, Lagos Colony, Hausa, and Biafra and forced them together. This action was congruent with a similar policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and India.  The British had a particular paternal view of their colonies and because they decried the seemingly evil policies of France, Germany, and Belgium, they promoted their policies as civilized and caring.

Nothing is further from the truth. Most of the countries listed above are still suffering from the conflict oriented policy of the British Empire in the early 20th century.  This policy thrived on forcing rivals to share space and backing non-indigenous peoples as rulers or agitators in that space.

The Igbo in Nigeria make up the third largest tribe, but in Biafra they are well in the majority. The fact that Nigeria as  a British backed government has forced the Igbo to suffer at the hands of their worst enemies is only due to British interests. Before 1914 the Hausa never had access to the cost. The British backed them by forcing Biafra into Nigeria, thus paving the way to suppressing what they saw as the biggest threat to British control, Biafran independence.

A similar set of circumstances occurred in Israel.  As the early Jewish residents busied themselves with building their Land and preparing to bring more and more Jewish exiles back home, the British decided to offset the rapid Jewish growth with new Arab workers and immigrants.  To be fair this policy began with the Turks who allowed and encouraged Arab migration from other areas in the Ottoman Empire to the Land of Israel in order to offset the success of the early Zionists.  Arabs often point out that they had lived in the Land of Israel for centuries, but they use statistics from 1912, because that was the year they finally became significant enough as a population throughout the Land. The British continued this policy, going as far as banning Jewish immigration altogether.

As mentioned above, a similar policy was implemented in Iraq, Afghanistan, and India. The British kept their rule in a all of these places by stirring discontent and thwarting independence movements through bribery and conflating the local leadership and colonial government.

Israel Needs a Clear Biafra Strategy

To truly be free and rectify the sins of European colonialism, Biafra must be allowed its independence.  Israel needs to harness its resources and influence to force this outcome.  They can do this by using the South-Sudan model or by encouraging its new found East Africa partners to push for Biafran independence.

If Israel fails at setting a clear strategy in a flailing Nigeria, it risks losing a potential ally as well as a bulwark against expanding Islamic influence. Bibi has been adept at sensing and grabbing onto the shifting currents in the Middle East and Africa.  Biafra is key to his current strategy of building trusted and reliable allies in the former European colonies in Africa. It would be wise for him to formerly push for a stable and free Biafra.

 

Posted on

The Problem With Israeli Politics

Consider the following remarkable facts regarding Israel’s parliamentary history:

1) For 20 of the 28 years between 1977 (when Likud first won the elections on a platform of “Greater Israel”) and 2005 (when a Likud government withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in stark contradiction to its electoral pledges), the Israeli government was headed by a prime minister from Likud.

2) When Likud came to power, not only was the entire Sinai Peninsula under Israeli control, but any suggestion that Israel might evacuate the Jordan Valley was virtually unthinkable, any thought of dividing Jerusalem was tantamount to blasphemy, and any hint of withdrawal from the Golan was almost akin to treason.

3) Yet today, over a third of a century since Menachem Begin’s dramatic electoral victory over the hitherto hegemonic Labor party, all the above are either already widely accepted — even recommended — outcomes by much of the political mainstream in the country. Astonishingly, even the question of the strategically vital Golan Heights, which for several years disappeared from the political agenda because of the gory internal war in Syria, has recently reemerged as an issue for debate, despite the war in Syria.

Win elections; never get into power

These developments clearly demonstrate that, although the parties designated as the “right wing” regularly win elections and manage to form a ruling coalition, they somehow never really get into power, in the sense that they cannot — or dare not — implement the policies they were elected to implement. Worse, they appear coerced to adopt, with varying degrees of reluctance, the policies of their defeated “left-wing” rivals, which they were elected to prevent.

This is a phenomenon that can only be rationally accounted for by the existence of some influence, extraneous to the political system, which imposes on it outcomes that diverge dramatically from those that should be expected from the regular unhindered operation of that system.

Thus, Yitzhak Rabin, who, in 1992 was elected on the basis of a series of hawkish “nays” regarding negotiations with and concession to Yasser Arafat’s terrorist PLO, radically switched his policy mid-term, transforming them all to dovish “yeas,” which begot the Oslo fiasco.

Even more dramatically, Ariel Sharon, elected on a platform of vehement opposition to any notion of unilateral withdrawal, adopted precisely such policy, advocated by his Labor party rival, and rejected by the electorate.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of this phenomenon, which, for all intents and purposes, drains the Israeli democratic process of any significance. After all, it clearly negates the purpose of casting a vote at the ballot box — since, even if one’s preferred party prevails at the polls, the policy soon adopted is that which voters chose to renounce.

Spurious ’causes’

Three claims frequently raised to account for such blatant disregard for electoral pledges must be summarily rebuffed.

The first is that they were the result of international — particularly American — pressure. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the case of Oslo, the entire unfortunate process was covertly conceived exclusively by Israelis and Palestinians in remote Scandinavia, without any international coercion. Indeed, deep into the negotiation process, the PLO, cosignatory to the accords that emerged from this ill-considered initiative, was still classified as a terror organization by the U.S. government.

Neither can the disastrous Gaza disengagement be attributed to American, or other sources of external, pressures. Quite the reverse, Washington, initially highly skeptical as to the prudence of unilateral initiatives, had to be actively convinced by Sharon as to the merits of the idea.

The second claim that needs to be dispelled is that these mid-term policy reversals reflect some far-sighted wisdom in dovish policies of territorial concessions and political appeasement that make the post-election abandonment of more hawkish political platforms inevitable. Indeed, one of the most astonishing aspects of the Israeli political system is of ostensibly “hawkish” politicians adopting, once in power, “dovish” policies they previously repudiated. After all, these policies have consistently and continuously proved disastrous failures — making continued adherence to them utterly incomprehensible.

The third spurious claim is that because of Israel’s allegedly dysfunctional electoral system, elected coalitions cannot govern coherently and, to prevent their disintegration, are coerced to make concessions to recalcitrant partners.

However, internal coalition pressures and the exigencies of coalition preservation cannot account for the aforementioned policy decisions, since there were no internal coalition pressures to adopt them. Quite the opposite. Several coalition members, in fact, resigned in protest against them.

Unholy trinity?

So if the most dramatic political initiatives over the last two decades cannot be attributed to international pressure, to the far-sighted “wisdom” of Israeli leaders, to domestic political pressures or the preferences of the Israeli electorate, to what can they be ascribed?

The answer to this critical conundrum is to be found more in Israel’s sociological structure, rather than its political mechanisms.

More specifically, it lies in the composition of its civil society elites: the ones who dictate the tone of Israel’s legal establishment, dominate much of its mainstream media and hold the sway in the country’s academia (particularly in the social sciences and humanities — where the politically correct regularly overrides the factually correct).

These groups comprise an interactive “trinity of influence” that, in effect, dictates much of the socio-political discourse in Israel, which in turn determines how politicians perceive their policy constraints and possibilities. This allows them to set the overall tenor and direction of the national agenda at the strategic level. They manage to inculcate their worldview into the decision-making processes of elected politicians with impressive effectiveness and manipulate the perceptions of the general public as to the prevailing political realities the country faces.

Accordingly, from their unelected position of privilege, power and prestige, this trinity of elites has both the ability and the motivation to impose on the elected incumbents an agenda that diverges significantly from electoral pledges — and from the promotion and preservation of the long-term national interest.

Seeking approval of peers abroad

Thus, for example, the legal elite can impede any assertive initiative that the elected polity may wish to implement. Similarly, the media elite can promote any concessionary initiative that the elected polity may be loath to implement. And when the stamp of professional approval is required for either, the amenable and biased academic elite is ever-ready to provide it.

It requires little analytical acumen to identify that these were the mechanisms that, in large measure, generated — or at least facilitated — most of the major political processes over the last two decades. Accordingly, the ability to understand the political realities in Israel is contingent on understanding the worldview and the cost-benefit analysis of these powerful and influential elites.

For them, the approval of peer groups abroad is far more important in determining their agenda than the approval of Israeli citizens at home. Invitations to deliver keynote speeches at high-profile conventions, sought-after appointments as visiting scholars at prestigious institutes and lucrative grants for research projects are far more forthcoming if one is identified as empathetic to the Palestinian narrative rather than as committed to the Zionist one.

Far-reaching effects

This reality has far-reaching effects.

For example, it prevents Israeli public diplomacy — largely under the sway of these elites — from portraying the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, as they truly are. After all, such an assertive portrayal would make the dominant elites’ worldview look outrageously irresponsible. They are thus compelled to depict the Arab/Palestinian side in a far more favorable light than reality warrants, while portraying the Israeli side in a far more negative one — otherwise there would be no justification in handing over areas of vital strategic importance to Arab/Palestinian control.

After all, to acknowledge Arab brutality and backwardness, to focus on the repression of women, the suppression of dissidents, and the oppression of homosexuals; to draw attention to the harassing of critical journalists and the hounding of political opponents, would gravely undermine the prudence of any policy advocating the establishment of a Palestinian entity barely a mile from the Knesset, overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport, and adjacent to the Trans-Israel Highway.

Danger to democracy

The gravity of the consequences that the imposition of elite political preferences has on Israeli policy, and the debilitating effect it will inevitably have on the democratic process, cannot be ignored. These dramatic minority elite-induced policy reversals constitute a powerful disincentive for taking part in the electoral process — indeed, for even considering it of any worth at all.

After all, what is the point of voting any party or person into power if they end up implementing precisely what was rejected by the voters? And once the electorate loses faith in democratic governance, what is there to prevent the onset of “alternative” forms of governance?

(Originally Published on Israel Hayom)

Posted on

When Jew Hatred Trumps European National Security

What is perhaps most conspicuous about the growth of anti-Semitism on the European Left, as exemplified by the current crisis in the British Labour Party, is that it is rising at a time when Europe should be busy with much more pressing issues, such as national security — particularly in London, where the terrorist threat keeps growing and security officials can barely keep up.

It has been less than two months since Islamic terrorists successfully targeted the Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station, killing 32 people and wounding many more. And it has been only half a year since the Paris attacks, in which Islamic terrorists killed 130 people and wounded nearly 400. These were groundbreaking, shocking events in the history of Islamic terrorism on European soil, so one would naturally assume that Israel and Jews in general, who make up such a marginal demographic group, constituting less than half a percent of the population of the EU, would be the last thing on European politicians’ minds. Another enormous immigration crisis looms, as 800,000 migrants, according to French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, are currently in Libyan territory waiting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. This means that Europe will most likely be facing even more chaos than it did last summer.

However, European politicians, instead of busying themselves with protecting their citizens from future terrorist attacks — as well as preventing another chaotic summer of migration chaos — incredibly find time to get mired in sordid squabbles about insane ideas of transferring Israeli Jews to the United States and claiming Hitler was a Zionist — as we saw in the U.K. — or composing elaborate peace conference initiatives to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — as we saw in France. If I were a European citizen, I would wonder why my government was occupying itself with these issues, which have no vital meaning to any Europeans, at a time when Europe is facing unprecedented security threats.

As I mentioned in a past column, one example of this preposterous mindset was France’s rejection of Israeli terrorism tracking technology, which might have possibly prevented the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels — a clear example of Jew hatred trumping national security concerns, especially at a time when national security should be the top priority of every single European government.

In the wake of the anti-Semitism debacle in the British Labour Party, the obligatory inquiries will be made, solemn reports will be written and the culprits will be reprimanded, rebuked or excluded, upon which all will be forgotten and everyone will carry on as usual. It will change nothing, least of all the influence of the radical Left on mainstream leftist parties.

While the sordid ideas that are entertained by some in the European Left came out in the open in Britain on this occasion, this is most certainly not the last time we will see such a “crisis” revolving around the airing of some of these ideas, as the radical Left’s influence becomes more and more apparent, not only in Britain, but across the European Union. No one should harbor any doubts as to whether this is a British phenomenon — it most certainly is not, as anyone who follows Scandinavian politics can ascertain.

At any rate, whatever the outcome, for British Jews it is all too little and too late and the Labour debacle is only a political symptom of what has already become an undeniable fact on the street: Hate crimes against British Jews are at an all-time high. A report released on Sunday showed that there has been an increase of 50 percent in violent crimes against British Jews in the past two years and 1,000 anti-Semitic incidents in 2015 compared to 938 in 2014. Violent crimes constituted 196 incidents in 2015 compared to 126 incidents in 2014.

In other parts of the U.K., Jews are not faring any better. Almost 20 percent of Jews in Scotland have said that they have been victims of hate crimes. In Glasgow, home to the majority of Scottish Jews, more Jews are leaving or fearing to identify as Jews in a city, which has become increasingly hostile, something that culminated in 2014, when the Glasgow City Council decided to fly the Palestinian flag in what it said was a show of solidarity with the people of Gaza.

Just as elsewhere in Europe, these developments are more likely than not to result in an even greater exodus of Jews from the European continent. Israel will be the richer for that and Europe the poorer. This leaves the Europeans with nowhere to escape from their irresponsible politicians. But they should ask why Israel and the Jews continue to be an almost clinical obsession to the point where Jew-hatred trumps national security. It would be very interesting to hear the answer.

Posted on

To Annex or Not to Annex That is the Question

If anything proves the Left’s assertion that the Likud led government is pushing Israel towards a One State solution, it is the Norms Bill. The Norms Bill, pushed by the Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked will apply Israeli Law to all Israelis living beyond the Green Law.  Since 1967, the Southern command has been in charge of deciding which Israeli Law could apply for Israeli Citizens in Judea and Samaria.  

Despite the Right’s rebuffing of the Left’s attack on the Norms Bill, the legislation does push forward the notion of a de facto annexation by directly applying civil law for its citizens, which in a sense contravenes the international law of an occupying power. Two points below are especially relevant:

  • The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  • Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

It would be hard to prove that the Israeli government does not not understand this.

Forcing the Issue

The Norms Bill, although welcomed by the Right and a majority of the country creates a moment of decision if Israel wants to preserve the notion that it is playing by Western rules. The Israeli government has constantly displayed the need to preserve the status quo in relation to the Palestinian question.  

The Norms Bill forces a true discussion of which direction the Israeli government wants to go.  If passed, the signal is that Oslo is at last buried.  The challenge is what comes next.  The World and the Palestinian Street will use the measure to force Israel to make decisions that may be dangerous.  

Bibi and his cabinet are not stupid, they understand that the status quo is long gone and it is time to push an Israel first agenda forward.  The question will be, if the solution they want will be implemented in a way that not only works for Israel, but can be explained to others.

 

Bibi is Coopting Parts of Bennett’s Solution

Naftali Bennett ran on a proposal to deal with the Palestinian conflict by allowing limited autonomy in areas A and B, while applying full Israeli Sovereignty to area C. He called it the Stability Plan. With Bibi and Yaalon attempting to pull the IDF out of Area A, the push back from Bennett and Shaked was swift and serious. The Norms Bill gives Bennett and Shaked and the broader right of center camp a piece of what they want.  Mix the two actions together and you get a condensed version of Bennett’s plan.

So why is Bibi doing this and why now?  It is clear that the Western World is going to try to impose some sort of terms of agreement on the situation in Judea and Samaria.  Bibi has always viewed the situation unsolvable. The most he will offer is some sort of Middle Eastern version of Luxembourg, which the Palestinians and their Arab allies will not accept.  Given the terrain, the current Israeli government is trying draw up their own terms, but literally on the ground.  Time will tell if this status quo with a few changes will be enough to stall the international consensus that some solution needs to be forced.

Posted on

How Dangerous is the French Initiative?

As the French “Peace” Initiative finds its way back into the news cycle the government in Israel issued the following response: “Israel adheres to its position that the best way to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is direct, bilateral negotiations. Israel is ready to begin them immediately without preconditions. Any other diplomatic initiative distances the Palestinians from direct negotiations.

Nothing in the response is new and this is precisely the issue. The Western World is tired of an Israel that is ascending while their cultures and influence are clearly in decline.  The French proposal is no different than others that have come and gone, the only problem is the climate Israel now finds itself in.

By sticking with the usual response, it only confirms what Western Europe and the USA State Department has said, and that is a new approach needs to be tabled.  On this point no one disagrees, the only question is which approach should be taken.

If the government in Israel does not shift the paradigm to a one state solution involving the annexation of Judea and Samaria, followed by a dismemberment of the mafia run PA then it will quickly find the French Initiative becoming much more dangerous through an intentional shadow campaign by the Obama administration to push it through as it leaves office.

Time will tell if Bibi and company will take this seriously.  The future of the country depends on a new approach and it better be Israel’s.

Read more about this here.

 

Posted on

Elor Azaria, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Collective Disconnect of Israeli Leaders

The case for or against Elor Azaria, a young soldier who shot dead a neutralized Arab attacker on Hebron has opened up a Pandora’s Box both within Israeli society and the IDF.  Azaria is being charged by the army for manslaughter, since in their reasoning he had no need to shoot dead an already neutralized terrorist.  

When news first broke out, condemnation from government officials was swift, after all the far left NGO B’Tzelem took the the film and distributed it, but the condemnation turned from a PR play into a much more insidious move. The IDF Spokesman immediately issued a seemingly kneejerk response: “The chief of staff views this as a serious incident. … This is not the IDF, these are not the values of the IDF and these are not the values of the Jewish people.”

Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.

The public outcry was swift and tremendous. Rallies were held, which seemingly forced the army to reduce the charge from murder to the present manslaughter. Yet, none of the public outcry has had an effect on the top brass of the defense establishment.  “It really worries me. Part of the power [of the IDF], as many have described it — [David] Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and others — is our ethical strength. We aren’t Daesh. When there is a need to kill, you kill. When we need to be resolute, we are resolute. But when someone has his hands up, or is already neutralized, that’s when you arrest,” Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said in response to the rally in support for Azaria held in Tel Aviv, prior to Passover. “Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.”

The incident has done more to damage the public’s faith in the government and IDF leadership than any security failure could have.  The simple reason is that the young soldiers drafted into the army and put in harm’s way in defense of the Nation of Israel have always been regarded as off limits for public and media scrutiny. The IDF and government maliciously turning against one of their own has essentially confirmed for the public how out of touch the leadership really is with the plight of the common Israeli.  

Whether he was guilty or innocent was beside the point. The point was that his commanders – beginning with the defense minister and the chief of General Staff – were treating him like a criminal instead of a combat soldier on the front lines defending our country from an enemy that seeks our destruction.

“For the public – including the five thousand citizens who came to the support rally for Azaria at Rabin Square on Tuesday – the critical moment was when the film of Azaria being led away from the scene in handcuffs was broadcast on the evening news. That image, of a combat soldier who killed a terrorist being treated like a criminal, was the breaking point for the public,” Caroline Glick wrote in her article about Azaria. “Whether he was guilty or innocent was beside the point. The point was that his commanders – beginning with the defense minister and the chief of General Staff – were treating him like a criminal instead of a combat soldier on the front lines defending our country from an enemy that seeks our destruction.”

Bibi is In Trouble

The last time Bibi lost the premiership, it was not because Ehud Barak was so much better, it was do to the fact that Bibi had cut off his base with the Wye River Accords, which broke his campaign promise to the Right not to hand anymore land to the Palestinian Authority as well as a back track on ending the disastrous Oslo accords. Bibi’s political blunders have never been against a weak Left, but happen when he forgets that his strength comes from the lack of follow up to the verbiage he gives to the Right.

Bibi’s political blunders have never been against a weak Left, but happen when he forgets that his strength comes from the lack of follow up to the verbiage he gives to the Right.

The problem with the Azaria case for Israel’s government is not whether, the soldier did anything wrong or not. In a fluid situation, armies always allow for flexibility in individual soldiers’ reactions.  By making this case more about morality than a simple breaking of IDF rules of engagement, Bibi and his government (save for Bennett and other like minded ministers) have essentially cut off the very base that put them in power to begin with.

Bibi may be faced with a choice very soon to either jettison the left side of Likud, represented by Moshe Yaalon or be taken down by others who have not yet divorced themselves from the Israeli public.

Posted on

Staggering stupidity

We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. – Albert Einstein

One does not have to be an Einstein to grasp that Israel cannot solve the problems created by the endeavor to establish a Palestinian state by continuing the endeavor to establish such a state.

Futile and self-obstructive

Sadly, what should be a simple self-evident truth seems to have eluded Israeli political leaders – who for almost a quarter century have impaled the nation on the horns of an irresolvable dilemma. For by ostensibly accepting the principle of a two-state resolution of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs, they have, in effect, committed the nation to a policy whose implementation requires concessions too perilous for any responsible government to make.

On the one hand, this necessarily makes Israel appear disingenuous and duplicitous, since it cannot take the actions required to facilitate its alleged political goals. On the other, because of its commitment to Palestinian statehood, Israel must limit its use of military force to levels that cannot eradicate the threat to its civilian population, for fear of eliminating any prospect of negotiations with some as yet unidentified Palestinian interlocutor with whom agreement might be reached.

Little could highlight the futility of the starkly self-obstructive approach, adopted by successive Israeli governments, than three items that made the news this week.

The first was the announcement of the discovery of an underground attack tunnel, extending from somewhere inside the terrorist enclave of Gaza into Israeli sovereign territory.

The second was the report that, having rid itself of the “costly” upkeep of the settlements in Gaza, Israel is about to invest a gazillion shekels in a super-sophisticated barrier, designed to detect any additional tunnels that Gaza-based terrorists might have burrowed or are about to burrow.

The third was an interview with Construction Minister Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yoav Galant, formerly head of Southern Command, in which he reiterated his support for the construction of a port off the Gaza coast that he expressed several weeks before.

Tunnels: Technological breakthrough; policy breakdown?

Following the detection of the terrorist tunnel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed its identification as a “pioneering achievement” and “global breakthrough,” adding that his government has invested a “fortune” in technology enabling discovery and destruction of tunnels.

It is, of course, too early to draw decisive conclusion as to the efficacy/reliability of the new detection techniques, but it might well be that the discovery of the tunnel indeed constitutes an impressive breakthrough technologically.

Sadly, however, it also reflects a grave breakdown of the policy adopted during, and subsequent to, 2014’s Operation Protective Edge.

Apparently dug after that campaign, the tunnel provided conclusive proof – for anyone who felt additional evidence was required – that despite the vast damage inflicted on Gaza by the IDF, the will of the terrorist organizations entrenched there to continue the violence remains undiminished.

The unpalatable conclusion is unavoidable.

Just as with Hezbollah in 2006, and with Hamas in previous engagements in 2008/9 and 2012, so too in 2014 Israel has not achieved genuine deterrence in the sense of breaking its adversary’s will to fight. To the contrary, all it has done is to achieve a ceasefire during which the enemy has not lost its taste for battle, but has utilized the respite to regroup, rearm and redeploy – and to emerge as an even more formidable foe for the next, virtually inevitable, round of violence.

Deterrence diminished despite damage

In a perceptive New York Times op-ed, soberingly titled, “How Hamas Beat Israel in Gaza” (August 10, 2014), Ronen Bergman underscored not only the futility but the detrimental consequences of recurring bouts of inconclusive fighting, despite massive damage inflicted on the Arab side: “If body counts and destroyed weaponry are the main criteria for victory, Israel is the clear winner… But counting bodies is not the most important criterion in deciding who should be declared victorious. Much more important is comparing each side’s goals before the fighting and what they have achieved. Seen in this light, Hamas won.” Indeed, as Bergman states: “For Israel, this round of fighting will probably end… with significant damage to Israel’s deterrence.”

Back in March 2002, about a decade before the start of this INTO THE FRAY series, I wrote aJerusalem Post op-ed piece titled, “Conquer or capitulate.” In it, I warned that in effect “Israel has no acceptable way of diminishing the Palestinian will to attack it, and thus must eliminate Palestinian ability to do so by…decisive conquest of the areas transferred to Palestinian control, the dismantling of all the political and military organizations and infrastructures established since the Oslo Accords, and… reinstatement of effective Israeli sovereign rule from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

I acknowledged: “this is undoubtedly a course of action fraught with many hazards. Its implementation requires meeting many daunting challenges…” However, I pointed out, “if Israel… desires to preserve its national independence and the political sovereignty of the Jewish nation-state, there is no other feasible alternative.”

It is a diagnosis that is as valid today as it was then – but to act on it the government must first extricate itself from its foolish and self-imposed commitment to the folly of two-statism.

Just imagine…

The announcement that Israel was now engaged in a multi-billion shekel effort extending over two years to protect the civilian population in the vicinity of the Gaza strip, should – paradoxically (?) – be enough to give Israelis many sleepless nights.

This sum, together with the cost of the Iron Dome system to intercept the rockets of assorted terrorist gangs in Gaza, the cost of developing a new warning system against mortar fire, reportedly designed to give fleeing civilians seven more seconds to scramble for cover, the direct cost of Operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, Protective Edge, and the indirect cost due to weeks of economic disruption, make a mockery of the claim often raised to justify the 2005 disengagement and the futile and forcible expulsion of the Jewish communities in Gaza: i.e. the allegedly exorbitant cost of securing the thriving pre-2005 “settlements.”

But let us set aside this doleful arithmetic for the moment, and overlook the errors of the past, including the heavy toll of lives/ limbs the unilateral evacuation of Gaza has wrought, and the fearsome arsenal it has allowed the terrorist organizations to accumulate.

Instead, let us focus on the future, and imagine the dread situation that would arise if the IDF withdrew from Judea-Samaria to allow the establishment of a political entity ruled by Palestinian-Arabs – as per the wishes of the international community and Israel’s own commitment to the two-state principle.

Not a 50-km. front, but 500 km.…

In the absence of compelling contrary evidence, there is little reason to believe that what happened in Gaza would not happen in Judea-Samaria, and that the same means required to protect the Israeli population in the South, would not be required on the eastern border.

But unlike Gaza, which abuts sparsely populated, largely rural areas, the “mega-Gaza” that almost certainly will emerge in Judea-Samaria abuts the country’s most populous urban areas. Unlike Gaza, which has no topographic superiority over adjacent Israeli territory, the prospective “mega-Gaza” in Judea-Samaria will totally command the adjacent coastal megalopolis, in which much of Israel’s vital infrastructure (both civilian and military) is located, where 80 percent of its civilian population resides and 80% of its commercial activity takes place. But perhaps most significant, unlike Gaza, which has only about a 50-km. front with Israel, the envisioned “mega-Gaza” in Judea-Samaria would have a front up to almost 500 km….

Now bearing all these daunting facts in mind, if it takes billions of shekels and two years to set up a system to (hopefully) defend civilian populations against the threat of tunnels from Gaza along a 50-km. front, imagine the gargantuan effort, in terms of treasure and time, that would be required to defend civilian populations against a similar threat from a “mega-Gaza” along a 500-km. front…

Anyone still think two-statism is a good idea??

Between moronic and imbecilic

The first time I heard of the appallingly absurd idea of building a potentially retractable port, under Israeli security supervision, on an artificial island off the coast of Gaza, was in a private conversation with someone (whom I shall leave nameless) recently designated as contender for the position of head of the Mossad, just prior to the appointment of the current director.

I remember at the time being taken aback by an idea so patently puerile and perilous being bandied about by someone so senior – but took (false) comfort in the belief that it was so outlandish that it would never be given serious consideration by those in authority.

How wrong I was! Incredibly, at least two incumbent ministers and apparently a number of serving IDF generals have come out in favor of the “idea” – for want of a better word.

Thus, Transportation Minister Israel Katz has come out in favor of constructing such an island, connected to the Gaza mainland by a 4.5-km. bridge, to accommodate a port under Israeli security supervision. The idea was supported by Construction Minister Yoav Galant – who, during Operation Cast Lead, served as head of Southern Command.

Quoted by Bloomberg, Galant declared: “The biggest danger to Israel is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza… If Gaza had the ability to bring ships, and goods, without posing a security problem, that is in everybody’s interest.”

Galant is a man with an impressive career of sacrifice and daring. For that, as an individual, he deserves our esteem. Not so his political prescriptions.

For what he is proposing is little more than a hazardous hallucination, falling somewhere between the moronic and the imbecilic.

Port no panacea for poverty

A port in Gaza will be no panacea for the poverty of the population.

Hamas, and its other terrorist cohorts, are not burrowing tunnels because Gaza has no port. They are burrowing them despite the fact it does not have one.

After all, Gaza does have a modern port, under Israeli supervision, at its disposal barely 35 km. north of it, in Ashdod. Under conditions of peace (or even credible non-belligerency), Ashdod can supply all Gaza’s supervised civilian needs without squandering billions on a fanciful floating island port.

However, under conditions of on-going belligerency, even under the strictest Israeli supervision, there is no way, short of taking control of Gaza, that dual purpose material such as cement, fertilizer and steel will not be used for belligerent objectives.

For example, even if the island port were under tight inspection, how could Israel ensure that the building materials that went to construct the recently discovered tunnels would be used for more benign purposes? One might also ask how Israeli supervision is to be maintained, and the safety of the Israeli personnel secured in the isolated off-shore port, should they, as is far from implausible, be set upon by a bloodthirsty local mob.

Humanitarian solution to humanitarian crisis

The dire economic situation that plagues Gaza will not be alleviated by giving Gaza access to port facilities, which it, in principle, already has available to it.

Israeli restrictions on the flow of goods are not the cause of Arab enmity, but the result thereof. The crippling unemployment, reportedly above 40%, will not be alleviated by transferring Israeli supervision from Ashdod and the Gaza border crossing to an off-shore islet.

There is soaring unemployment because any creative energies that there might be are not channeled by those who rule Gaza toward productive/constructive goals, but into fomenting violence against the hated “Zionist entity.” A port will not change those realities.

Indeed, it is likely to exacerbate them.

The penury of the enclave is not due to lack of resources, but to the preferences/priorities of the brigands who govern it, and as events have shown, the only way Israel can determine who governs Gaza – and who does not – is by governing it itself.

Galant is, of course, right that Israel should defuse the brewing humanitarian crisis in Gaza – which is demonstrably the consequence of the ill-conceived two-state approach and misguided attempts to foist statehood on the Palestinian Arabs.

But it is a humanitarian crisis that requires a genuine humanitarian solution: Generously funded humanitarian relocation of the non-belligerent Arab population elsewhere, out of harm’s way, and extension of Israeli sovereignty over the region.

That is the only approach that can:

• Provide a durable solution to the problem of Gaza;

• Eliminate the threat to Israel continually issuing from Gaza; and

• Preclude the need for Israel to “rule over another people.”

Happy Passover

But despite all this let me take the opportunity to wish readers a Happy Passover, and hope they can forget, for a few festive days, that the staggering stupidity of some of Israel’s political leaders comprise a peril no less pernicious than those posed by our Arab adversaries.

Originally published here.

Posted on

What Jewish Nationalists can Learn from Nnamadi Kanu

As Meir Ettinger, a young right wing activist known for his politically radical views on preserving a complete Land of Israel sits in administrative detention for over 8 months a parallel situation is occurring in Nigeria. Nnamadi Kanu, the leader of the Free Biafra movement is kept confined, awaiting a kangaroo court trial in Nigeria.

The differences could not be more stark.  Biafrans await daily for their leader’s release.  Most residents of Judea and Samaria and their supporters across Israel have accepted the government’s line about Ettinger’s influence and potential danger to the State.  Despite the lack of charges, Israelis don’t see any imperative in forcing the government to release Ettinger. The “extreme right” in Israel despite legitimate grievances has never played for the soul of the country, whereas Kanu and IPOB captured Biafra with their straight talk and pathway to independence.  I

So what can Israeli nationalists learn from Nnamadi Kanu and those that follow him?  The right in Israel, if it wants to lead and help change Israel’s course must be about more than just pushing to guard the Land of Israel in its entirety.  The body politic in Israel has shifted away from a two state solution, so arguing against it does nothing to shift the reigns of leadership towards a truly Jewish vision of statehood, something we loosely call Malchut Yisrael or the Kingdom of Israel.

Nationalists must grab the soul of the country.  There are systemic issues in the State of Israel.  These issues are felt throughout the Land.  Whether it is income disparity, taxes, overreaching government,  or cultural differences that threaten to burn down Israel’s dynamic society, Jewish Nationalists must build a long term plan to speak to the heart of the country, the way Nnamadi Kanu has.

Ettinger Can be a True Leader

Meir Ettinger can rise above the fringe that has captured him and created a martyr out of his unlawful imprisonment.  He can do this by taking his charisma and determination and show Israelis that there are things that are worth more than just international approval and a growing economy.

Nnamadi Kanu and the Free Biafra movement is winning.  They are winning because their goal is clear and they are determined to change the course of their nation no matter roadblock stands in the way.  

Kanu recently published the following statement from jail: “As our journey to the promised land progresses beautifully, since we left Egypt, it is important to always remind ourselves that our progeny will forever remain grateful to us for our many sacrifices today. We are almost there and as the oppressor panic, they unwittingly wobble from one blunder to another, time is running out and Pharaoh and his army clearly has no choice than to let my people go. I remain very proud of you all. Thank you.”

Israel is in trouble.  Despite, the innovation, technology, and growing partnerships in Africa and the Near East, the Western World seems intent on ensuring the Jewish Nation is put in a dangerous position once again.

The young ideological activists in Judea and Samaria can be a source of true leadership for the Jewish Nation by offering a way forward to something greater and distinct from the Western culture that has taken hold in Israel.

Ettinger spoke the following in a court hearing: “In the State of Israel today we have leaders who do not understand the Torah and no one dares explain to them what a true Jewish state looks like, why the Jewish people to the land of Israel, and what right the Jewish people have to the land. Not only are we victims of this unfortunate situation, but you are too- you, the judge, and the prosecutor. All of us are captives of this reality. Each of us has a G-dly soul that wants to live a Jewish life and we all feel alone in our opposition to the state.”

The State of Israel can be a beacon of light to the world.  It is true Israel has inspired and continues to inspire.  From technological innovation to military prowess Israel is a miracle, but the destiny of the Jewish Nation is clear and must be grasped by the leadership in order to be harnessed correctly.

Celebrating Passover, the holiday of freedom, gives us a unique insight into what true freedom is about.  The physical bonds of servitude are not the actual source of the slave mentality.  One can break the bonds of slavery and yet still act as a slave.  One can accept the cultural code and mores of the captors themselves.  This is what Passover comes to teach the Jew.  The remembering of leaving Egypt on a yearly level reminds us that if we adopt foreign cultures and give them the power to rule us in our lives then even if we are in our homeland we remain enslaved.  No amount of technology and innovation will release from the predicament we currently face outside and from within.

Freeing ourselves from mental slavery as the great Bob Marley etched in history in his famous Redemption Song is the key to true freedom. Nnamdi Kanu’s belief in his nation’s destiny is inspiring and should be seen as an example of how we Jews here in Israel that care about our own destiny should lead our nation forward.  Meir Ettinger seems to understand the responsibility that has been foisted on him.  Perhaps that is why the Defense Minister has spent so much energy letting him stay confined without charges. A movement though, is more than just one man and the question is if we here in Israel can realize our destiny has already been written, we just need the courage to grab it.

Ettinger concluded his speech in court: Your hysterical actions and discrimination against Jews in enforcing the law, your shocking neglect for the values of democracy when dealing with Jews who love the land of Israel, appears strange to many people. However it is not strange to anyone who recognizes that these actions are done in order to silence your inner, yearning Jewish voice. This is part of your general schizophrenia.  It is obvious that these actions will backfire and have the opposite result. You will not manage to silence the voice inside you, anymore than you could expel your Jewish soul from your body. In the end, even you will repent for your actions and your Jewish soul will take over to help bring the redemption.”

We the Jewish people, have been scattered to the four corners of the Earth and returned home just as the Bible foretold.  We have built a country that is the envy of the world and we have become global leaders as also foretold. Yet, we have forgotten a part of our souls in the exile. Our mission must be to blend our technological and military prowess with true Jewish leadership.  Nnamadi Kanu and his followers have much to teach us. It is time we paid closer attention their words and deeds.

Posted on

IAI Helps India Get a Foot Up on Its Defense Network

IAI had another successful trip to India this week, as a major deal between the Indian Ministry of Defense and this leading developer and producer of defense systems and technologies was signed at the Defexpo 2016. The conference was held last week in Goa, India, and IAI president Joseph Weiss flew in to sit with heads of many of the major defense and security companies within India.

Signed, Sealed & Delivered

The upshot of all these meetings was outstanding success for both sides, as a number of deals amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars were signed. The Indian defense organizations were interested in several technologies including the air defense systems, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and radar systems, all of which are going to provide India with a stronger line of defense than ever before.

As Weiss himself said, “India has unique operational requirements, and IAI is dedicating its best talents, technologies and capabilities to meet those challenges. We will continue our long-term, strategic partnership with India, meet our customers’ expectations and implement the ‘Make in India’ policy led by India’s Prime Minister.”

IAI in Action

IAI is an aerospace and defense company based in Israel. It is the largest government run organization, and it supplies advanced systems including satellites, space systems, robotics, cyber solutions, electronic intelligence, and command and strategic control systems, as well as more germane systems such as their passenger to freighter conversion systems.

Of course, this is not the first time IAI has signed a deal with the Indian Ministry of Defense. The prominent defense company has been supplying defense technology to India and several other governments for over a quarter of a century, with joint ventures, subcontracts, and cooperation agreements spanning the globe. The Israeli company has worked closely with India in particular, offering their important services and innovations to several branches of the Indian defense forces including coast guard, navy, air force, and border control.

The Future of Defense

The expo was a valuable opportunity for IAI to display some of their latest innovations, many of which have already been successfully demonstrated within India and have won the interest of the Indian Ministry of Defense. Some of the exciting developments included newly engineered IEDs (improvised explosive devices) that can be detonated in non conventional ways and an early warning system driven via radar sensors that are invaluable for signalling against mortar attacks.

India and Israel will continue their research and development together to provide the most productive and solid defense systems available.

Posted on

Israel Moves Beyond Europe by Signing China Agreements

While Israel continues to be vilified around the world, most recently by the U.N. Human Rights Council (which puts on the same circus every year at its month-long session, when it singles out only Israel for condemnation), Israel continues to build and strengthen diplomatic and trade relationships.

The second annual meeting of the Israel-China Committee for Cooperation in Innovation was held on Tuesday at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, hosting an 80-member Chinese delegation, led by Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong, and including three ministers, nine deputy ministers and 14 university heads. Israel and China signed 13 bilateral agreements, one of them a 10-year multi-visit visa that will facilitate business and tourist travel between Israel and China. The only other countries that China has such an arrangement with are the U.S. and Canada, which shows just how highly China values its cooperation with Israel.

Furthermore, a delegation of that magnitude, both in size and seniority, clearly shows that China considers Israel to be an important partner and that all the condemnations mean very little once you are outside the U.N. building in Geneva. Those who realize that it is in their own interest to cultivate relations with Israel look past the ritual denunciations and relate to Israel on a bilateral basis.

One important outcome of Tuesday’s meeting, which can hardly be overestimated, is that Beijing has shown interest in beginning free trade negotiations with Israel. Such an agreement could potentially double bilateral trade from $8 billion to $16 billion.

“I was delighted to hear today from Vice Premier Liu that China is prepared to begin free trade agreement negotiations with Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters at a joint press conference. “This is a momentous development and we are ready to do so right away.”

The closer trade ties Israel cultivates with countries such as China and India, with whom Israel also enjoys very good relations, the less Israel will have to rely on trade with the European Union with its cognitive war, boycotts and deeply anti-Israeli sentiments. However, the European Union is still Israel’s primary trade partner, with trade in 2014 amounting to over $30 billion.

When it comes to the EU, the problem is not just the anti-Israel sentiment. The EU is caught in an economic downward spiral, which is only going to worsen in light of the current migrant crisis and problems with Islamic terrorism — problems that, as the recent attacks in Brussels clearly demonstrated, the continent is ill equipped to deal with. This means that with time, the European Union will very likely become a much less interesting partner.

Also, very importantly, the highly anticipated increase in flights between China and Israel will commence next month, as China’s Hainan Airlines begin operating three weekly flights between Beijing and Tel Aviv. Israel’s El Al Airlines already operates three weekly flights on the same route. There is a huge untapped market for tourism in China, with Chinese travel abroad booming. One can find Chinese tourists in even the smallest European outpost, but Israel has so far not tapped the potential of Chinese globetrotters.

“To say that not much has been done to bring Chinese tourists to Israel is not true. It would be more correct to say that almost nothing has been done,” Tourism Minister Yariv Levin said last July.

According to a report in Haaretz, in 2014 about 32,000 Chinese nationals visited Israel, up 29% from 2013. The upward trend continued in 2015. During the first five months of 2015, 18,700 Chinese tourists visited Israel, a 35% increase over the same period in 2014. However, considering the existence of 107 million Chinese tourists, Israel is benefiting from a very small piece of the pie. This is now likely to change dramatically with the new visa agreement and the increased flights from Beijing.

More than ever, Israelis should start learning Chinese in order to facilitate the growth in both trade and tourism that these new agreements in tourism and trade are likely to bring. There is much to be said for moving beyond Europe.

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)