We Don’t Need the World’s Permission

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

“Now there is one less of them,” a Danish Facebook user wrote gleefully after a 13-year-old Jewish girl was stabbed to death in her sleep in her bedroom by a Palestinian man. He thought that the heinous, cowardly murder of an innocent child in her sleep was simply a part of “the resistance” against the Jews.

What kind of human being seeks to justify the cowardly murder of an innocent child in her sleep? Imagine the outcry, if that child had been an Arab and its murderer a Jew. The news would have caused an uproar on the front pages of all the news outlets in the world. Since the girl was Jewish, needless to say, the latter did not happen.

The Israel-Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, Sari Bashi, could not just do the decent thing and condemn the murder but had to tweet instead that “settlements are illegal, but settlers are NOT legitimate targets.” What sickening times we live in, when a human rights organization cannot bring itself to say more than that the murder of a sleeping Jewish child is not legitimate. Bashi had no response to Mark Halawa, who told her, “I was one of those brainwashed Palestinian children. All Jews are our targets. This settler nonsense you speak of is for idiots!” Contrast that with Bashi’s tweet from June 27, when she emotionally gushed, “Powerful, chilling research by B’Tselem on boy killed, cousins hurt when Israeli soldiers sprayed car with bullets.”

The Palestinian Authority was very quick to honor the terrorist. According to Palestinian Media Watch, Fatah’s official Facebook page immediately posted his picture, declaring him a shahid (martyr) — the highest honor achievable in Islam. WAFA, the Palestinian Authority’s official news agency, honored him as well. The murderer’s family will immediately start receiving a monthly stipend that the PA pays to the families of all “martyrs.”

On Twitter, the EU Embassy in Israel was asked for a response to the fact that the EU funds are used to fund these stipends. Their response was “technical,” as always: “We are not claiming that the payments have stopped. However, FYI, technically, they are no longer paid by the PA but by the PLO.”

In plain English: The EU is fine with supporting terrorism, and knowingly does so, as long as the support is indirect — inasmuch as you can tell the PLO and the PA apart, which you cannot.

The EU Embassy’s response should hardly come as a surprise, after a week in which the EU Parliament gave Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ medieval blood libel a standing ovation. President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, tweeted that the speech was “inspiring address by Pres. Abbas to EPlenary — EU supports aspiration by large majority of Palestinians for peace and reconciliation.”

Let that sink in for a moment: The president of the European Parliament thinks that a speech peddling medieval blood libels is “inspiring.” Furthermore, the “aspirations by large majority of Palestinians for peace and reconciliation” — where did he spot those aspirations? In the constant terrorist attacks? In the polls, which show that a majority of Palestinian Arabs support terror against Israelis? Or in the command of Abbas aide Sultan Abu al-Einein, a Fatah Central Committee official who said that “wherever you see a Jew, slit his throat”? Clearly, Palestinian Arabs pay very close heed to those words and act upon them promptly. But then again the EU never lets facts get in the way of its ideology.

As for the United States, the State Department issued their condolences to the family — no mention of the generous American funding of the PA, which enables all of this — but the White House, predictably, remained silent on the matter, despite the fact that the murdered girl carried American citizenship.

“The entire world needs to condemn this murder just as it condemned the terrorist attacks in Orlando and Brussels,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I expect the Palestinian leadership to clearly, unequivocally condemn this vicious murder and take immediate action to stop the incitement. Enlightened nations must join in this demand and pressure the one who heads the incitement that leads to the murder of children in bed.”

Waiting for the world to condemn and pay lip service to Israel’s fight against terrorism is a dead end in every sense of the word. It will never happen. It did not happen on 9/11, when the world was most likely to understand what Israel was facing, and it will not happen 15 years later, when political correctness and a jaded sense that this is just the “new normal” has eroded any hopes that might have once been for genuine world solidarity with Israel. Israel must fight the terror as it sees fit in order to end it finally and prevent the killings of Jewish children in their sleep and pedestrians on their way to the supermarket.

We are a sovereign nation. We do not need the world’s permission to defend ourselves against those who seek our destruction.

The Silent Intifada Weekly Report [July 1, 2016]

There were nearly 100 attacks this week that killed 2 Jews and injured 11 more Jews.

This week as almost every week there were dozens of terror attacks of varying severity not reported in most major media outlets. We report on these silenced events to present a fuller picture of the reality in Israel and balance the picture presented to innocent readers abroad. We hope that by reporting these incidents we can raise awareness so that actions can be taken to rectify this problem and improve reality in the Jewish State.

This week (June 24th-July 1st) in the ‘Silent Intifada’ updates on Hakol Hayehudi there were 98 attacks in which 2 Jews were murdered and 11 were injured.

On Thursday June 30th, a 17 year old Arab from Beni Naim penetrated the Harsina neighborhood in Kiryat Arba. There he entered the home of the Ariel family and stabbed their 13 year old daughter, Hallel, to death. Shuki Gilboa and another member of the emergency response team arrived at the home in minutes. The terrorist jumped on Gilboa and the second member of the team fired at the terrorist, but also hit Gilboa with stray fire. Gilboa is currently in the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in stable condition.

On the afternoon of Friday July 1st, Arabs opened fire on a vehicle near Negohot in Har Hevron. The vehicle was struck by the gunshots and early reports indicate that one Jew has been murdered and two others are in critical condition. The story is still being updated as we post this article.

There was also a stabbing on Thursday June 30th in Netanya. An Arab there injured two Jews who were taken for treatment in moderate condition.

On Friday June 24th, two Jews were injured from a vehicular attack by an Arab near Kiryat Arba.

On Tuesday June 28th, a woman praying at the Kotel was injured from rioting and stone throwing by Arabs on the Temple Mount.

In addition Jews were injured from stone throwing near Sinjil and in the South near Bedouin communities.

Silent Intifada full list of attacks:

Friday July 1st

  • Arabs throw stones near Heremiya.
  • Arabs throw an IED at IDF forces in Tulkarem.

15:15- Shooting attack: Arabs open fire at Jews near Negohot in Har Hevron. Early reports state that one Jew was murdered and two others were injured seriously.

2:38- Two Jews are injured from stone throwing near Nili.

Thursday June 30th

  • Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Hizme in Binyamin.
  • Arabs riot in Dahit Al-Barid.
  • Arabs riot in Bir Naballah.
  • Arabs throw stones in Issawiya.
  • Arabs riot in Bethlehem.

20:13- Bedouin throw stones at a bus near Rahat.

20:00- Arabs throw firebombs at police in Issawiya.

19:44- Shooting attack: Arabs shoot at an army post near Tel Aras in the Shomron. One soldier is lightly injured.

19:10- Stabbing: An Arab stabs several Jews in Netanya.

17:55- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on Route 443 near the Dor Alon Gas Station.

11:43- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Alei Zahav.

8:55- Stabbing: An Arab stabs and murders Hallel Yaffa Ariel HY”D, a 13 year-old girl, in her home in Kiryat Arba. 

8:15- Arabs throw stones at a garbage truck near Baal Hatzor.

7:20- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on the road near Gush Etzion.

Wednesday June 29th

  • A woman is injured from stone throwing near Nabatim in the South, close to many Bedouin villages.
  • Arabs throw firebombs in Ras Al Amud.
  • Arabs throw firebombs in Issawiya.
  • Arabs throw stones in Silwan.
  • Arabs throw stones in Issawiya.
  • Arabs throw a homemade grenade at IDF forces near Rachel’s Tomb.
  • Arabs riot in Silwan in Jerusalem.
  • Arabs riot in Ras Al Amud.
  • Arabs riot in Abu Dis.
  • Arabs riot in Husan.

23:00- Arabs attack a group of leftist activists entering Ramallah for an interfaith event. At least one vehicle is totally burned.

22:56- Arabs riot in Issawiya in Jerusalem.

19:50- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Beitar Illit.

19:42- Arabs throw stones at a bus near Beit Umar in Gush Etzion.

19:29- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Husan in Gush Etzion.

7:55- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Maale Amos in Gush Etzion.

7:50- Arabs throw stones at a bus near Al-Arub in Gush Etzion.

Tuesday June 28th

  • Arabs riot in Dahit Al-Barid.
  • Arabs attack police officers in Ras Al Amud.
  • Arabs throw stones in Umm Tzafa.
  • Arabs throw stones near Sede Tzvi.
  • Arabs throw stones near Nabatim.
  • Arabs throw firebombs at police in Issawiya.
  • Arabs riot in Zevuva.
  • Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Sinjil in Binyamin.

3:33- Arabs riot in Anata and attack IDF forces.

23:08- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Beit Anun.

21:01- Arabs throw an IED at Border Police in Paron.

15:57- Arabs throw stones at vehicles in Binyamin.

15:46- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Efrat in Gush Etzion.

15:10- Arabs throw stones at vehicles in Horon.

13:00- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Al-Hadr in Gush Etzion.

10:34- A driver is injured from stones thrown by Arabs near Sinjil.

7:30- Arabs riot on the Temple Mount and throw stones. A woman praying at the Kotel is injured.

Monday June 27th

  • Arabs throw stones in Sheikh Saad.
  • Arabs throw stones in Dahit Al Barid.
  • Arabs throw stones in Issawiya.
  • Arabs throw stones in Silwan.
  • Arabs throw stones on Route 443 near the Dor Alon Gas Station.
  • Arabs throw firebombs at Border Police near Mount Scopus.
  • Arabs riot on the Temple Mount.

21:48- Arabs throw explosives at soldiers near Rachel’s Tomb.

7:44- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on Route 443.

Sunday June 26th

  • Arabs throw stones in Hizme.
  • Arabs throw stones in Meyer.
  • Arabs throw stones in Husan.
  • Arabs throw firebombs in Issawiya.
  • Arabs throw firebombs near Tekoa.
  • Arabs throw firebombs in Abu Dis.
  • Arabs throw stones on Route 443 near the Makkabim Checkpoint.
  • Arabs throw stones in Al-Hadr.
  • Arabs throw firebombs near Dir Abu Mashal.
  • Arabs throw firebombs at police in Issawiya.
  • Arabs riot on the Temple Mount.
  • Arabs throw stones in Halhul.
  • Arabs throw stones near Beit Anun.
  • Arabs throw stones on Route 443 near the Dor Alon Gas Station.

23:24- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Amos Junction in Gush Etzion.

21:06- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Al-Hadr in Gush Etzion.

19:58- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on the Avud Bypass Road causing damage to vehicles.

5:53- Arabs set a fire near the town of Karmei Tzur.

1:36- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Ofra.

Shabbat June 25th

  • Arabs throw stones near Beit Anun.
  • Arabs throw stones near Al-Arub.
  • Arabs attack IDF soldiers in Zeita in the Shomron.
  • Arabs throw stones at soldiers near Kadum in the Shomron.
  • Arabs throw firebombs at an IDF post near Negohot in Har Hevron.
  • Firearms parts at found in the vehicle of an Arab near Adam Junction.
  • Arabs attack IDF soldiers in Hizme in Binyamin. 
  • Arabs throw stones at IDF forces in Yatta in Har Hevron.
  • 22:53- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Al-Hadr Junction in Gush Etzion.

22:26- Arabs throw firebombs at vehicles near Hizme in Binyamin.

22:09- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on Route 437.

20:01- Arabs throw an IED at Border Police in Abu Dis.

19:14- Arabs throw stones at vehicles on Route 443 near Modiin causing damage to vehicles.

13:03- Arabs throw stones at police on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

Friday June 24th

  • Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Kiryat Arba.
  • Arabs destroy the Mezuza at the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

19:05- Arabs set fires near the town of Esh Kodesh and throw stones at police.

18:33- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Beit Umar in Gush Etzion.

18:18- Arabs throw stones at vehicles in Hawara in the Shomron.

14:46- Vehicular attack: Two Jews are injured from a vehicular attack near Kiryat ARba.

12:18- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Yitzhar Junction in the Shomron.

7:57- Arabs throw stones at vehicles near Ofra in Binyamin.

7:54- Arabs throw stones at Bus Route 160 near Beit Umar in Gush Etzion causing damage to the bus.

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.

The ‘New Normal’?

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

In Michel Houellebecq’s dystopian novel, “Submission” (2015), which takes place in an imaginary France ‎in 2022, when the Muslim Brotherhood has won elections and rules the country in alliance with the Socialists, the non-Jewish protagonist, a professor at the Sorbonne, tells his Jewish student, who is escaping to Israel with her family, that there ‎can be “no Israel for me.” This is one of the most poignant observations in the book.‎

Another is the protagonist’s reflection that the increasing violence, even the gunshots in the streets of Paris as a ‎civil war threatens to explode during the run-up to the elections, has become the ‎new normal: something that everyone is resigned to as an inevitable fact, barely reported in the ‎media and treated as unremarkable by his fellow lecturers. Even after the Muslim Brotherhood wins the ‎elections, and the Sorbonne is turned into an Islamic university, with all that this entails, his colleagues treat ‎this development as nothing out of the ordinary. Houllebecq’s indictment against the silence and ‎complicity of his fellow intellectuals in the face of the Islamist encroachments on French society is ‎scathing. As a matter of course, in the new France, where freedom of speech comes at a prohibitive ‎price, Houllebecq now has to live under 24-hour police protection. “Submission,” by the way, was published on the day of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.‎

The resignation and the precarious pretense that everything is normal in the face of rapidly deteriorating ‎circumstances, is a predictable human reaction, testimony to the sometimes practical but lamentable human capacity for adaptation to most circumstances, whatever they may be. ‎Historically, Jews have excelled in this discipline, simply because they had no choice. Just like Houllebecq’s ‎protagonist, they had nowhere else to go. However, whereas there “can be no Israel” for the lost ‎professor, today, unlike the last time Jews were threatened on a large scale in Europe, there is an Israel ‎for the Jews. Uniquely among all the peoples of Europe, the Jews have a welcoming place to go. ‎Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Western European Jews choose to stay put in Europe.‎

In 2015, 30,000 Jews made aliyah from all over the world. Almost 22,000 of these arrivals were from ‎France, Russia and Ukraine, and approximately 3,700 new immigrants made aliyah from the United States and ‎Canada. Other countries included Argentina and Venezuela, but Western Europe, outside of France, only ‎accounted for the tiniest contribution to these figures.‎

From the Netherlands, home to an estimated 50,000 Jews, only 96 Jews made aliyah in ‎‎2015, still the highest figure recorded in a decade. In Belgium, which saw an Islamic terrorist attack on the ‎Jewish museum in 2014, only 287 Jews made aliyah last year out of an estimated Jewish population of ‎‎40,000. Aliyah from the Scandinavian countries was equally negligible in 2015, despite a terrorist attack on ‎the synagogue in Copenhagen in 2015 and a growing anti-circumcision lobby in all the Scandinavian ‎countries, threatening to literally make a continued Jewish presence in those countries untenable. In ‎‎2014, kosher slaughter was made illegal in Denmark. In Sweden and Norway it was already outlawed. ‎

In the Netherlands, the beginning of 2016 saw an extraordinarily savage anti-Semitic attack on a Jewish ‎octogenarian couple in Amsterdam, who were robbed and beaten nearly to death while the Muslims ‎who perpetrated the attack called them “dirty Jews.” The couple had to be confined to an old-age home, ‎having sustained permanent injuries. Incredibly, the Dutch media, aided by the prosecution, upon reporting ‎the crime, chose not to mention the strong anti-Semitic element of the hate crime. Anti-Semitism was ‎also reported to be on the rise in Dutch schools, a dire foreboding for the future. ‎

The situation all over the European continent is depressingly similar with the occasional fluctuations in the ‎rise and fall of anti-Semitic incidents, but with a clear and persistent anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli ‎sentiment that makes itself felt in everyday life. Recently, the president of the Jewish society at the ‎London School of Oriental and African Studies explained that “we are too scared to go anywhere ‎so we walk in a group to the station. People come up to me and say, ‘I heard you hate Palestinians.'”‎

Jews are particularly at risk from the rise of jihad on the continent, but they are also existentially ‎threatened by the anti-Semitic campaigns against circumcision and kosher slaughter, which often have a broad ‎popular base that defies any categorization of left and right. The Social Democratic government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt brought about the prohibition against kosher slaughter in Denmark in 2014.‎

Added to this is the threat from far-right groups, which is sometimes exaggerated yet ‎nevertheless very much there. In the Netherlands, for instance, a Jewish organization, the Center for ‎Information and Documentation on Israel, was pressing charges in May against supporters of the ‎Dutch soccer champion PSV Eindhoven. A video was posted of PSV fans singing, “My dad was in the ‎commandos, my mother in the SS. Together they burned Jews, for Jews burn the best.” A PSV ‎spokesperson expressed his horror at the video. ‎

Nevertheless, Dutch high school graduates at a graduation party this month at Elde College in the ‎town of Schijndel, 60 miles southeast of Amsterdam, broke out in a song with almost the same lyrics. As ‎they approached the party, several graduates sang, “Together we’ll burn Jews, because Jews burn the ‎best.”

Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, whose home in Amersfoort has been attacked five times in recent years, says ‎that the frequency of anti-Semitic chants and other hate crimes “means Dutch Jews are less inclined to ‎report hate crimes, when they occur around them all the time.” In other words, hate crimes have become ‎the new normal, just as in Houllebecq’s dystopia, the violent riots in the streets of Paris and the ‎incremental Islamization of France became the new and accepted normal. The status quo ‎gradually transforms itself from what is first seen as unbelievable and deeply shocking to something that is considered quite ordinary. “Only six years ago, we were profoundly shocked ‎when two young men screamed ‘Heil Hitler’ during a commemoration ceremony at Vught,” said Jacobs, ‎‎”But today, this wouldn’t be so shocking anymore. It is happening all the time in the Netherlands.” ‎

This is perhaps inevitable, a function of the plasticity of human nature and its ability to adapt to even that ‎which is most abhorrent, but it is also truly lamentable. Unlike Houllebecq’s professor, these Jews have a ‎place to go, no matter how imperfect and difficult they consider Israel to be compared to their often materially ‎comfortable lives in Western Europe. ‎

The questions inevitably arise: Why put up with the miseries of the European continent and the constant ‎and incremental assaults on Jewish freedom there, whether they come in the form of jihad or “native” ‎European anti-Semitism? Why suffer the indignity of hiding their identities for fear of verbal or ‎physical attacks when they can be open and free in Israel? 

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.