Category: Thought

Posted on

Europe is Not Israel

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

“France must live with terrorism,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said after the massive terrorist ‎attack in Nice last week. Understandably, his statement infuriated the French, who took to social ‎media to express their opprobrium.‎

And French President Francois Hollande, sounding almost as if he was being forced to speak, said, “We cannot deny that it was a terrorist ‎attack.”‎

After the massive Islamic State attacks in Paris in November 2015, political leaders proclaimed ‎themselves “shocked.” Whether this shock was feigned or genuine, at least they made a point, pitiful ‎as it was, of pretending that these massive terrorist attacks were something extraordinary that did not ‎have a habitual place in Europe.

Valls’ resigned declaration of tired surrender after the Nice attack, on the other hand, ‎amounts to the waving of a white flag in submission to the jihadis and is an indication that France ‎has little will to fight.‎

Valls and Hollande sounded like bewildered children at the helm of a ship that they are too ‎clueless to navigate. Imagine Winston Churchill declaring, “Britain must live with ‎Nazism.” ‎

Under its current government, France has busied itself with meddling in Israeli affairs ‎and organizing Middle East peace conferences, instead of spending every waking moment ensuring ‎the proper protection of its own population. It is not ready to fight against the jihad that has been ‎launched against it.

One major factor in this is that its elites blame France.‎ French Ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud, for example, wrote on Twitter: “Why is France ‎targeted? History (former colonial power), geography (proximity), first Muslim community of Arab ‎origin sensitive to M.E. issues.”‎

In other words: Colonialism and Middle Eastern “issues” — a diplomatic euphemism for the Israeli-Arab conflict — ‎are to blame, not the Muslims who commit the atrocities and certainly not Islam. A ‎Twitter user from India responded to Araud: “We Indians have been colonized by all European powers ‎including your country. Ever heard of Indian terrorists? Shame on you.” Indeed.‎

One of the best indicators of how massive terrorist attacks have become the “new normal” is the financial markets, famously and hysterically sensitive as they are. One ‎observer concluded after the Nice attack, “Gold is down and the euro is up. Financial markets ‎don’t care because it’s no longer an extraordinary event. Even European travel stocks and French hotel ‎stocks are only down a couple of percent. Because continued terror attacks for years are already ‘priced ‎in.’ According to the stock market, France has now become Israel.”‎

The sentiment that France and Europe have “now become Israel” has become something of a trend on ‎social media in the wake of Nice. But it is very far from the truth.‎

Europe is a dying continent, one that is walking toward its own cultural suicide with eyes wide shut. ‎In Europe, self-loathing began to gain ground over most traditional Judeo-Christian ‎values as long as a century ago. We see the results of that long process today: Official Europe does not ‎believe in anything. The main European project in recent history has as its goal only a vague ‎multiculturalism and the working toward “an ever closer union,” a self-referential and self-serving ‎empty shell of a vision. Ostensibly, the EU was meant to prevent future wars in Europe, but while ‎Europe has lost its taste for war, war — now in jihad style — has not lost interest in ‎Europe. The problem is that Europe cannot fight jihadis — people who believe so strongly in their ‎cause that they will die for it — if it believes in nothing, least of all the legitimacy of its own fight against ‎them. This will not change, regardless how many reservist forces France now calls up to help ‎protect the country. The fight becomes especially tricky, tragicomically so, when it is fought while ‎intensely fearing the causing of any offence.‎

In contrast, Israel is a vibrant place of almost endless faith. Not just in the traditional and religious ‎sense but a general and secular faith in the worth and the future of the country pervades Israeli ‎society. Israel believes in itself and is more than willing to fight for itself, and this belief manifests itself in ‎myriad ways, not only in its military prowess and in the countless innovations for which it has become ‎so famous, but in its celebrations of its Jewish past, present and future at every given ‎opportunity. It is also evident in the high birth rate in the country, while Europeans are not having enough children to maintain their own populations.

Israel may be located in a neighborhood that is full of enemies and terrorists, but Israel is also ‎committed to dealing with those security issues, whatever it takes. Israel is here to stay, ‎and Israelis are determined to keep it that way, never even contemplating resigning themselves to whatever ‎malignant plans others may have in store for them.‎

No, Europe is not Israel. Not even close.

Posted on

Israel and US Liberal Jews

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

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

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

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

–  Republican Party’s 2016 Platform

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

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

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

Neither inevitable nor irreversible

This is of course an entirely absurd state of affairs.

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

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

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

Narcissistic hypocrisy vs indolent incompetence 

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

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

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

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

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

Totally detached from fact & reason

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

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

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

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

Wrong on every count

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, it should.

Beneath the disingenuous gobbledygook

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

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

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

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

Down to the last Israeli

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

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

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

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

Expose and inform

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Boris Johnson, Israel, and the Shifting Sands of Global Leadership

Boris Johnson is an unconventional politician.  After successfully leading the Brexit camp to the victory, he has now been named as Theresa May’s new Foreign Minister. Boris Johnson is not only an unabashed nationalist in the British mold, he has recognized that the world has changed.  During the Brexit campaign Johnson and politician Nigel Farage rightly argued that an overly bureucratic European Union stuck in a 20th Century paradigm was choking Britain and holding it back from dealing with a rising China, Russia, India, and Israel.

By naming Boris Johnson as her foreign minister, May essentially sends a signal that the game the Europeans have been playing with the world is up.  Afterall, when the game turns deadly, what else can be expected.  Britain has always had two sides to her.  One as the highly manipulative colonial overlord and the other being the liberty seeking altruist. Neither is 100% representative of Great Britain’s demure, but Boris Johnson’s ascendency to the face of the Kingdom seems to be an acquiesence that Britain can no longer remain attached to the ideas of old.

Afterall, Johnson himself caught much flack when he slammed the BDS movement. “I cannot think of anything more foolish” than to boycott “a country that when all is said and done is the only democracy in the region, the only place that has in my view a pluralist open society,” he said.

Britain as a partner rather than an unwanted interloculator  is of course a postive step. Yet, as has been noted in the past, Britain ends up doing whatever is good for Britain and by whatever means is necessary.  Right now those that control the purse have decided to let the liberty contingent assume power, yet if May and Johnson rock the  boat too much their control won’t last long.

The British elite which are the ones who have set policy since the beginning of the kingdom have always had to bend at times of rising populism.  The tide right now seems to be going in that direction.

Israel must not forget that it was Britain, as colonial master in the Land of Israel, incited Arabs to inflict maximum damage to Jews, while preventing the Jews from defending themselves.  It was the British government which actively blocked Jews from coming to the Land of Israel only to be sent back to Europe to die. It was the British who armed and directed the Arab armies against the young Jewish State. The same British overlords reveled in the the choas they created here in Israel and across Africa and the Middle East in order to ensure maxmum profit without the obligations of justice. They shifted populations and aided Arab allies in migrating, conquering, and controlling much of the indigenous non-Arab populace.

Can Theresa May and Boris Johnson rectify the past sins of the old order without being thrown out by the British elite?  This is highly doubtful, but for now though Boris Johnson becoming Foreign Minister is at least an acknowledgement that global leadership may be shifting away from Europe and shifting fast.

Posted on

Terrorism is a Mindset

(Our correspondent from Pashtun Times shares his thoughts on the source of radical Islam)

Terrorism. Extremism. Fundamentalism. Violence. Killing innocents. What exactly do we talk; or justify about? Is it the act of it? Or is it the thought process? Is it the action? Or is it the thinking and ideology behind the action? Is it really the 72 virgins or is it just the self-satisfaction of being harmful? Is it about trying hard to show how we can dominate the others to respect us of fear? Thinking fear is the only ultimate way to enforce a belief? Or are the 72 virgins more important than the family and the crying mother he is leaving behind? Is it the crying mother or actually a proud mother who is by thinking her son did a great job and maybe the son also knows about it? And if so why? Because this world is not giving her son the virgin when he needs? Or is it that he has nothing in life to do except read just one book in life and stay worthless and jobless? Therefore before dying herself the mother wants to see the end of her son’s struggle on earth? Whatever is the reasoning, these are not individualistic one off cases- as such cases are so many. And it is not just any result of just a few individual’s or family frustrations. It is a common phenomenon seen.

First let us get a few fundamental concepts right. Poverty is not an excuse for crime. And war is not a reason for producing future criminals. Bin Laden belonged to a very rich family and so do many other terrorists. There are millions of poor Muslims in India too. If war would have created terrorists then Vietnam would have been hub of global terrorists and a few other nations too. So stop blaming USA and any local civil war either. Of course Islam as a whole can never be blamed either because 200 million Malaysians and almost 175 million Indian Muslims are not terrorists. More importantly, only handful and very few brainwasher Imams and Molvis cannot be blamed alone either. Equally responsible are the societies where these people are born; the people they grow up with; the things they see and hear around them, throughout their lives. In the lands of Wahabis there are very few blasts. Why? Only because their law and order, police and army are more strong and strict? Or because they keep their land safe and fund terrorism outside in other Muslim countries? Even if that is true what is it that provokes people of those other countries to do the acts of terrorism? Is it only the misinterpretation of a holy book? Is it really that simple? Even if we accept that they are taught these things and are trained from childhood in Madrassahs then the question is whom to blame eventually? The preachers or the parents who are willingly sending their children there? Doing suicide blast is equal to burning after death which is Haram. How that will give Jannath/paradise? Plus if they are not Muslims after hanging let their bodies be burnt.

A Hindu friend, Prithwi Banerjee, told me that he is living and working in Afghanistan for over 7 years  with so much of pleasure, happiness and friendliness with all the Muslims around him. He said that he knows very well how much the Muslims in Afghanistan hate terrorism.

So, it also does not look good that the entire community is blamed for a few people. Moreover, it looks worse when people give justification of Islam is religion of peace as there is no need of that. Rather such justification makes things worse. If few people start saying that some of us are really so very bad people and are motivated by some of us only; then and only then they will start getting the proper empathy from everyone else globally. Justification makes them more close to the criminals. And telling all that terrorists have no religion is also like giving another unnecessary justification which does not change anything. More justifications like only 1 out of 10,000 are like this, Muslims are killing only Muslims so how you call them they are Muslims, and Islam prohibits killing of innocents; makes things worse. Everyone knows that. No need to justify. Are you saying that if they kill non-Muslims then we can call them to be true Muslims? Statements like ‘If the killers kill in the name of Allah or kill those people who does not know Kalma that does not make them followers of Allah’; this is not required. What is required is very sensible thinking for the entire society.

It has to be accepted that just doing blast, suicide attack or any other sort of attack on innocents are not the only part of terrorism. The real sort is in thinking process. Did the misinterpretors of the Koran come from Mars? No. Did those disciples of such hate preachers come from Moon? No. Are they creating any book of their own and misinterpreting it? No. Do they have any print media of their own and is it a global nexus of any sort? No. Then from where such thoughts of such acts are coming? It is coming from basic core thought process of the society. And that has to change. That social thought process is provoking the misinterpretations of the Koran. Even if the 1400 years old context means something drastic, today’s globalized thought should not take the wrong meaning out of that. When there is pure hatred of each and every citizen towards these people then nobody will give them shelter and then you will not need police or army to kill or capture them. If this does not change one cannot blame only the terrorists for doing wrong because then everyone is equally responsible. And those who are killing they do not think they are killing the innocent. They think anyone who is non follower is criminal. Word of Jihad is not their invention at least. Almost everyone needs to change themselves from inside to make sure these things stop. So stop blaming outsiders only. A small child does that. Blaming another boy in school for doing the wrong thing. Without internal motivation how can external motivation effect so hard? Without demand how can continuous supply work? Examples of such thoughts need to change:

  1. Thinking my God is better than yours
  2. Thinking this is the best religion – all others are rubbish
  3. Thinking Israel is pure Jews – but still ISIS is not Muslim
  4. Having soft corner for them who provoke Jihadi thought
  5. Being happy when US Army convoy is hit by the Taliban
  6. Being again and again fooled in the name of brotherhood
  7. Not being able to accept science in modern education
  8. Saying Congrats of Eid on Facebook only to all Muslims
  9. Being happy that Zakir Naik “defeated” Sri Sri in debate
  10. Saying Shah Rukh is our’s but unaware of Selina Jethley

I can go on. The list will become more than 50 and not just 10, but next time. There is shortage of space and time now. But I hope I have been able to clarify my points. And those people, who will show extremist reaction to this post, they are actually the very good examples of what I am talking about, where lies the real problem, and what they must change in themselves and their children. Always remember that getting rid of the responsibility by saying they do not belong to us is not a solution to save oneself. Would you have accepted a same reaction and logic of terrorism if people of another faith carry on the same thing? So stop making up fake stories of which big country is behind this and start counting how many millions of your own people indirectly supports or at least in the heart enjoys any such thing that happens. Think. There is time. And surely Allah needs you. To be a part who will actually start to get into the root of all these things and bring the peace back. Or else – the Dajjal being born and grown inside will finish everybody.

Posted on

Balak’s Message for Israel’s Redemption Today

After learning of Moshe’s stunning victory against the Amorites, King Balak of Moav forged an alliance with Midian in order to wage war together against the Children of Israel. Once realizing the extent of Israel’s strength, however, Moav and Midian enlisted the infamous Bilaam to attack the Hebrew tribes through spiritual means.

Rabbi Shmuel Bornsztain – the second Admor of the Sokhatshov Ḥasidic dynasty – teaches in his Shem MiShmuel that Balak did not necessarily seek Israel’s destruction but was determined “to strike it and drive it away from the land” (BAMIDBAR 22:6). Pointing out that Israel posed no direct threat to either Moav or Midian, as neither people’s territory was en route to the Promised Land, the Shem MiShmuel quotes our Sages as teaching that Balak’s primary goal was to prevent the Hebrew tribes from entering the Land of Israel (Tanḥuma Balak 4, Bamidbar Rabbah 20:7).

The Shem MiShmuel further quotes the explanation of the Ḥidushei HaRim – the first Ger Admor Rabbi Yitzḥak Meir Alter – on the verse “the heavens are HaShem’s but the earth He gave to mankind” (TEHILLIM 115:16), where he teaches that man is tasked with creating heaven from earth by giving concrete physical expressions to the Divine Ideal. This is accomplished through the performance of themitzvot that uplift all aspects of the material world to their highest functions in existence. According to the Ḥidushei HaRim, this verse reveals the entire purpose of Creation.

Israel is charged with establishing a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (SHEMOT 19:6) that will elevate every sphere of national life and reveal the kedusha inherent in our physical world. The Shem MiShmuel explains that Israel’s task is not to live monastic spiritual lives in the desert but to express the Divine Ideal in all areas of human endeavor. This goal necessitates the establishment of a Hebrew Kingdom in Eretz Yisrael that will serve as a light unto nations and reveal HaShem’s Oneness to all humankind.

According to the Shem MiShmuel, Balak and Bilaam desperately sought to avoid such a kingdom for fear Israel’s example would force them to apply a Divine moral standard to governance, commerce and other features of the material world, ultimately stripping them of the benefits they enjoyed from the corruption permeating the political realm. Having no objection to Hebrews living lives of individual piety disconnected from national life, Moav and Midian feared the establishment of a Hebrew Kingdom because they intuitively understood that if Am Yisrael were to achieve political sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, we would eliminate the illusory separation of “religion” and “state” and influence humankind to ultimately adopt policies that reflect a higher moral standard. Through Bilaam’s ability to curse, they hoped to keep Israel forever stranded in the desert where we could live ascetic spiritual lives disconnected from national issues. But while our enemies championed a separation of kedushaand statecraft, Israel’s historic mission demands that we materialize our spiritual ideals on a national level so that the Torah’s deepest values attain full expression in this world.

Once Bilaam is recruited for the war effort against Israel, the Torah recounts a bizarre situation in which the very laws of nature were temporarily altered. Although nevua as it is generally understood is an exclusively Hebrew trait, the gentile Bilaam possessed some level of prophecy and even attempted to use this gift to assist Israel’s enemies. When HaShem obstructed Bilaam’s path and he in turn began to beat his donkey, another abnormal occurrence took place.

“HaShem opened the mouth of the she-donkey and it said to Bilaam, ‘What have I done to you that you struck me these three times?’” (BAMIDBAR 22:28)

Bilaam’s donkey actually spoke as if she were human, complaining to her master for his abusive treatment and humiliating him before the elders of Moav. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi teaches in The Kuzari that there are five levels of Creation (inanimate objects, plant life, animals, human beings, Israel). One attribute that separates between the third and fourth levels – between animals and humans – is the power of speech. And the major trait differentiating Israel from human beings is the potential to attain nevua (or at least prophecy that can transcend one’s own national experience). Bilaam’s donkey was able to speak only for the sake of clarifying the significance of Bilaam’s prophecy. Just as HaShem bent the laws of nature in order that a donkey could possess the ability to speak, so too was He bending the laws of nature in order that a gentile could possess the ability to prophesy regarding Israel. And rather than allow him to utter a curse against the Hebrews as Balak had instructed, HaShem forced Bilaam to bless His treasured nation.

The Maharal of Prague teaches in Netzaḥ Yisrael that the greatness of Bilaam’s blessing exceeded even those of Yaakov and Moshe, possessing no rebuke or distraction from pure brakha (Yalkut Shimoni Balak 25). Bilaam represented the extreme opposite of Israel’s spiritual power and the intensity of his desire to curse the Hebrew tribes made him the ideal candidate to serve as the conduit for HaShem’s abundant blessing, illustrating the Kadosh Barukh Hu’s mastery over even those forces that appear to stand in the way of Israel’s national mission. But to fully grasp why HaShem would suspend the world’s natural order by granting Bilaam such a uniquely Hebrew trait, we must examine a piece of his final message and understand what Divine benefit could be extracted from the anomaly.

“I shall see him, but not now, I shall look at him, but it is not near. A star has issued from Yaakov and a tribe has risen from Israel, and he shall pierce the nobles of Moav and undermine the children of Shet. Edom shall be a conquest and Seir shall be the conquest of his enemies – and Israel will attain success. One from Yaakov shall rule and destroy the remnant of the city.’” (BAMIDBAR 24:17-19)

The holy Ohr HaḤaim explains these verses to mean that if the redemption occurs due to Israel’s merit, it will come as a supernatural event with the messianic redeemer being revealed through great wonders. But if the redemption comes in its time – without the Hebrew Nation necessarily deserving it – there will rise up a group of Jews who come together and – through human endeavor – will assist HaShem (so to speak) in bringing the redemption through natural means.

The redemption can occur in one of two ways. The first option, known as aḥishena (hastened), is a miraculous and supernatural event in which the Nation of Israel is righteous and deserving. The second possibility, where Israel is unworthy, is generally referred to as bi’eta(in its time). This second option exists because as the predetermined goal of all human history, the redemption of Israel must ultimately come about and therefore has a set time if we do not merit it sooner. The Ohr HaḤaim understands from Bilaam’s prophecy that the redemption will most likely unfold through an organization of activists uniting to bring the Jewish people back to the Land of Israel through practical human means.

This understanding – which sheds light on much of what has been taking place in modern times – is well worth HaShem temporarily altering the laws of nature and allowing a gentile to attain a uniquely Hebrew form of prophecy. Israel must internalize this crucial message in order to not only gain a heightened perspective of current events but also to fulfill our national objective of establishing the Hebrew Kingdom that will ultimately reveal the kedusha inherent in all of Creation and bring humanity to recognize HaShem as the Divine Author of the story in which we are all participants.

Posted on

Who Has the Moral High Ground?

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

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

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

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

WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?

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

Or:

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

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

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

2. TIME FOR REFLECTION

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

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

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

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

3. THE TURKEY THAT ONCE WAS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly reassuring!!

Posted on

Once a Colonialist, Always a Colonialist

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

You can take the Europeans out of the former colonies, but you cannot take the colonialism out of the Europeans. That much is clear, at least as far as the European Union is concerned. In an interview with Israeli journalist and TV anchor Eylon Aslan-Levy, EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen was asked why the EU supports the French peace initiative when the Israeli prime minister has called for direct negotiations. “Why doesn’t the European Union simply pressure Abbas to take up Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation?” asked Aslan-Levy.

Faaborg-Andersen replied, “Because I think experience has shown that the parties are not capable on their own to reach a stage where they are able to sit down and negotiate. There is a need for a third-party involvement and I think that the Paris conference was a recognition of that fact [sic] that there was need for international focus on this issue that has been somewhat dormant for some time, I mean the peace process, and I think this was the motivating factor behind the French initiative coupled with the fact that we are seeing a constant deterioration of the situation on the ground bringing us further away from a two-state solution rather than closer to [sic].”

The Europe of the postnational European Union no longer invades other peoples’ countries in order to colonize them, but it still uses all its powers — limited and toothless as they are — to invade how other nations should think and feel about the world, and to impose its distinct European view of how the world should spin for the rest of us.

We all know how hard it is to break an old habit, and the ideological parts of colonialism still come very naturally to the descendant of the old Europe — even if the EU mistakenly believes that being ostensibly riddled with post-colonial guilt and inviting half the world’s migrants into its own backyard somehow exculpates it from all its past and present sins.

For those still in doubt, Faaborg-Andersen’s reply that “the parties are not capable on their own” is clear evidence of the racism and cultural condescension — such characteristic parts of the colonialist project — still being a very potent factor in European policies, despite all assurances to the contrary for the past half century. The “natives,” i.e., the Jews and the Arabs, are incapable of solving anything on their own, which is why we ostensibly need the wisdom and superiority of the European Union to guide our ignorant and misguided steps in this world. Just who do the Europeans think that they are?

Even though the European Union is the Palestinian Authority’s best friend, and although the latter can do no wrong according to the former, let there be no doubt that the PA is merely a tool, a means to an end, in the hands of the European Union.

Had the PA’s enemy not been the Jews, but instead other Muslims, Christians or Yazidis, the European Union would have been out of there, taking its many billions of euros with it, faster than you can say “postcolonial guilt.” If you doubt this contention, take a hard look at all the internecine Muslim strife and the ongoing genocides against non-Muslims in the Middle East and Africa. The European Union is nowhere to be seen, its billions of euros entirely absent and its need to impose solutions completely gone missing.

In case you were wondering, European racism is still very much present even in the company of its best buddies in the PA. Only here it is the subtler racism of low expectations. Anything that the PA does, no matter how murderous, vile and inhumane, never elicits anything but the mildest form of vague condemnation, if any, from the EU.

In the interview with Aslan-Levy, the EU ambassador could not bring himself to condemn the standing ovation that the European Parliament gave Abbas for his blood-libel speech two weeks ago in Brussels, instead outrageously stating that there were probably also European parliamentarians who did not appreciate what Israeli President Reuven Rivlin had to say in his speech to the same body.

The moral narcissism of the European Union is no better than the moral narcissism of its colonialist European predecessors. It’s just a different century.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Utterly Unconscionable

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

(Originally published on Arutz Sheva)

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

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

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

Resounding rejection

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

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

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

The Zoabi index

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

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

Regrettably, but inevitably, many will believe her.

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

Perilous permit

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

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

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

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

Gas as an excuse?

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

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

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

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

Israel would do well to heed this warning.

The impact on others

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

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

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

Impact (cont)

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

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

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

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

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

Superfluous surrender

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

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

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

Either he would; or he wouldn’t.

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

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

Real reason for rupture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond official “spin”

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