Jordan's Opposition leader's interview with Israel News Talk Show: Our aim to topple the regime peacefully and to establish a state built on citizenship, we will ends the king's theft of public funds and improve the living conditions of all Jordanians, and we shall enhance Jordan's strategic partnership with the US and Israel
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Mudar Zahran interviewed by Israel Radio
Jordan's Opposition leader's interview with Israel News Talk Show: Our aim to topple the regime peacefully and to establish a state built on citizenship, we will ends the king's theft of public funds and improve the living conditions of all Jordanians, and we shall enhance Jordan's strategic partnership with the US and Israel
Quo Vadis the Arab Tsunami (a.k.a. "the Arab Spring")?
|
|
|
Friday, August 18, 2017
INTO THE FRAY: Neo-unilateralism – Futile, fatal folly
By Martin Sherman
New calls for unilateral withdrawal are both pernicious—because of the calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not
I can even pin dates on it. In 2007 or 2008 we will have another major disengagement in the West Bank. And within a decade, we will unilaterally repartition Jerusalem along lines we will unilaterally select … What Israelis have understood – and this is the underlying feature of the disengagement – is that we need to leave Gaza and Nablus, not because it will bring peace, but because there will be perpetual terror…
–Dan Schueftan, then one of the principle advocates for the 2005 unilateral evacuation from Gaza, predicting it would be only a first step in a “wider historical process” of further unilateral Israeli withdrawals, The Jerusalem Report, September 2005.
…it [unilateral withdrawal] promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite [and] threatens to tear political and social systems apart…-Dan Schueftan, today director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, on the impact of unilateral withdrawal from Judea-Samaria, which he urges Israel to adopt(!), in Tablet Magazine, August 8, 2017
The proposal for (re)adoption of unilateral withdrawal—this time from Judea-Samaria—began to emerge in the public discourse over four years ago.
Foreseeable fatal flaws
Since then, I have warned, insistently and incessantly, of the glaring defects in the rationale of this resurgent recipe for foretold failure– see: The coming canard: ‘Constructive unilateralism’; Stupendously stupid or surreptitiously sinister; Infuriating, insidious, immoral; Imbecility squared – Part 1; Imbecility squared- Part 2; Generals, gimmicks and gobbledygook.
Yet despite its clearly discernible flaws, which virtually ensure disaster if it were to be (re)adopted, this ill-conceived idea not only remains stubbornly on the national agenda, but—almost inconceivably—is gaining increasing support from an alarming number of well-funded organizations and influential individuals.
It is, in many ways, the flagship project of the well-endowed Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). It is also championed by what is effectively INSS’s public advocacy arm, Blue and White Future. Likewise, it is endorsed by Commanders for Israel Security (CIS) an organization reportedly comprising over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.
Not ad hominem attack
The most recent call for “unilateral disengagement from the overwhelming majority of the West Bank…and massive rooting-out of Jewish populations” comes from none other than the Director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, Dr. Dan Schueftan.
In a rambling essay, over 3000 words long, in Tablet Magazine, replete with internal contradictions and riddled with non-sequiturs, Schueftan sets out his “rationale” (for want of a better word) for Israel to adopt a policy, which, in his own words, “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite[and]threatens to tear political and social systems apart…”
Although I shall have decidedly harsh criticism of Schueftan’s policy prescriptions, I should like to make it clear: This is not an ad hominem attack on the author, but a resolute repudiation of his ideas.
I have been acquainted with Schueftan for years, and have found him to be a very affable individual, a learned scholar and a gifted—albeit not always the most genteel—orator. However, as someone who holds a prestigious position in academe and is responsible for molding the strategic perspective of a large number of students, the doctrines he expounds cannot go un-scrutinized, and, if found defective, unchallenged.
The fact that he may genuinely believe that what he is proposing is in the national interest should not shield him from censure if it can be plausibly demonstrated that it will precipitate precisely the opposite.
Pernicious puerile prescription
All the proposals of the various proponents of renewed unilateral withdrawal embrace the same principle–with only shades of nuance differentiating between them.
This involves Israel’s forswearing all sovereign claims to any territory beyond a line that approximates the route of the current security barrier and acting to remove Israeli civilian presence from this territory. In light of the disastrous results similar measures produced in Gaza, “neo-unilateralists” attempt to assuage public concern by stipulating that the IDF will remain deployed in the areas over which Israel eschews sovereignty.
Thus, CIS proposes that IDF deployment will continue until the emergence of “a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians [which] ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.” Closely mirroring this idea, Schueftan, peppering his concessionary prescription with machoistic rhetoric, suggests: “…the mainstream majority can be expected to consider a unilateral move positively if they know that the IDF will remain in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”.
This of course is a prescription that is, at once, pernicious—because of the predictably calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not…
Entrapping the IDF in open-ended occupation
Inevitably, the proposal for ongoing deployment of the Israeli military in territory over which Israel makes no sovereign claims would, in a stroke, convert Judea-Samaria from “disputed territory” to “occupied territory” and the IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”. Worse, it would do so by explicit admission from Israel itself!
Moreover, by conditioning the end of IDF deployment on the emergence of “alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements” or in Schueftan’s words, leaving the IDF in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”, the neo-unilateralists are, in fact, promoting a formula for open-ended occupation, whose duration is totally dependent on the Palestinian-Arabs.
After all, if the IDF is to remain deployed in the “West Bank” until some “dependable” Palestinian counterpart appears, sufficiently pliant to satisfy Israel’s demands, but sufficiently robust to resist more radical domestic rivals that oppose those demands, what happens if such a counterpart fails to emerge?
Clearly then, all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in what will inevitably become an increasingly unpopular “occupation”, making it 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 unending “occupation” create growing external pressure, which will make continued IDF deployment untenable. Withdrawal will then become inevitable, without any “permanent settlement” or “sustainable security arrangements”.
Unsustainable strategy
Schueftan is caustically critical of Palestinian society in Judea-Samaria, characterizing it as “a profoundly irresponsible society [with] elites who are unwilling to engage in constructive nation-building [who] prefer to glorify and finance terrorists and perpetuate narratives of unlimited grievance vis-à-vis the Jewish state”.
So even in the unlikely event that some Palestinian-Arab partner could be located, who would, in good faith, agree to conclude a permanent status agreement and implement acceptable security arrangements allowing 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 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 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.
Certainly, given Schueftan’s own uncomplimentary description of Palestinian society such an outcome can hardly be dismissed as implausible
What is the neo-unilateralist’s “Plan B”?
Accordingly, no matter which of these outcomes—a change of heart or a change of regime—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 dominating the coastal megalopolis—overlooking its only international airport, adjacent to its major population centers and abutting principal transportation axes.
It would be intriguing to learn what neo-unilateralists, such as Schueftan, propose as their “Plan B”, should the realities precipitated in the South following unilateral withdrawal, emerge along Israel’s eastern border. Clearly anything approaching those realities on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv would make the maintenance of any socio-economic routine impossible—since it could be disrupted at will by hostile forces, renegade or regular, deployed on the commanding highlands evacuated by the IDF.
So how would Schueftan and his fellow neo-unilateralists recommend responding? A massive punitive attack along a 500 km front, with difficult terrain and inevitable “collateral damage”, likely to dwarf anything incurred in previous campaigns such as “Protective Edge”? And to what end? To withdraw once again behind the security barrier? Or to withdraw and repeat the same “experiment”, hoping for more fortuitous results next time? Or the time after that?
Touting a giant South Lebanon on fringes of Tel Aviv
Of course, the basic elements of the new unilateralism— forswearing of claims to sovereignty over Judea-Samaria, on the one hand; and continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other—replicate precisely the same conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the IDF’s hasty retreat in 2000.
Clearly, under these conditions, any hope that the conflict can be officially resolved with some negotiated final-status agreement is hopelessly detached from reality. After all, why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has a-priori conceded sovereignty to them and ceased all civilian construction, condemning the settlements to inevitable decay and disintegration?
Moreover, what would be the justification for continued IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others—especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance sustaining the belligerency between the sides?
Accordingly, proposals for 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—will create an unsustainable political configuration, which, sooner or later, will generate irresistible pressure on Israel to withdraw—just as it did in Lebanon—leaving the country exposed to the very dangers the IDF deployment was intended to obviate.
Futile folly
As mentioned, Schueftan concedes that his prescribed unilateralism “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism… Accordingly, he asks: “why embark on an extremely painful process” which, by his own admission will traumatize “hundreds of thousands of Israelis…and threaten to tear…Israeli society apart.”
His answer, in a nutshell , is that it will, allegedly, free Israel from the burden of “dominating and caring for them [the Palestinian-Arabs] for over half a century” which is precisely what we were told about unilateral disengagement from Gaza –which is still, a decade later, critically dependent on Israel for a wide range of goods and services.
Of course, to believe that Schueftan’s prescription will achieve such freedom is a futile and forlorn hope. Indeed, the very fact that the IDF is to remain deployed in Judea-Samaria with overriding authority for security, will impose very similar burdens and responsibilities to those it bears today. It will need to exert authority over local law enforcement organizations, and perhaps countermand any decisions they make if considered detrimental to Israel’s security. It will have to regulate and inspect a wide range of civilian activities, such as the management of dangerous industrial pollutants, sewage flows into Israel, and the inspection of usage of dual purpose material like steel, fertilizers and cement to ensure that are not diverted to manufacture weapons or tunnels…
And I have only begun to scratch the surface…
Epilogue
In February 2004, prior to the Gaza Disengagement, Schueftan, gave an interview to “New York Magazine”, where he was billed as “the highly regarded Israeli analyst and academic whose concept of unilateral disengagement now dominates debate in Israel”. In it he proclaimed: “The Israeli public wants to be completely cut off from the Palestinians, and as a result nobody can be prime minister without going in this direction. It’s not even an option if they want to stay in power.”
Of course, since then, Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have disregarded Schueftan counsel–only to become the longest serving prime minister in decades…which might be a good indicator of merit with which Schueftan’s prognoses/prescriptions should be credited…
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
New calls for unilateral withdrawal are both pernicious—because of the calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not
I can even pin dates on it. In 2007 or 2008 we will have another major disengagement in the West Bank. And within a decade, we will unilaterally repartition Jerusalem along lines we will unilaterally select … What Israelis have understood – and this is the underlying feature of the disengagement – is that we need to leave Gaza and Nablus, not because it will bring peace, but because there will be perpetual terror…
–Dan Schueftan, then one of the principle advocates for the 2005 unilateral evacuation from Gaza, predicting it would be only a first step in a “wider historical process” of further unilateral Israeli withdrawals, The Jerusalem Report, September 2005.
…it [unilateral withdrawal] promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite [and] threatens to tear political and social systems apart…-Dan Schueftan, today director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, on the impact of unilateral withdrawal from Judea-Samaria, which he urges Israel to adopt(!), in Tablet Magazine, August 8, 2017
The proposal for (re)adoption of unilateral withdrawal—this time from Judea-Samaria—began to emerge in the public discourse over four years ago.
Foreseeable fatal flaws
Since then, I have warned, insistently and incessantly, of the glaring defects in the rationale of this resurgent recipe for foretold failure– see: The coming canard: ‘Constructive unilateralism’; Stupendously stupid or surreptitiously sinister; Infuriating, insidious, immoral; Imbecility squared – Part 1; Imbecility squared- Part 2; Generals, gimmicks and gobbledygook.
Yet despite its clearly discernible flaws, which virtually ensure disaster if it were to be (re)adopted, this ill-conceived idea not only remains stubbornly on the national agenda, but—almost inconceivably—is gaining increasing support from an alarming number of well-funded organizations and influential individuals.
It is, in many ways, the flagship project of the well-endowed Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). It is also championed by what is effectively INSS’s public advocacy arm, Blue and White Future. Likewise, it is endorsed by Commanders for Israel Security (CIS) an organization reportedly comprising over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.
Not ad hominem attack
The most recent call for “unilateral disengagement from the overwhelming majority of the West Bank…and massive rooting-out of Jewish populations” comes from none other than the Director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, Dr. Dan Schueftan.
In a rambling essay, over 3000 words long, in Tablet Magazine, replete with internal contradictions and riddled with non-sequiturs, Schueftan sets out his “rationale” (for want of a better word) for Israel to adopt a policy, which, in his own words, “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite[and]threatens to tear political and social systems apart…”
Although I shall have decidedly harsh criticism of Schueftan’s policy prescriptions, I should like to make it clear: This is not an ad hominem attack on the author, but a resolute repudiation of his ideas.
I have been acquainted with Schueftan for years, and have found him to be a very affable individual, a learned scholar and a gifted—albeit not always the most genteel—orator. However, as someone who holds a prestigious position in academe and is responsible for molding the strategic perspective of a large number of students, the doctrines he expounds cannot go un-scrutinized, and, if found defective, unchallenged.
The fact that he may genuinely believe that what he is proposing is in the national interest should not shield him from censure if it can be plausibly demonstrated that it will precipitate precisely the opposite.
Pernicious puerile prescription
All the proposals of the various proponents of renewed unilateral withdrawal embrace the same principle–with only shades of nuance differentiating between them.
This involves Israel’s forswearing all sovereign claims to any territory beyond a line that approximates the route of the current security barrier and acting to remove Israeli civilian presence from this territory. In light of the disastrous results similar measures produced in Gaza, “neo-unilateralists” attempt to assuage public concern by stipulating that the IDF will remain deployed in the areas over which Israel eschews sovereignty.
Thus, CIS proposes that IDF deployment will continue until the emergence of “a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians [which] ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.” Closely mirroring this idea, Schueftan, peppering his concessionary prescription with machoistic rhetoric, suggests: “…the mainstream majority can be expected to consider a unilateral move positively if they know that the IDF will remain in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”.
This of course is a prescription that is, at once, pernicious—because of the predictably calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not…
Entrapping the IDF in open-ended occupation
Inevitably, the proposal for ongoing deployment of the Israeli military in territory over which Israel makes no sovereign claims would, in a stroke, convert Judea-Samaria from “disputed territory” to “occupied territory” and the IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”. Worse, it would do so by explicit admission from Israel itself!
Moreover, by conditioning the end of IDF deployment on the emergence of “alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements” or in Schueftan’s words, leaving the IDF in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”, the neo-unilateralists are, in fact, promoting a formula for open-ended occupation, whose duration is totally dependent on the Palestinian-Arabs.
After all, if the IDF is to remain deployed in the “West Bank” until some “dependable” Palestinian counterpart appears, sufficiently pliant to satisfy Israel’s demands, but sufficiently robust to resist more radical domestic rivals that oppose those demands, what happens if such a counterpart fails to emerge?
Clearly then, all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in what will inevitably become an increasingly unpopular “occupation”, making it 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 unending “occupation” create growing external pressure, which will make continued IDF deployment untenable. Withdrawal will then become inevitable, without any “permanent settlement” or “sustainable security arrangements”.
Unsustainable strategy
Schueftan is caustically critical of Palestinian society in Judea-Samaria, characterizing it as “a profoundly irresponsible society [with] elites who are unwilling to engage in constructive nation-building [who] prefer to glorify and finance terrorists and perpetuate narratives of unlimited grievance vis-à-vis the Jewish state”.
So even in the unlikely event that some Palestinian-Arab partner could be located, who would, in good faith, agree to conclude a permanent status agreement and implement acceptable security arrangements allowing 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 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 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.
Certainly, given Schueftan’s own uncomplimentary description of Palestinian society such an outcome can hardly be dismissed as implausible
What is the neo-unilateralist’s “Plan B”?
Accordingly, no matter which of these outcomes—a change of heart or a change of regime—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 dominating the coastal megalopolis—overlooking its only international airport, adjacent to its major population centers and abutting principal transportation axes.
It would be intriguing to learn what neo-unilateralists, such as Schueftan, propose as their “Plan B”, should the realities precipitated in the South following unilateral withdrawal, emerge along Israel’s eastern border. Clearly anything approaching those realities on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv would make the maintenance of any socio-economic routine impossible—since it could be disrupted at will by hostile forces, renegade or regular, deployed on the commanding highlands evacuated by the IDF.
So how would Schueftan and his fellow neo-unilateralists recommend responding? A massive punitive attack along a 500 km front, with difficult terrain and inevitable “collateral damage”, likely to dwarf anything incurred in previous campaigns such as “Protective Edge”? And to what end? To withdraw once again behind the security barrier? Or to withdraw and repeat the same “experiment”, hoping for more fortuitous results next time? Or the time after that?
Touting a giant South Lebanon on fringes of Tel Aviv
Of course, the basic elements of the new unilateralism— forswearing of claims to sovereignty over Judea-Samaria, on the one hand; and continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other—replicate precisely the same conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the IDF’s hasty retreat in 2000.
Clearly, under these conditions, any hope that the conflict can be officially resolved with some negotiated final-status agreement is hopelessly detached from reality. After all, why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has a-priori conceded sovereignty to them and ceased all civilian construction, condemning the settlements to inevitable decay and disintegration?
Moreover, what would be the justification for continued IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others—especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance sustaining the belligerency between the sides?
Accordingly, proposals for 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—will create an unsustainable political configuration, which, sooner or later, will generate irresistible pressure on Israel to withdraw—just as it did in Lebanon—leaving the country exposed to the very dangers the IDF deployment was intended to obviate.
Futile folly
As mentioned, Schueftan concedes that his prescribed unilateralism “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism… Accordingly, he asks: “why embark on an extremely painful process” which, by his own admission will traumatize “hundreds of thousands of Israelis…and threaten to tear…Israeli society apart.”
His answer, in a nutshell , is that it will, allegedly, free Israel from the burden of “dominating and caring for them [the Palestinian-Arabs] for over half a century” which is precisely what we were told about unilateral disengagement from Gaza –which is still, a decade later, critically dependent on Israel for a wide range of goods and services.
Of course, to believe that Schueftan’s prescription will achieve such freedom is a futile and forlorn hope. Indeed, the very fact that the IDF is to remain deployed in Judea-Samaria with overriding authority for security, will impose very similar burdens and responsibilities to those it bears today. It will need to exert authority over local law enforcement organizations, and perhaps countermand any decisions they make if considered detrimental to Israel’s security. It will have to regulate and inspect a wide range of civilian activities, such as the management of dangerous industrial pollutants, sewage flows into Israel, and the inspection of usage of dual purpose material like steel, fertilizers and cement to ensure that are not diverted to manufacture weapons or tunnels…
And I have only begun to scratch the surface…
Epilogue
In February 2004, prior to the Gaza Disengagement, Schueftan, gave an interview to “New York Magazine”, where he was billed as “the highly regarded Israeli analyst and academic whose concept of unilateral disengagement now dominates debate in Israel”. In it he proclaimed: “The Israeli public wants to be completely cut off from the Palestinians, and as a result nobody can be prime minister without going in this direction. It’s not even an option if they want to stay in power.”
Of course, since then, Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have disregarded Schueftan counsel–only to become the longest serving prime minister in decades…which might be a good indicator of merit with which Schueftan’s prognoses/prescriptions should be credited…
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Sorry Ms. Wise, there is no occupation in the land of Israel - and you are not welcomed!
As reported in the Jerusalem Post, five members of an interfaith delegation to Israel were prevented from boarding their flight from Washington, DC, becasue of their activism on behalf of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
This came into play after the Israeli parliament (or Knesset), amended the Law of Entry in March, to prevent leaders of the BDS movement from being allowed into Israel in the future...
According to the report, the amendment specifically applies to organizations that take consistent and significant action against Israel through BDS, as well as the leadership and senior activists of those groups - a move which mind you, I totally agree with...
According to the report, the amendment specifically applies to organizations that take consistent and significant action against Israel through BDS, as well as the leadership and senior activists of those groups - a move which mind you, I totally agree with...
As you can imagine, these liberal Rabbis are pretty upset, including JVP activist Alissa Wise - who said in the JVP statement that Israel denied her the ability to travel to the state because her work for justice for Palestinians poses a danger to Israel's security - which in fact it does...
According to Wise "the mussernik" this outrageous becasue she is Jewish and a Rabbi, which apparently gives her the carte blanche to promote Jewish blood shed in the name of resistance - I might be missing something, perhaps someone can explain her logic to me...
According to Wise "the mussernik" this outrageous becasue she is Jewish and a Rabbi, which apparently gives her the carte blanche to promote Jewish blood shed in the name of resistance - I might be missing something, perhaps someone can explain her logic to me...
“I’m heartbroken and outraged” said Wise. “This is yet another demonstration that democracy and tolerance in Israel only extends to those who fall in line with its increasingly repressive policies against Palestinians”...
As expected, the Israeli government's decision and actions have irked quite a few liberal Jews, including a small group of at least two hundred liberally progressive Rabbis who joined together once again to stab Israel and its Jewish population in the back and sign a "Rabbinic Letter Against Israel’s Travel Ban"...
As expected, the Israeli government's decision and actions have irked quite a few liberal Jews, including a small group of at least two hundred liberally progressive Rabbis who joined together once again to stab Israel and its Jewish population in the back and sign a "Rabbinic Letter Against Israel’s Travel Ban"...
According to the press release of this unholy gathering...
“A controversy for the sake of Heaven will have lasting value, but a controversy not for the sake of Heaven will not endure” (Pirkei Avot 5:17).
We, the undersigned rabbis, stand with our colleague, Rabbi Alissa Shira Wise, who was denied entry to Israel because of her support for the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel.
...the decision to bar Rabbi Wise from visiting Israel is anti-democratic and desecrates our vision of a diverse Jewish community that holds multiple perspectives.
Wow...
It is so rich, it is disgusting, I am truly at a lost for words with rage.
The fact that these Rabbis have a lot of chutzpah to quote Perkei Avot as if they - you know, individuals who've sanctioned all indecency and immorality under the banner of the Jewish faith - have any fear of God, is prosperous. Seriously, who gave these laymen and women (I cringe just writing that) the ability to discern what exactly is considered a dispute which is not for sake of heaven...
Apparently, as per Wise and her ilk, one can commit murder (which make no mistake, support for palestinian cause is exactly that) and at the same time be doing so for the sake of heaven - imagine that...
It is so rich, it is disgusting, I am truly at a lost for words with rage.
The fact that these Rabbis have a lot of chutzpah to quote Perkei Avot as if they - you know, individuals who've sanctioned all indecency and immorality under the banner of the Jewish faith - have any fear of God, is prosperous. Seriously, who gave these laymen and women (I cringe just writing that) the ability to discern what exactly is considered a dispute which is not for sake of heaven...
Apparently, as per Wise and her ilk, one can commit murder (which make no mistake, support for palestinian cause is exactly that) and at the same time be doing so for the sake of heaven - imagine that...
Lets talk to the facts, the bottomline is that any rational person - that is not consumed with the mental illness called progressive liberalism - knows very well that there is no occupation...
Anyone who says otherwise, is not only denying history and how the state of Israel came to be - but is in fact denying what is written in the Torah.
Yes! you know, that Book of Moses, on which the entire Jewish faith is based upon...
Yes! you know, that Book of Moses, on which the entire Jewish faith is based upon...
Within, one will find - stated black on white - that the land of Cenan, (now Israel) was to be our inheritance, given to our forefather Avraham by the one and only God over four millennia ago...
Denying such a fact, I believe, strips an individual from any right they might have had in the past to represent the Jewish people and the land of Israel - and certainly strips them from the so called right to call themselves a Rabbi...
But what I fear the most is not as much the actions of these individuals as much as our community's apparent silence in the face of the aggression of these self hating Jews...
The Babalonian Talmud, 87B tells us that "he who is silent is taken to agree" can it truly be that the words of individuals as Wise do not hurt us to our core? do they not cause us to break into a stupor of rage at the blatant desecration of our Torah and its values on a regular basis?
But what I fear the most is not as much the actions of these individuals as much as our community's apparent silence in the face of the aggression of these self hating Jews...
The Babalonian Talmud, 87B tells us that "he who is silent is taken to agree" can it truly be that the words of individuals as Wise do not hurt us to our core? do they not cause us to break into a stupor of rage at the blatant desecration of our Torah and its values on a regular basis?
God forbid can we remain silent to this onslaught on the basic tenets of our faith, the importance of the land of Israel to our faith, our heritage and our day to day lives...
As such, I think it is appropriate to call on the greater Jewish orthodox community to unite together and make our voices be heard...
Let it be known from this lowly earth to the heavens, that we the people of God and his Torah will not stand idly by to such such a desecration of His name...
Let it be known that as the people of faith, we affirm that while we might be in exile, there is no doubt that the land of Israel is our inheritance from all those years ago, and it is our possession for all eternity without a doubt and with the merit of such an action may we merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days.
Amen!
Let it be known from this lowly earth to the heavens, that we the people of God and his Torah will not stand idly by to such such a desecration of His name...
Let it be known that as the people of faith, we affirm that while we might be in exile, there is no doubt that the land of Israel is our inheritance from all those years ago, and it is our possession for all eternity without a doubt and with the merit of such an action may we merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days.
Amen!
INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm — Hobson’s Choice for Israel (Part II)
By MARTIN SHERMAN
By rigorous process of elimination, we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, as the only possible policy prescription able to adequately address the imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
O, who can hold a fire in his hand; By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite; By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow; By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?
- William Shakespeare, in Richard II, Act1 Scene 3, on the futility of self-deception
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.– Sherlock Holmes, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
Last week I began a two-part analysis of the policy paradigms that have emerged in the public discourse for dealing with the more-than-century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land as the conflict approaches its third post-Oslo decade.
In it, I identified four such archetypical paradigms for its resolution — and one for its “management” (a.k.a. its perpetuation). Moreover, I undertook to demonstrate that only one of these alternatives, the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza) — is consistent with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Accordingly, for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal, it is nothing less than “Hobson’s choice”.
To recap briefly
Readers will recall that I confined the analysis last week to those policy proposals that eschew full or partial Israeli annexation of territory, deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for this week’s discussion.
To recap briefly: In the aforementioned prior analysis I dealt with the (a) idea of “managing the conflict” and (b) the two-state formula.
As for the former, it was shown to reflect disregard for the fact that, without appropriate decisive proactive initiatives, Israel is facing a growing threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it. Accordingly, “managing the conflict” is little more than a pretext for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or do so only at ruinous cost.
As for the latter, it has shown to be a fatally flawed formula, devoid of any sound theoretical foundation or empirical evidence on which to base its naïve prognoses for resolving the conflict by means of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, given the past precedents, there is little reason to believe — and two-state proponents have never provided one — that any future Palestinian state will not rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, precipitating all the harrowing realities, wrought on the hapless residents of the South on those of the coastal megalopolis.
So having dealt with the policy paradigms that eschew annexation — whether full or partial — it is now time to assess those that endorse it.
One-state: Lebanonization of Israeli society
Some pundits on the Israeli “Right”, keenly aware of the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm, have in large measure adopted — albeit for very different reasons — a prescription very similar to that touted by their radical Left-wing adversaries — that of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
According to this proposal, Israel should extend its sovereignty over the entire area of Judea-Samaria and offer immediate permanent residency to all its Palestinian-Arab residents, as well as the right to apply for citizenship at some undefined date, via some undefined process to ascertain loyalty — or at least the absence of disloyalty — to Israel as the Jewish nation state.
The rationale, allegedly underpinning this ill-conceived proposal, is the new, optimistic demographic assessments suggesting that even if Israel were to enfranchise the Muslim population of Judea-Samaria, it would still retain a more than 60% Jewish majority.
Even conceding that this may be true, such a measure is likely to herald disaster for the Zionist enterprise and the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. For the initial electoral arithmetic is hardly the defining factor in assessing the prudence of this approach, but rather the devastating effect it will have on the socio-economic fabric of the country and the impact this will have on preserving Israel as a desired/desirable place of residence for Jews inside and outside the country.
It would take considerable — and unsubstantiated — faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% — as the societal havoc that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe indicate.
Indeed this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.
Lebanonization of Israel (cont.)
Any forlorn hope that life under Israeli sovereignty will somehow “domesticate” the Palestinian-Arabs into reconciling themselves to life in the Jewish nation-state should have been well and truly dashed by the behavior of Israel’s Arab citizens.
After all, despite living (and prospering) for seven decades under Israeli sovereignty — and more than a half-century after military rule over the Arab population was abolished — they not only voted, almost en-bloc, for the vehemently anti-Zionist “Joint List” in the 2015 elections, but displayed great empathy in a mass funeral for the terrorists, from the Israeli town of Um-al Fahm, who murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount.
Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically — and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted. The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria — whether enfranchised or not — become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.
Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce these disparities — siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure, education and so on.
Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13–15 seats in parliament to 25–30. This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.
Moreover, collaboration on various ad hoc parliamentary initiatives with radical Jewish left-wing factions is likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose — in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.
Partial Annexation: The Balkanization of Israel
Thus, while full annexation of Judea-Samaria will almost inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israel — i.e. create a single society, so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; proposals for the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel — (i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.)
Proposals for partial annexation appear to be fueled by (a) concern that total annexation would be too drastic a step for the international community to “swallow”, and (b) a sense that some semblance of self-rule must be facilitated for the Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria. As will be shown, partial annexation will address neither of these issues effectively. Indeed quite the opposite is true.
By rigorous process of elimination, we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, as the only possible policy prescription able to adequately address the imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
O, who can hold a fire in his hand; By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite; By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow; By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?
- William Shakespeare, in Richard II, Act1 Scene 3, on the futility of self-deception
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.– Sherlock Holmes, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
Last week I began a two-part analysis of the policy paradigms that have emerged in the public discourse for dealing with the more-than-century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land as the conflict approaches its third post-Oslo decade.
In it, I identified four such archetypical paradigms for its resolution — and one for its “management” (a.k.a. its perpetuation). Moreover, I undertook to demonstrate that only one of these alternatives, the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza) — is consistent with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Accordingly, for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal, it is nothing less than “Hobson’s choice”.
To recap briefly
Readers will recall that I confined the analysis last week to those policy proposals that eschew full or partial Israeli annexation of territory, deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for this week’s discussion.
To recap briefly: In the aforementioned prior analysis I dealt with the (a) idea of “managing the conflict” and (b) the two-state formula.
As for the former, it was shown to reflect disregard for the fact that, without appropriate decisive proactive initiatives, Israel is facing a growing threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it. Accordingly, “managing the conflict” is little more than a pretext for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or do so only at ruinous cost.
As for the latter, it has shown to be a fatally flawed formula, devoid of any sound theoretical foundation or empirical evidence on which to base its naïve prognoses for resolving the conflict by means of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, given the past precedents, there is little reason to believe — and two-state proponents have never provided one — that any future Palestinian state will not rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, precipitating all the harrowing realities, wrought on the hapless residents of the South on those of the coastal megalopolis.
So having dealt with the policy paradigms that eschew annexation — whether full or partial — it is now time to assess those that endorse it.
One-state: Lebanonization of Israeli society
Some pundits on the Israeli “Right”, keenly aware of the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm, have in large measure adopted — albeit for very different reasons — a prescription very similar to that touted by their radical Left-wing adversaries — that of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
 |
| Sectarian Violence in Lebanon |
According to this proposal, Israel should extend its sovereignty over the entire area of Judea-Samaria and offer immediate permanent residency to all its Palestinian-Arab residents, as well as the right to apply for citizenship at some undefined date, via some undefined process to ascertain loyalty — or at least the absence of disloyalty — to Israel as the Jewish nation state.
The rationale, allegedly underpinning this ill-conceived proposal, is the new, optimistic demographic assessments suggesting that even if Israel were to enfranchise the Muslim population of Judea-Samaria, it would still retain a more than 60% Jewish majority.
Even conceding that this may be true, such a measure is likely to herald disaster for the Zionist enterprise and the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. For the initial electoral arithmetic is hardly the defining factor in assessing the prudence of this approach, but rather the devastating effect it will have on the socio-economic fabric of the country and the impact this will have on preserving Israel as a desired/desirable place of residence for Jews inside and outside the country.
It would take considerable — and unsubstantiated — faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% — as the societal havoc that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe indicate.
Indeed this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.
Lebanonization of Israel (cont.)
Any forlorn hope that life under Israeli sovereignty will somehow “domesticate” the Palestinian-Arabs into reconciling themselves to life in the Jewish nation-state should have been well and truly dashed by the behavior of Israel’s Arab citizens.
After all, despite living (and prospering) for seven decades under Israeli sovereignty — and more than a half-century after military rule over the Arab population was abolished — they not only voted, almost en-bloc, for the vehemently anti-Zionist “Joint List” in the 2015 elections, but displayed great empathy in a mass funeral for the terrorists, from the Israeli town of Um-al Fahm, who murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount.
Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically — and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted. The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria — whether enfranchised or not — become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.
Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce these disparities — siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure, education and so on.
Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13–15 seats in parliament to 25–30. This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.
Moreover, collaboration on various ad hoc parliamentary initiatives with radical Jewish left-wing factions is likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose — in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.
Partial Annexation: The Balkanization of Israel
Thus, while full annexation of Judea-Samaria will almost inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israel — i.e. create a single society, so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; proposals for the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel — (i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.)
Proposals for partial annexation appear to be fueled by (a) concern that total annexation would be too drastic a step for the international community to “swallow”, and (b) a sense that some semblance of self-rule must be facilitated for the Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria. As will be shown, partial annexation will address neither of these issues effectively. Indeed quite the opposite is true.
 |
| Dr. Mordechai Kedar (L) & Education Minister Naftali Bennett |
Proposals for partial annexation are commonly of two types: Those that prescribe including selected areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli sovereignty (such as Area C as advanced by Education Minister Naftali Bennett) ; and those that prescribe excluding certain selected areas from Israeli sovereignty such as the large urban centers in Judea-Samaria (such as advanced by Dr. Mordechai Kedar in his “Emirates” plan)
Sadly, neither of these paradigms will solve any of the diplomatic or security problems Israel faces today, and will in fact exacerbate many.
The Balkanization of Israel (cont)
It is hardly necessary to go into the intricate details of the individual proposals for partial annexation to grasp how impractical they really are.
For whatever the configuration of the un-annexed areas left to Arab administration –whether the disconnected enclaves of Areas A and B, or the micro-mini “city states” — they will leave the sovereign territory of Israel with dauntingly long and contorted frontiers, making it almost impossible to delineate and secure. Clearly if one cannot effectively demarcate and secure one’s sovereign territory, there is little meaning to one’s sovereign authority over that territory.
Although Haaretz is not my preferred source of reference, I find it difficult to disagree with the following assessment of Bennett’s plan for annexing Area C:
“… Bennett’s plan is groundless from the security, diplomatic, legal and, especially, physical angles. It’s easy to discern that, contrary to what was presented in a video produced by Bennett’s…party recently, Areas A and B in the West Bank are not contiguous blocs, spreading over 40 percent of the West Bank. Instead, they consist of no less than 169 Palestinian blocs and communities, cut off from one another by innumerable Israeli corridors and unused IDF firing zones that are together defined as Area C”.
It correctly pointed out: “… in fact, Bennett is proposing to increase the length of the Israeli border from 313 kilometers to 1,800 kilometers (194 to 1,118 miles). If [one] believe[s] Bennett, he will doubtless back the dismantling of the security barrier that Israel has built to the tune of 15 billion shekels ($3.9 billion), but [one] will have to accept that annexing Area C means Israel will have to build a barrier along the new border at the cost of 27 billion shekels and allocate another 4 billion shekels per year for maintenance purposes.”
Partial Annexation: Full political price
Similar criticism can be leveled at Kedar’s proposal for setting up an array of up to eight micro-mini “emirates” or city states. It is not difficult to envisage the problems of future expansion beyond the highly constricted confines of disconnected enclaves, and of the need to severely curtail the authority of the local administration to deal with cross border issues such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-off, transmissible diseases and so on.
Of course, any hopes that partial annexation, which entails extending Israeli sovereignty over about 65–75% of the territory, leaving the Palestinian-Arabs with an emasculated 25–30%, in a quilted patchwork of disconnected enclaves and corridors, will in any way diminish international censure, are utterly unfounded. The political “pain” involved in such schemes would be no less than annexing 100% of the territory — without having to deal with the attendant chronic problems associated with partial annexation (as detailed above).
Fanciful suggestions that Nablus and Hebron might flourish into entities like Monaco and Luxembourg are as risible as those which, in the heady days of Oslo, predicted that Gaza would become the Hong Kong of the Mid East — and would be rightfully rejected as such.
Humanitarian Paradigm: Hobson’s choice
Even from the far-from-exhaustive analysis conducted over the last two weeks, it should be clear that an indisputable picture emerges as to the Zionist-compliant feasibility of the various policy paradigms proposed for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Thus:
- The attempt to manage the conflict is little more than a formula for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or may do so only at ruinous cost.
- The two-state paradigm will almost inevitably result in the establishment of a yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, which will rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, menacing the socio-economic routine in the commercial hub of the country.
-Full annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population will result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society and thrust the country into ruinous inter-ethnic strife that will imperil it status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
- Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected, rivalrous, recalcitrant and unsustainable autonomous enclaves, which will create an ungovernable reality for Israel.
Thus, by a rigorous process of deductive elimination we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration for non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs to third party countries, as the only possible paradigm that can adequately address both the geographic and demographic imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
As such, for Zionists, it is Hobson’s choice. Anything else is self-deception
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Sadly, neither of these paradigms will solve any of the diplomatic or security problems Israel faces today, and will in fact exacerbate many.
The Balkanization of Israel (cont)
It is hardly necessary to go into the intricate details of the individual proposals for partial annexation to grasp how impractical they really are.
 |
| Violence in the Balkans |
For whatever the configuration of the un-annexed areas left to Arab administration –whether the disconnected enclaves of Areas A and B, or the micro-mini “city states” — they will leave the sovereign territory of Israel with dauntingly long and contorted frontiers, making it almost impossible to delineate and secure. Clearly if one cannot effectively demarcate and secure one’s sovereign territory, there is little meaning to one’s sovereign authority over that territory.
Although Haaretz is not my preferred source of reference, I find it difficult to disagree with the following assessment of Bennett’s plan for annexing Area C:
“… Bennett’s plan is groundless from the security, diplomatic, legal and, especially, physical angles. It’s easy to discern that, contrary to what was presented in a video produced by Bennett’s…party recently, Areas A and B in the West Bank are not contiguous blocs, spreading over 40 percent of the West Bank. Instead, they consist of no less than 169 Palestinian blocs and communities, cut off from one another by innumerable Israeli corridors and unused IDF firing zones that are together defined as Area C”.
It correctly pointed out: “… in fact, Bennett is proposing to increase the length of the Israeli border from 313 kilometers to 1,800 kilometers (194 to 1,118 miles). If [one] believe[s] Bennett, he will doubtless back the dismantling of the security barrier that Israel has built to the tune of 15 billion shekels ($3.9 billion), but [one] will have to accept that annexing Area C means Israel will have to build a barrier along the new border at the cost of 27 billion shekels and allocate another 4 billion shekels per year for maintenance purposes.”
Partial Annexation: Full political price
Similar criticism can be leveled at Kedar’s proposal for setting up an array of up to eight micro-mini “emirates” or city states. It is not difficult to envisage the problems of future expansion beyond the highly constricted confines of disconnected enclaves, and of the need to severely curtail the authority of the local administration to deal with cross border issues such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-off, transmissible diseases and so on.
Of course, any hopes that partial annexation, which entails extending Israeli sovereignty over about 65–75% of the territory, leaving the Palestinian-Arabs with an emasculated 25–30%, in a quilted patchwork of disconnected enclaves and corridors, will in any way diminish international censure, are utterly unfounded. The political “pain” involved in such schemes would be no less than annexing 100% of the territory — without having to deal with the attendant chronic problems associated with partial annexation (as detailed above).
Fanciful suggestions that Nablus and Hebron might flourish into entities like Monaco and Luxembourg are as risible as those which, in the heady days of Oslo, predicted that Gaza would become the Hong Kong of the Mid East — and would be rightfully rejected as such.
Humanitarian Paradigm: Hobson’s choice
Even from the far-from-exhaustive analysis conducted over the last two weeks, it should be clear that an indisputable picture emerges as to the Zionist-compliant feasibility of the various policy paradigms proposed for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Thus:
- The attempt to manage the conflict is little more than a formula for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or may do so only at ruinous cost.
- The two-state paradigm will almost inevitably result in the establishment of a yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, which will rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, menacing the socio-economic routine in the commercial hub of the country.
-Full annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population will result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society and thrust the country into ruinous inter-ethnic strife that will imperil it status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
- Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected, rivalrous, recalcitrant and unsustainable autonomous enclaves, which will create an ungovernable reality for Israel.
Thus, by a rigorous process of deductive elimination we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration for non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs to third party countries, as the only possible paradigm that can adequately address both the geographic and demographic imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
As such, for Zionists, it is Hobson’s choice. Anything else is self-deception
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Monday, August 7, 2017
ZOA Launches ‘Comprehensive Review’ of H.R. McMaster Israel History
By Matthew Boyle, BREITBART
Following troubling revelations and concerned raised about National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) announced it has undertaken a review and analysis of the top White House official’s positions, actions, and statements on Israel.
“Zionist Organization of America (‘ZOA’) issues the following statement in response to several media inquiries regarding General Herbert Raymond ‘H.R.’ McMaster’s tenure as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor,” ZOA said in a statement on Monday morning. “ZOA’s leadership is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of all publicly available facts and statements. Morton Klein, national president of ZOA, will be issuing a full statement later this week.”
ZOA is the oldest pro-Israel organization in America which has been a reliable supporter of President Donald Trump and his administration. The group, and its president Morton Klein, have fought back against phony allegations of anti-Semitism against former Breitbart News executive chairman and current White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon and former Breitbart News national security editor and current Special Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka. ZOA is backed in substantial part by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, an ardent defender of Israel and a confidante of President Trump.
While ZOA’s statement has not indicated where the powerful pro-Israel organization will come down in its review of McMaster’s activities and statements, there are many reasons to believe that ZOA may not have a favorable view of his positions on Israel. A source close to ZOA cautioned Breitbart News, explaining that ZOA’s review would be “limited in scope to analysis of McMaster’s performance and positions on issues related to Israel and the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.”
It is worth noting that it has been widely reported that McMaster has a serious problem with the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” It’s also worth noting there are reportedly serious concerns with McMaster’s positions on Israel, as raised in part by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post last week.
“According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he [McMaster] constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews,” Glick wrote of McMaster. “Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump’s visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – ?????? ?????? and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall. What hasn’t been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn’t. It was McMaster. And even that, it works out wasn’t sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.”
What’s more, a piece out Sunday evening by Breitbart News’ Aaron Klein–this outlet’s Jerusalem Bureau chief–discovered deep troubling ties between McMaster and leftist billionaire George Soros.
Now, the oldest and strongest pro-Israel group in America is conducting its own probe to get to the bottom of it.
Following troubling revelations and concerned raised about National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) announced it has undertaken a review and analysis of the top White House official’s positions, actions, and statements on Israel.
“Zionist Organization of America (‘ZOA’) issues the following statement in response to several media inquiries regarding General Herbert Raymond ‘H.R.’ McMaster’s tenure as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor,” ZOA said in a statement on Monday morning. “ZOA’s leadership is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of all publicly available facts and statements. Morton Klein, national president of ZOA, will be issuing a full statement later this week.”
ZOA is the oldest pro-Israel organization in America which has been a reliable supporter of President Donald Trump and his administration. The group, and its president Morton Klein, have fought back against phony allegations of anti-Semitism against former Breitbart News executive chairman and current White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon and former Breitbart News national security editor and current Special Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka. ZOA is backed in substantial part by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, an ardent defender of Israel and a confidante of President Trump.
While ZOA’s statement has not indicated where the powerful pro-Israel organization will come down in its review of McMaster’s activities and statements, there are many reasons to believe that ZOA may not have a favorable view of his positions on Israel. A source close to ZOA cautioned Breitbart News, explaining that ZOA’s review would be “limited in scope to analysis of McMaster’s performance and positions on issues related to Israel and the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.”
It is worth noting that it has been widely reported that McMaster has a serious problem with the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” It’s also worth noting there are reportedly serious concerns with McMaster’s positions on Israel, as raised in part by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post last week.
“According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he [McMaster] constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews,” Glick wrote of McMaster. “Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump’s visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – ?????? ?????? and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall. What hasn’t been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn’t. It was McMaster. And even that, it works out wasn’t sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.”
What’s more, a piece out Sunday evening by Breitbart News’ Aaron Klein–this outlet’s Jerusalem Bureau chief–discovered deep troubling ties between McMaster and leftist billionaire George Soros.
Now, the oldest and strongest pro-Israel group in America is conducting its own probe to get to the bottom of it.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
NY Democrat Senator Gillibrand’s Backtracks on Israel Anti-BDS Bill - Breitbart
By Adelle Nazarian
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is under fire from World Jewish Congress president Ron Lauder, who said he was “deeply disturbed” by her decision to withdraw her backing for anti-BDS legislation introduced by a fellow Democrat, citing the First Amendment as the basis for her choice.
On Monday, Gillibrand said she was withdrawing her name from the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) in March and supported by 45 additional senators from the Republican and Democratic parties.
On Thursday, Lauder said he was “deeply disturbed” by Gillibrand’s announcement and noted that this bill was “aimed at combating the BDS movement which is spreading virulently in the United States and throughout the world.” According to the Algemeiner, he added, “I would urge Senator Gillibrand to instead add her name back as a co-sponsor for this legislation and reaffirm her commitment to opposing the international campaign to de-legitimize our democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.”
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act “opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel” and “encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, government-wide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.”
Gillibrand reportedly announced that she was withdrawing her support for the legislation at a town hall meeting in Queens where she cited the First Amendment — a position also held by progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
In an op-ed last month, the ACLU wrote, “Last week, the ACLU came out against a bill that would criminalize constitutionally protected boycotts and certain speech targeting Israel. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was introduced in both the House and Senate earlier this year, would expand a 1970s-era export law and expose a range of activity to sweeping penalties, including criminal prosecution.”
Cardin’s Israel Anti-Boycott Act seeks to amend the 1979 Export Administration Act “to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.”
This is not the first time the ACLU has targeted members of the Democratic Party over their support for Israel.
Last month, they went after Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) for supporting the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, accusing her of stifling free speech.
“Senator Hassan strongly opposes the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel and believes that it harms efforts to secure enduring peace through bilateral negotiations toward a two-state solution,” Ricki Eshman, Hassan’s press secretary, said in a statement, according to the Algemeiner.
During Monday’s town hall, Gillibrand reportedly said, “I am against BDS, but I feel that anybody who’s in favor of it should feel very comfortable speaking on any stage, anywhere in America.” However, the Algemeiner notes that she specifically “avoided any mention of the link between the BDS movement and anti-Semitic statements and actions.”
In response to this, Lauder reportedly said, “Supporters of the BDS movement shield themselves by claiming that their movement is anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, but let me be crystal clear, anti-Zionism is no different than anti-Semitism. When you hold the only Jewish state to a different standard than every other nation, when you lie about its past and its present, that is old fashioned, unadulterated anti-Semitism.”
Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
According to Roger Stone POTUS Trump Never Approved White House Statement In Support of McMaster
With reporting by Joshua Caplan, of the GATEWAY PUNDIT
On Friday evening, the New York Times published a statement allegedly issued by President Trump in support of H.R. McMaster after the National Security Advisor came under heavy fire for his anti-Israel views and firing Trump loyalists. Former Trump campaign manager, Roger Stone, says the White House issued the statement without President Trump’s approval.
Oy Vay, Let that sink in...
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, President Trump defended McMaster using the same, vague and cryptic terms used to describe his feelings on Reince Priebus after he was fired. “He is a good man and very pro-Israel,” said President Trump. Priebus was called a ‘good man,’ as well.
New York Times reports:
Coincidentally, here President Trump was describing Priebus, much like he describes McMaster, as a “good man.”
Real Clear Politics reports:
As you probably know, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster took a beating this week from conservative media online following news of him purging Trump loyalists while praising Susan Rice and granting her access to classified information.
Rumors are swirling that President Trump is furious about McMaster’s decisions in his recent firings. Steve Bannon is reportedly also at odds with McMaster, causing a schism in the White House. It is a fight between the Trump loyalists and Deep State operatives still buzzing around attempting to unseat Trump.
TGP reported Thursday, McMaster might be shipped off to Afghanistan to oversee the war. The news also comes amid reports McMaster was caught leaking internal White House politics to now former Acting FBI Head Andy McCabe.So will McMaster be the next Deep State Neocon on the chopping block - that is, while the President learns how nasty Washington truly is?
Hell, we can only hope...
On Friday evening, the New York Times published a statement allegedly issued by President Trump in support of H.R. McMaster after the National Security Advisor came under heavy fire for his anti-Israel views and firing Trump loyalists. Former Trump campaign manager, Roger Stone, says the White House issued the statement without President Trump’s approval.
McMaster must go - Statement of support put out by WH was never seen or approved by @realDonaldTrump
Oy Vay, Let that sink in...
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, President Trump defended McMaster using the same, vague and cryptic terms used to describe his feelings on Reince Priebus after he was fired. “He is a good man and very pro-Israel,” said President Trump. Priebus was called a ‘good man,’ as well.
New York Times reports:
President Trump defended Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, his embattled national security adviser, on Friday in the face of a full-bore campaign by the nationalist wing of his political coalition accusing him of undermining the president’s agenda and calling for his dismissal.
General McMaster has angered the political right by pushing out several conservatives on the national security staff and cautioning against ripping up the nuclear agreement with Iran negotiated by President Barack Obamawithout a strategy for what comes next. His future has been in doubt amid speculation that Mr. Trump might send him to Afghanistan.
But after two days of unrelenting attacks on General McMaster by conservative activists and news sites, complete with the Twitter hashtag #FireMcMaster, the president weighed in to quash such talk. “General McMaster and I are working very well together,” he said in a statement emailed to The New York Times. “He is a good man and very pro–Israel. I am grateful for the work he continues to do serving our country.”
Coincidentally, here President Trump was describing Priebus, much like he describes McMaster, as a “good man.”
Real Clear Politics reports:
President Trump gives a brief statement to the media about his decision to replace Chief of Staff Reince Priebus with Secretary of Homeland Security Ret. Gen. John Kelly. The president said Priebus was a “good man” and called Kelly a “great, great American.
Trump had just returned from New York and exited Air Force One.
“Mr. President, why Secretary Kelly? Why John Kelly?” a reporter asked Trump at Joint Base Andrews.
“Reince is a good man. John Kelly will do a fantastic job. General Kelly has been a star, done an incredible job thus far, respected by everybody. A great, great American. Reince Priebus, a good man. Thank you very much,” Trump responded.
As you probably know, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster took a beating this week from conservative media online following news of him purging Trump loyalists while praising Susan Rice and granting her access to classified information.
Rumors are swirling that President Trump is furious about McMaster’s decisions in his recent firings. Steve Bannon is reportedly also at odds with McMaster, causing a schism in the White House. It is a fight between the Trump loyalists and Deep State operatives still buzzing around attempting to unseat Trump.
TGP reported Thursday, McMaster might be shipped off to Afghanistan to oversee the war. The news also comes amid reports McMaster was caught leaking internal White House politics to now former Acting FBI Head Andy McCabe.So will McMaster be the next Deep State Neocon on the chopping block - that is, while the President learns how nasty Washington truly is?
Hell, we can only hope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)