Martin Sherman thoroughly castigates our prime minister for either failing to implement the policy [he] believes in or implementing a policy he does not believe in. In Sherman’s world, once a political position has been taken, you are stuck with it. Alter your posture, adapt to changing circumstances and you have betrayed your principles.Basic principles are one thing, political tactics quite another.
Martin Sherman and Caroline B. Glick are well-informed and knowledgeable political pundits…This is why it is so hard for me to understand how both of them fail to understand that our prime minister is trying to deal with an almost impossible diplomatic situation… [B]oth fail to fully understand that entirely apart from international pressure, Israel deeply wants and needs peace and security for itself and its Palestinian neighbors. This is why our government is willing to make disproportional concessions in the hope of moderating Palestinian rejectionism, even though the Palestinians have not yet disabused themselves of their vile dreams of our destruction.
The column I wrote last week calling on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to “Resign, just resign,” unsurprisingly provoked a flood of responses from readers.
Judging from the almost 1,400 “likes” registered on the Jerusalem Post site – and the tenor of the vast majority of emails and posts on my Facebook page – what I wrote seems to have resonated well with a large segment of readers.
Addressing umbrage
However, as the two rather irate letters to the editor indicate, there were some who took umbrage at the positions expressed in the column – and apparently at the manner in which they were expressed.
As will be recalled, my censure of Netanyahu related to his decision to make far-reaching concessions – both explicit (i.e. the release of over 100 terrorist murderers) and implicit (i.e. tacit acceptance of pre-1967 lines as a basis for discussion of the frontiers of a future Palestinian state and imposition of a partial de facto building freeze in Judea- Samaria).
Typically, complaints as to my condemnation of this decision focused on the following elements:
- My alleged unawareness of insensitivity to the tremendous pressure brought to bear on the PM by the international community in general, and by the Obama administration in particular.
- My alleged lack of information/knowledge to make a fair judgment of Netanyahu’s decision and as to what the factors were that induced it.
- My alleged disregard of the fact that Israel cannot be seen as the intransigent party, obstructing negotiations.
Although I did touch on most of these contentions last week, rebuffing them as unpersuasive attempts to rationalize Netanyahu’s decision, the fact that a number of readers still cling to them, seems to indicate that – even at the risk of repetition – they need to be refuted with greater vigor and in greater detail.
A strong sense of déjà vu
Just over four years ago, in the immediate wake of Netanyahu’s infamous Bar-Ilan speech, in which he capitulated to US pressure, and accepted – albeit with evident reluctance and unrealistic reservations – the establishment of a Palestinian state, reneging on a long-standing pledge not to do so, I wrote in an op-ed piece, “The PM at Bar-Ilan: A damage assessment (June 16, 2009)”: “In his speech at Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu acquiesced to precisely what he was elected to repudiate. US pressure is no excuse for this. Leaders are elected to resist pressure, not to submit to it; to sidestep it, not succumb to it; to divert it, not to yield to it… A myriad of allegedly ‘pragmatic’ arguments can be raised to justify the tone and the substance of his admirably crafted speech. But none of these carries any durable strategic substance. They reflect a clear preference for the fleeting benefits of short-term cunning rather than the enduring fruits of long-term wisdom. Some might protest at this unbenevolent assessment, claiming that in fact it was a brilliant political maneuver, placing the onus on the Palestinians, exposing their ‘true face.’” Today, almost half a decade later, there is a strong sense of déjà vu. Precisely the same far-fetched arguments are being invoked for making far-reaching concessions, producing the same counter-productive consequences.
Earlier this year, in “Senseless & spineless: Speaking truth to power (March 28),” following Netanyahu’s ill-advised apology to Turkey, which – predictably – produced nothing but further humiliation, I reiterated this, almost verbatim: “After all, leaders are elected to resist pressure, not to submit to it; to sidestep it, not to succumb to it; to divert it, not to yield to it. With Israel’s favorable ratings at almost unprecedented highs in the US, one would have thought that transforming this popular support into commensurate political clout would not be an insurmountable challenge.”
Catalogue of capitulation
Despite his many talents and the numerous achievements of his government – which I have been at pains to enumerate in previous columns – Netanyahu’s incumbency can be characterized as a catalogue of futile capitulation on issues on which he pledged to hold firm.
This continual flaccidity not only produced no durable benefits for Israel but created expectations for further concessions whenever dispute arose: The evacuation of Hebron; the Wye River agreement; the acceptance of Palestinian statehood at Bar-Ilan; the imposition of a construction freeze in Judea- Samaria; the Schalit exchange; the abject apology to Turkey, the gains granted Hamas following the premature cessation of Operation Pillar of Defense.
While it is possible to find rationalizations for each of these surrenders, as a whole they comprise a dismal pattern of behavior, conveying an unequivocal message to Israel’s adversaries that resolute rejectionism pays.
They send an unmistakable signal that if they hold out long enough, Israel will “compromise” (read “concede”).
So in complete contradiction to Post reader Kenneth Besig’s above contention, rather than these “disproportional concessions… moderating Palestinian rejectionism,” they merely serve to entrench intransigence.
Israel’s seemingly unlimited willingness for “flexibility” has done little to satiate the Arab (and US) appetite for concessions. It has merely whet it, with expectations for more.
When will the penny drop?
In light of how pliant Israel has proved itself over the past two decades, any claim that it cannot afford to hold firm on issues that impact its security, lest it be accused of “obstructing” peace efforts, is patently preposterous.
Such claims are grossly offensive when made by others and shamefully self-denigrating when made by ourselves.
After all, in its unbecoming quest to avoid being seen as “obstructive” Israel has (among other things):
• Withdrawn from all major populations centers in Judea-Samaria;
• Allowed armed militias to deploy adjacent to its capital, within mortar range of its parliament;
• Unilaterally evacuated the Gaza Strip, erasing every vestige of Jewish presence;
• Unearthed and removed its dead from graveyards;
• Demolished settlements in northern Samaria; and
• Stoically endured – with unreasonable restraint – years of indiscriminate shelling of its civilians.
To all of these – and other – “goodwill gestures,” the Palestinians have responded with vitriolic Judeophobic incitement and vicious Judeocidal terror, from within areas transferred to their control.
Yet despite manifest Israeli munificence and Palestinian malevolence, we are told that Israel must prove it is “serious” about wanting peace. Really? One can only hope that sometime soon the penny will drop and realization dawn that concessions are counterproductive.
Puzzling leftward lurch
Post reader Neville Teller attempted to account for Netanyahu’s behavior by suggesting it was precipitated by a need to “adapt to changing circumstances.” He jeers: “In Sherman’s world, once a political position has been taken, you are stuck with it. Alter your posture, adapt to changing circumstances and you have betrayed your principles.”
Well, Neville, actually, that’s why they’re called “principles,” because one is supposed to stick to them, despite changing circumstances.
But in Netanyahu’s case, two points need to be underscored.
Firstly, it is one thing to change position to preserve principles, but it quite another to totally reverse them and embrace all that you previously negated, and negate all that you previously embraced. That is not tactical maneuvering, but strategic surrender; not “adapting to circumstances,” but abandoning principles.
Secondly, all the “changes in the circumstances” that have occurred, serve to validate Netanyahu’s previous position and vindicate his criticism of the positions he now apparently aspires to adopt. The tectonic socio-political shifts across the Arab world and the increasingly evident Judeophobic rejectionism among the Palestinians, make the notion of Palestinian statehood even more incompatible with Israeli security than in the days when Netanyahu was among its most vocal and persuasive opponents.
Barely a week ago, the Post’s Yaakov Lappin reported that the IDF was bolstering its forces on the northern and southern frontiers to meet emerging threats from Syria and Sinai.
In the light of these developments, one is compelled to ask: Is this really the most opportune moment to be complicit in the establishment of a mega-Gaza in Judea- Samaria, along Israel’s most sensitive and vulnerable eastern frontier?
Given the changing circumstances, one might be excused for thinking that Netanyahu would be defending his past positions even more stoutly, rather than forsaking them – which makes his recent lurch leftward all the more difficult to comprehend and impossible to accept.
Netanyahu’s real debacle
It is quite plausible that Netanyahu was subject to enormous pressure from the Obama administration. But what is far more significant than any criticism of his performance in the unenviable situation in which he found himself, is the question of why such a situation arose at all.
After all, Netanyahu has been in power now for half a decade, during which nothing, absolutely nothing has been done to ensure that Israel not be placed under the kind of pressure it is subject to today. That is Netanyahu’s real debacle – the failure, not only to adopt and conduct any diplomatic strategy, but to think in terms of strategic diplomacy. It is this that has left Israel virtually defenseless and exposed to pressures from hostile administrations.
The pitiful amounts spent on presenting Israel’s case to the world, explaining its security imperatives and strategic constraints, conveying the brutal nature of the adversaries it faces, invites the massive pressures from foreign sources.
A country that spends millions on systems to intercept 10 kg. of explosives, but virtually nothing on diplomatic strategy/strategic diplomacy, should not be surprised that its adversaries attack it where it is weakest.
If not Bibi, who?
If Netanyahu is right today, he has shown fatally flawed judgment in the past by impeding a policy he now feels should be advanced.
If he is wrong today, he is showing fatally flawed judgment by advancing a policy which he correctly opposed in the past.
Either way, his continued incumbency is inappropriate and must be terminated.
Who would replace him, several readers asked. Yair Lapid? Shelly Yacimovich? Tzipi Livi? History has of course proved that no one is really irreplaceable. But even beyond that facile observation, the question is why keep Netanyahu in power if he is enabling the very “Livni-compliant” policy he was supposed to prevent? Indeed, it may well be preferable to have a “left-wing” incumbent implement “left-wing policies. Then, at least, it would be possible to mount credible resistance to it – and lay down a rationale for its subsequent curtailment or reversal.
Can Netanyahu be compelled to resign? That depends greatly on whether he can maintain support within the Likud and whether his ideological rivals within his party such as Danny Danon, Ze’ev Elkin, Tzipi Hotovely, Gilad Erdan, Israel Katz and Moshe Feiglin rebel or not.
It depends on whether coalition partners such as Avigdor Liberman, Yair Shamir, Uzi Landau and Naftali Bennett will collectively abandon him. For even if he could then cobble together an alternative coalition, he would hardly have the moral authority to prevail for long.
The question then is: Will principle prevail over the penchant for position, prestige and power? Or whether – as in the past – it won’t?
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
Folks I have said for a number of years we should get the hell out of the UN.
Goldwater said it many years ago.
The UN is a worthless body governed by gangster nations a majority of whom hate the US and Israel.
Think for a minute, the US and Israel alone have contributed to the world then the UN and most nations put together.
You want a reason why, here.
The UN is an enemy of Israel. Why would Israel accept any sort of excoriations from such a blatantly and shamelessly anti-Jewish/anti-Israel organization? To hell with the UN.
the effect to israel for quitting the UN@ bernard ross:
Israel Skips U.N. Review on Rights, a New Move
Israel became the first country to withhold cooperation from a United Nations review of its human rights practices on Tuesday, shunning efforts by the United States and others to encourage it to participate.
Israel cuts contact with UN rights council, to protest settlements probe
Israel’s Foreign Ministry orders envoy to Geneva to ignore all phone calls from rights council commissioner; ‘The council sparked this process’, says a senior Israeli official.
yamit82 Said:
I wonder if Israel has ever conducted an objective study to determine the real effects of leaving?
Michael Comments Said:
I don’t see how Israel asserting her independence from America, refusing all free aid ( I call it bribes) will harm the goodwill and good opinions America has re: Israel. It should enhance that goodwill and positive opinion.
Re: the UN? America has not always vetoed SC resolutions against Israel sometimes they abstain and a few occasions have voted with the majority to put us in our place.
That said you know whenever America vetoes a SC resolution they demand of Israel something in return and that means something against our interests. That said as I have said in other comments, members of the SC might not be so free with their vitriolic statements of condemnation and votes against Israel knowing America will not automatically support Israel with a veto. China or Russia could very well veto anti Israel resolutions to stick it to America without demanding a price from Israel in return.
As long as resolutions are Chapter 6 and not 7, they carry no operational teeth. If there was a chapter 7 resolution, we deal with it when it arises. My personal opinion on this issue is that Israel should long ago have quit the UN and viewed them as an enemy entity with all that that entails diplomatically.
To Hell With the United Nations
“Time for Israel to quit this den of iniquity. It’s time for Israel to quit the United Nations. Indeed, It is demeaning for the Jewish commonwealth to remain in that international cesspool. The UN General Assembly has become an international forum for promoting Palestinian statehood and delegitimizing Israel.”
yamit82 Said:
Yamit you have come dangerous close to offering an intelligent observation. Two reservations spring to mind however. There is an enormous wellspring of good will towards Israel amongst the American people (people, not government) and this should not be forsaken or sacrificed, and secondly, the security council veto.
“Enough of this shit already. We are not so weak nor poor we need to forgo our sovereignty and national pride.”
Exactly, Yamit. HaShem is still G-D of Israel. No-one and no country can out-manoeuver HIM.
@ Bill Narvey:
Narvey you should know by now I don’t care what others think of me. I give my opinions and defend them sometimes with vigor and zeal. You are the king of obfuscation. You should know by now your ad hominem attacks against me roll off my back like jello.
In a funny way I like you Narvey and have missed your comments and our arguments. 😉
Michael Comments Said:
You have not really answered any of my question nor objections? I wonder why?
Addendum to my previous comment: Since BB seems hell bent on returning Israel to her Auschwitz borders 9 miles width in the center of the country, who do you think carries more weight with your congressmen and senators? I got news for you even 30 or 40 miles are today Auschwitz borders and we have a 5th column within those borders too.
The best thing that can happen to Israel is for a break in relations with America at least to the point or extent where we forgo all so called aid and refuse American dictates. Put our relationship on a normal bilateral level. Each country pursues their own perceived national interests and when they coincide we work together and when not we don’t.
I am against doing anything that tightens our dependence on America. There are no free lunches especially with America who always demand their pounds of flesh and I don’t want to give them any more of our flesh. Enough of this shit already. We are not so weak nor poor we need to forgo our sovereignty and national pride. I blame Israel more than America but if Israel won’t do what’s right and needed let Obama force the issue. Do you comprende??
As usual Yamit, you prove me right about you.
@ Bill Narvey:
All of that malarkey in place of saying Yamit you have been correct all this time and I (Narvey) have been pigheaded and always WRONG.
I see we have a new zealous activist See: https://www.israpundit.org/archives/56864/comment-page-1#comment-285836, who shares your views of writing letters and notes to congressmen and others. Why don’t you clue him in to all your successes over the years? Maybe he can show where you have gone Wrong> 😛
maybe we should ask your friends in Canada to repeat their personal opinion about you, just as a reminder?
Yamit has raised a number of questions about the importance of American readers contacting their Senators. The overall answer to Yamit and any other skeptics, is that we really ought to take a quick and easy action that could be helpful (and certainly in sufficient numbers would be helpful) than to be so sure of our position that we do nothing, which will certainly be useless.
We don’t know what motivates PM Netanyahu, but it is safe to say if there was a pro Israel President in the White House we would not be facing the threat before us, and in the absence of a pro Israel President, we must turn to Congress. We know we can all spend two minutes contacting our Senators.
Jews are a small minority. Fortunately the pro-Israel community goes well beyond just Jews. Individually we each need to do our share. As a community we need to do our share. We each can spend two minutes contacting our Senators.
We don’t know the heart of Congress, although most would agree elected officials tend to hold reelection dear to their hearts. We do know that if a loud enough voice is raised Congress does listen, and so the two minutes it takes to contact our Senators is more than justified. We also know that if we do nothing, like the vast majority of American Jews during the Holocaust, the result will not be good.
The assimilated Jews whom Yamit rails against are always engaged in political action (witness J Street). If we remain silent, then by default, they end up speaking for us. I trust most IsraPundit readers would be appalled by this prospect, but the only remedy is for those of us with Senators to spend two minutes contacting them and speaking for ourselves in our own voice.
Americans, please spend two minutes and find your Senators’ contact page (easy enough on Google) and just say to them, Oppose S. Res 203, Israel should not be forced into Auschwitz borders.
Yamit, when you manage at times to turn your attention away from yourself and gratuitously denigrating others and focus on the issues, you reveal you are intelligent and knowledgeable. Those times however, are too few and too far between.
Your primary attention is devoted to preening and self promotion at Israpundit to convince Israpundit followers you are the Israpundit resident expert. Reveling in the adulation you seek and only sometimes manage to get from a few Israpundit contributors, seems to be what you value most and serves as your staff of life.
It is too bad you lack insight and self awareness that your self absorbed preoccupation with boosting your own ego and serially tearing people down to that purpose is not an admirable character quality and thus it is counterproductive to your primary objective to be well thought of and respected.
It’s a character quality you would do well to rid yourself of.
Open your mind to what I say, force yourself to make the appropriate attitude adjustment and the chances of your being well thought of and respected at Israpundit and by all you know, will increase immeasurably.
Michael Comments Said:
Another Urban myth. Speculate what that so called pressure might be? I always challenge those who repeat this overly used and vacuous statement but never explain with any thoughtful and or factual examples of real pressure.
WHAT PRESSURE??????
Michael Comments Said:
The support of congress for Israel is an urban myth. Making pro Israel statements costs them nothing, does not obligate them to do anything and it might bring them Jewish political funding and even a few votes.
When it counted they have been in lock step with the WH no matter republican of democrat. Passing nonbinding sense of the congress is BS and has no influence on WH policy making. Jews constitute no electoral significance except maybe Florida if there is a razor thin vote separation. American Jews due to small size and the disbursement today throughout America are pretty much demographically inconsequential and becoming more so each year. Like when I left the States Jews made up some 3% of the total population and today about 1.6%.
Jewish political financial support is 100% not connected to Israel and most large donators are JINO assimilated Jews with little to no concern over Israel unless you count supporting anti Israeli policies, groups and politicians. Estimated that over 90% of Jewish philanthropy go to non Jewish and Israeli causes. Less than 20% of American Jews have ever been to Israel and most of them are repeaters inflating the %. 1 in 5 ethic Jews in America have converted to other religions and only 30% are affiliated with any Jewish organization or Synagogue. Hit the link and you will see the divide between Israel and American Jewry is unbridgeable and becoming more so each year.
I never said to do nothing as you accused in another comment I just think your approach in view of the reality and facts is stupid and can better be applied to specific acts that can make a difference like working to free Pollard.
On these issues you are silent and that convinces me that you are full of crap and just like blowing your own horn. Nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.
Act for Israel. PM Netanyahu is under tremendous pressure. An important and positive step Americans can take is to oppose Senate Resolution 203. This resolution supports Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to have Israel commit suicide. The American Congress has long been more supportive of the wellbeing of the Israeli people than the occupant of the White House, and this is particularly true regarding Barak Obama. We (Americans) can be helping the people of Israel by bombarding Congress with our opposition to Sen. R. 203. Doing is this is very simple and takes but two minutes.
Google your Senator. One of the top entries will be their official website. Go to their Contact page. Copy and paste the message idea below.
Please oppose Senate Resolution 203. Israel should not be forced back to the 1949 Auschwitz borders.
Bill Narvey Said:
Only in your neat little boxed world made of ticky tacky
Sherman answered you but you are too obtuse to understand simple English:
The same answer I have been giving you for over 6 years. He’s caught up to me it seems. 🙂
Duh!!!!
@ bernard ross:
On another thread, shmuel halevi opined that as far as good leadership, it is available at ‘any bus stop line’
I happen to think that you are both correct.
Which only begs the question WHY is Netanyahu still the pm??
Bill Narvey Said:
normally I would agree unless the driver is driving towards a brick wall with no sign of veering away. In that case choosing anyone might have the potential to be better.
At the end of the day, neither BB neither Obama nor the American Jews will decide. The Israeli people will decide and those who support them.
The US administration has been wrong everywhere in the ME and caught flat foot repeatedly.
“It is only common sense that you do not replace what you’ve got with something better, unless that something better is available to be had.”
I can’t see that there is anything/anyone better to be had, Bill. But, I’m not too up on Israeli politics. Better subject for Yamit and other Israelis. What I do believe, though, is that, whether Jewish or not, politicians are frightfully all the same: if they’re already on the dole, there’s no hope of them ever goading even their opposition to a higher position of morality. Look at our own senators (Conservatives or Liberals) in Ottawa: all of them pigs at the trough as far as I can tell. All politicians mix with higher moral values (in this case prudence, that long forgotten virtue) like shit with strawberry shortcake. As my grandpa used to say about a stormy day: “Windier than a throne speech.” And for Netanyahu to meet with shit-for-brains Kerry is a disgrace for any Israli Jew. What does Kerry know? Nothing.
Please release my #19 from moderation.
Sherman further elaborates to pound in his points that Netanyahu has failed Israel on the many counts he lays out. This time, he begins to answer the question, he posed in his first piece, if not Bibi, who?
Sherman begins:
Let’s accept for the moment that Sherman is right that Bibi must be replaced.
He proceeds to offer up names of potential leaders or new coalitions of acting Israeli leaders:
Sherman raises the names Yair Lapid? Shelly Yacimovich? Tzipi Livi? more to point out which leaders he would not favor.
Sherman, by offering up the other aforesaid names either as potential leaders who individually might rise to head Likud or another party to lead Israel or a coalition of several or more of those named, he offers no cogent reasons why those individuals or combination of those individuals would make better leaders than Netanyahu.
In essence Sherman’s two articles provide a sound reason for Israelis to dump Netanyahu and choose new leadership. Without making the case for one or more to assume the reins of power, but only citing reasons for them to rebel against Netanyahu’s leadership, amounts to an argument for anarchy led by anarchists who thus far have advocated no comprehensive plan, agenda or vision.
Surely if Sherman’s reasoning to unseat Netanyahu is sound, a new individual or combination of individual leaders must have given Sherman some reason to cite them as better leaders, though there is nothing in his piece that alludes to that. Further, even if one or more of the aforementioned individuals would have a vision, plan and agenda, better than Netanyahu’s for Israel’s stance regarding the Palestinians and relations with the U.S. led West that would capture the imaginations of the Israeli electorate and win their confidence that person or group has not yet stepped forward.
It is only common sense that you do not replace what you’ve got with something better, unless that something better is available to be had.
Explain the real context in which the decisions of the Netanyahu government are made – the death of MAD
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/explain-real-context-in-which-decisions.html
beniyyar Said:
please explain to this non Israeli what a “nationalist” govt stands for. Also, if an Israeli wants annexation of all YS, or all of C, which party of the “nationalist” govt would he vote for?
beniyyar Said:
Is one an extremist if he wants the govt to annex at a minimum all of C, keep Jerusalem and the Mount? Which of the nationalist parties show through their behavior as opposed to words that this is their minimum. It appears to me that annexing all of C, even with very minor adjustments, is a reasonable minimum and not extremist.
beniyyar Said:
do you agree with gving sovereignty of Mount to PA, with pal state, with land swaps in exchange for parts of C, with the obstruction of jewish settlement, with the obstruction of Jewish relgious freedom, with the failure to implement the levy report, with diplomatically allowing the lie of illegal jewish settlement to libel Israel by the same countries who signed treaties to encourage jewish settlement? Is this what you wish the GOI to continue? What do you mean by guard israel from the enemy, do you mean external enemies? If so has BB guarded Israel better than the left, has he stopped the arming of hezbullah and gaza or Iran?
@ beniyyar:
Pls explain and list, in what ways this government is any different substantively from any government of the left?
Take this request a challenge. 😛
If Martin Sherman has a new and better government in his back pocket, he should save Israel and drag that mother out and put it on the table. I remember all too well how the small parties abandoned Shamir in the 1990’s because he supposedly did not stick to his guns and was going to give away Israel to the Palestinians, and guess what? Yeah, we got Rabin, Peres, Beilin, Aloni, and Arafat and Oslo, big success that was right, Martin? And because Martin Sherman and the rest of his extremists have no sense of or idea of history, he would throw away another Nationalist government in the hopes that another government more to his liking would be elected.
Thankfully most Israelis who know and love Israel see the absolute absurdity of Martin Sherman’s position and reject it completely. So Martin Sherman and Caroline Glick can continue to scream into the wind and appease the few extremists who still listen to their dangerous and out of touch with reality rants, the rest of us, the sane Israelis, will continue to guard Israel from the enemy and the unnecessary dangers that Sherman and Glick would thrust upon us.
comment to ross gobbled by spam filter.
@ bernard ross:
Israel loses 400-500 Jews a year to road accidents. Don’t tell me we break by a few terrorist inflicted losses, even if it were a few hundred.
Israeli leaders allowed the left and their controlled media to set the agenda and the narrative then allowed foreign gentiles to influence our responses… like Rabin and Shamir in the first intifada. It only got worse from then on. Shamir made disastrous decisions to sit on the sidelines for a month when we were under daily attacks with Scuds by Saddam. Compounded it by going to Madrid under the threat blackmail if you wish by America to rescind Loan guarantees needed to support massive Russian immigration. In the end we never needed most of the guarantee amt.
The guarantees saved us money by lower interest fees but that’s it. It was a form of blackmail.
If true that an apparent close ally may actually be an enemy, then it is incumbent of the prime minister to notify Israel of this impending serious problem. by not informing Israel be provides Obama with a fig leaf of innocence.
all these lame excuses are remedied by BB telling Israel the truth, being honest with his citizenry; if there is any truth these statements at all. we only have BB and his supporters word for it and even they are just speculating
BB has not taken this sudden turn in a vacuum. I have a more logical explanation which more accurately explains the deception of first deceiving the public in order to be elected and then shafting the electorate with a complete 180 degree turn:
BB, like many other Israeli PM’s before him, is subject to blackmail and extortion on an extreme personal level.
@ NormanF:
@ NormanF:
Yitro/Shavuot: Coercion at Sinai
The Torah describes the remarkable events that preceded the Torah’s revelation at Mount Sinai:
“Moses led the people out of the camp toward God and they stood at the bottom of the mountain.” (Ex. 19:17)
The Midrash interprets the phrase ‘bottom of the mountain’ quite literally: the people were standing, not at the foot of the mountain, but underneath it.
“The Holy One held the mountain over them like a bucket and warned them: If you accept the Torah — good. And if not — here you will be buried.” (Shabbat 88a)
This teaches the Jews were forced against their will or coerced by G-d into receiving the Torah.
Dr. Israel Eldad says:
http://www.saveisrael.com/eldad/eldadtorah.htm
@ yamit82:
Good points!
But its not the world that’s pressing Israel to give up its gains! That’s a lie! Its the Jews running away from G-d that is the source of their present problems. If only the Jewish State hearkened to the One in Heaven, it would win the respect of its foes and the admiration of its friends. It enjoys neither from them.
yamit82 Said:
There is a difference between compromise and capitulation. Israel’s Prime Minister thinks they are one and the same! He may pursue for peace from the Arabs all he wants but he will never get it from them. And the Jewish people will never know true peace as long as they scorn G-d. As it says in the Psalms: “Put not your trust in princes; they cannot save!” Only G-d can give Israel lasting peace! Some Jews in Israel are not about to let reality get in the way of the truth.
@ the phoenix:
When Jews speak of compromise what they really mean is capitulation. Compromise sounds nicer to the ear of the sheeple. So modern and progressive a verbal inversion of reality facts and truth. Funny our enemies never learned the word compromise; it’s not in their political vocabulary and they know the difference between compromise and capitulation. I envy them for that.
Iran is a major threat to both Israel, the US and, in fact, to the whole world.
This threat is underestimated by everyone except Netanyahu.
He needs any possibility, however minute, to maneuver and defend Israel and attack Iran, therefore this action would seem unreasonable to those who do not understand the context of why he is doing what he is doing and the context is that he is in a situation of ticking bomb about to explode and the culprit refusing to help.
Netanyahu will not dissuaded from attacking Iran by pressure – to me that is an axiom-because I understand that it cannot be otherwise since we would all be dead. People who do not understand the magnitude of the Iranian threat think that Netanyahu can budge on this issue. He cannot! Therefore, all other Netanyhu’s action serve this purpose. But all this only makes sense if we understand that Netanyahu HAS NO CHOICE because of the nature of the Iranian regime which Martin Sherman never explains.
What still remains a mystery to me is why the Israeli media, including Martin Sherman, refuse to explain the religious/ideological nature of the Iranian threat? Should not the Israeli public know all about what Bernard Lewis says on the inapplicability of MAD to Iran, should not the Israeli public know about the Mahdi and the Twelvers since it explains the magnitude and nature of the Iranian threat? Why is this a taboo topic?
Only in the context of a messianic regime bend on destroying 2/3 of humankind can actions with the release of the Palestinian prisoners make sense.
Give the Netanyahu government the benefit of the doubt
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/give-netanyahu-government-benefit-of.html
Iran is a major threat to both Israel, the US and, in fact, to the whole world.
This threat is underestimated by everyone except Netanyahu.
He needs any possibility, however minute, to maneuver and defend Israel and attack Iran, therefore this action would seem unreasonable to those who do not understand the context of why he is doing what he is doing and the context is that he is in a situation of ticking bomb about to explode and the culprit refusing to help.
Netanyahu will not dissuaded from attacking Iran by pressure – to me that is an axiom-because I understand that it cannot be otherwise since we would all be dead. People who do not understand the magnitude of the Iranian threat think that Netanyahu can budge on this issue. He cannot! Therefore, all other Netanyhu’s action serve this purpose. But all this only makes sense if we understand that Netanyahu HAS NO CHOICE because of the nature of the Iranian regime which Martin Sherman never explains.
What still remains a mystery to me is why the Israeli media, including Martin Sherman, refuse to explain the religious/ideological nature of the Iranian threat? Should not the Israeli public know all about what Bernard Lewis says on the in-applicability of MAD to Iran, should not the Israeli public know about the Mahdi and the Twelvers since it explains the magnitude and nature of the Iranian threat? Why is this a taboo topic?
Only in the context of a messianic regime bend on destroying 2/3 of humankind can actions with the release of the Palestinian prisoners make sense.
Give the Netanyahu government the benefit of the doubt
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/give-netanyahu-government-benefit-of.html
Comment is in moderation Pls release.
“May Your enemies swiftly be cut down. May You uproot, crush, cast down and humble the kingdom of arrogance swiftly in our days.” – Amidah prayer
The world’s attempts at the peace process can only be understood in a historical context. On their own, they are unintelligible. Why are countries so concerned with the national rights of the three-million-people Palestinian no-nation? The West doesn’t support independence for hundreds of liberation movements worldwide, including many that clearly involve historically, linguistically, and genetically distinguishable nations.
“And if you disregard My laws… you will run when no one pursues you.” – Leviticus 26:15-17
The Arabs the Vatican and West led by America demand that we cede the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, and Judea. If there are Jewish territories on earth, those are the ones. It would be sort of like Russia abandoning the Kremlin, or America selling the White House.
Maybe some painful concessions are historically normal? Not for victors. There is not a single instance in world history when an attacked country won the war, conquered the land of its enemy, and then relinquished it out of goodwill. Israel has been attacked half a dozen times in six decades; taking over the enemy’s land is a historically standard retribution.
Is there any benefit for Israel in agreeing to the concessions, however bizarre? No, they are clearly suicidal. No state can possibly exist within eight-mile-wide borders, let alone a state besieged by three hundred million enemies.
For the international community Those territorial demands are demanded in addition to auxiliary demands. Israel has to fight nicely, send her children into urban combat, and even in combat somehow inquire about a target’s terrorist affiliation before shooting. Israel has to be liberal—that is, abandon Judaism, which demands strict morality. Israel has to open herself to foreign influence, thus forgoing her uniquely Jewish lifestyle. Israel has to be democratic—which means, in plain English, to allow Arab voters to subvert the Jewish state. Israel has to be tolerant of minorities and accept Arabs as one third of her population. What will remain of the Jewish state when all those orders are implemented?
The US, our closest ally, 😉 prevents us from attacking Iran, which will acquire nuclear weapons within the next year. The US Administration is therefore okay with a nuclear Iran, which wants to wipe Israel off the map. This is not an isolated event: America condemned Israel for bombing Iraq’s nuclear reactor. In 1967, the outlook was apocalyptic, Jews dug tens of thousands of graves and prepared for total annihilation, but the US barred us from preempting; it did likewise in 1973. Two years after the Holocaust, the United Stated and Britain did not give their vote in the UN for the establishment of a Jewish state. When the state was established nonetheless, they embargoed weapons sales, fully expecting the Jews to be destroyed, they were in shock when we weren’t.
The Peace process being dictated and managed by the West (USA) is but another means to effect another holocaust.
“…we are back to the times of the kingdom of judea and israel.”
So true.
NormanF Said:
amen!
A Prime Minister who could not say “no” to Kerry on keeping convicted killers behind bars is not the man who will keep Israel safe from Iran.
Its a matter of courage and credibility – and Netanyahu has none. He must go – for the good of Israel!
“…it is so hard for me to understand how both of them fail to understand that our prime minister is trying to deal with an almost impossible diplomatic situation… ”
i am afraid, that there are CERTAIN fundamental differenced that can just NOT BE BRIDGED!
the fact that there are still people, jews (?), that ACTUALLY delude themselves to believe that there will be a ‘diplomatic solution’ is really the epitome of being in denial.
since it is OBVIOUS that they cannot see the folly and error in their judgement (ehm, jews for obama…SECOND TIME..anyone?)and cannot be persuaded by logic or sentiments any more than the ‘nationalist camp’ could be persuaded that these “painful concessions” and “sacrifices for peace” are for the good of the nation, in a VERY nebulous way.
that being said, we are back to the times of the kingdom of judea and israel.
… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4joq__awnGM