True leadership is tested on the ability to uphold decisions, hard as they may be. We were not elected to lead the State of Israel in order to make easy decisions.
Politics in Israel is indeed stranger than fiction. It certainly is more grotesque and macabre than most literary plots of deceit and betrayal.
Beyond belief
The spectacle unfolding before our eyes over the past several weeks in Israel’s theater of the politically absurd defies belief. We see an elected government supported by a ruling parliamentary coalition composed almost entirely of incumbent legislators, who built their political careers on opposing precisely the policy that they now seem powerless to prevent, and, in some cases, are even complicit in promoting.
So once again, a situation is emerging in which we have an Israeli government, whether willingly or unwillingly, embracing – or at least facilitating – the very policy its electoral constituency expected it to prevent.
Prime Minister Netanyahu achieved political prominence largely because of his fierce, and well-argued, opposition to Yitzhak Rabin’s adoption of the Oslo Accords. Yet, inexplicably, after all his criticism has been vindicated, he has embraced a policy even more concessionary than that he excoriated Rabin for.
Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon has been a fierce critic of the two-state-idea, articulating positions totally at odds with the policy proposals being discussed under the current Kerry initiative, whose underlying rationale is that Israel’s frontiers should be based on the indefensible pre-1967 lines. True, Ya’alon has recently come out with strong statements opposing the essential rationale of the ongoing negotiations. However, he has been unable to halt the continued erosion of Israeli positions, much less change the focus of the negotiations to anything remotely resembling the ideas he expounded – correctly – as vital to Israel’s minimal security requirements.
Other Likud ministers, including Gideon Sa’ar, Gilad Erdan, Israel Katz and Yuval Steinitz, have, with varying degrees of passion, recently expressed opposition to Palestinian statehood.
And the list continues…
Similarly, Ministers Uzi Landau and Yair Shamir have always been vehemently opposed to concessions far less sweeping than those now being placed on the table for discussions in which the government to which they belong continues to participate.
Then there are the hard-line Bayit Yehudi ministers, Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel, whose party gained its impressive electoral achievement by rejecting any possibility of Israel permitting the kind of political outcomes being discussed by the government in which they serve – outcomes which would negate the raison d’etre of the platform on which they were elected and the political philosophy to which they subscribe.
Indeed, recently party-leader Bennett dismissed the notion of a Palestinian state, declaring, “Never in the annals of Israel have so many people expended so much energy on something so futile.” There is little doubt that this reflects the views of the other two Bayit Yehudi ministers and deputy ministers, as well as those of the other 12 representatives of the party in the Knesset In addition, there is a bevy of up-and-coming young Likud members who hold considerable sway in their party precisely because of the hawkish views they adopted: Deputy Ministers Danny Danon, Ze’ev Elkin and Tzipi Hotovely, together with coalition chairman Yariv Levin, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein and, of course, his outspoken deputy, Moshe Feiglin.
This is not an exhaustive list of elected politicians whose political credo and career were centered around a commitment to prevent precisely developments which the government, whose existence is dependent on their support, is now inching inexorably towards. But it suffices to convey the fact that there is a formidable battery of coalition members who, with coordinated and determined action, should have been able to make the course presently adopted – or acquiesced to – by the PM, impossible to adopt or acquiesce to.
Surreal spectacle
What we see is very different. It is the surreal spectacle of the relentless advance of a grotesque two-state juggernaut of failed formulae and disproven dogma, undeterred by the death and destruction left strewn in its wake, edging ever-closer towards its inevitable destination of catastrophe and chaos.
In response to this, all that this considerable gallery has mustered by way of resistance is declarative bluster. Instead of rallying forces for effective political opposition to the rapidly unfolding developments, countermeasures have been meager, sporadic and easily dispensed with.
An illustrative case in point is the bill initiated by Likud MK Miri Regev and submitted to the Ministerial Committee for Legislation calling for annexation of the Jordan Valley.
Although the intentions that the bill conveyed were eminently laudable, and received overwhelming 8-3 support from coalition ministers, it was quickly sidelined and shelved, sparking mainly anger and ridicule from its critics on the Left.
If the bill, in itself a worthy initiative, had been part of a wider revolt against Netanyahu’s increasing willingness to accede to increasingly outrageous concessions, it might have had value. But as a stand-alone effort it is unlikely to have anything more than a nuisance effect, scornfully brushed aside as the “process” continues its deadly course.
(Note: As I write these lines, reports are coming in of some early signs of encouraging resistance beginning to emerge – but it is premature to judge their long-term efficacy or resilience.)
Even more surreal
However, the submission of Regev’s annexation bill did induce several revealing responses.
The first was that of Netanyahu, who, although he did not impede the vote on the bill – perhaps because he knew it could be easily suspended – did not seize on it to use as an indication to the US and the Palestinians that the Jordan Valley was not negotiable under any conditions.
Indeed, by not enthusiastically endorsing the vote, he has shattered – at least by implication – what has for almost half a century been a matter of national consensus – i.e., that in any permanent settlement, the Jordan Valley will remain under Israeli control as its indispensable security frontier in the east.
The second was the response of the so-called left wing – particularly that of the Labor Party – especially in light of the crucial role the Jordan Valley had in Yitzhak Rabin’s vision of a permanent solution with the Palestinians as conveyed in his final address to the Knesset: “… these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution… The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
Given this stipulation by the late Nobel Peace laureate, the Labor Party reaction appears breathtakingly bizarre.
The secretary-general of the Labor Party, MK Hilik Bar, warned that annexing the Jordan Valley (i.e., ensuring implementation of Rabin’s vision) would “sabotage Israel in the diplomatic negotiations, harm the efforts of the prime minister to come to a two-state solution, deepen the rift that already exists between us and the US.”
How surreal can you get?
Casting Rabin as “crazy”
In “retaliation” for Regev’s move, Bar submitted a countervailing bill to the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which would require that the final status of Judea-Samaria be determined only within the framework of a twostate solution agreement with the Palestinians.
This, of course, is tantamount to repudiating Rabin’s vision, for there is more chance of crocodiles becoming vegan than of the Palestinians agreeing to a framework where “the security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
Somewhat more outspoken against the idea of ensuring the Jordan Valley remain Israel’s security frontier was left-wing Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On, who lashed out at Netanyahu for allowing the bill to be raised. She railed: “Every crazy Likud MK can propose another ridiculous bill, but the prime minister is quiet.”
Ah the vagaries of Israeli politics. The endeavor to ensure the fulfillment of the very vision that, once, could confer on one international accolades as a “valiant warrior for peace,” is now condemned as “crazy.”
Mind-boggling myopia
The furor over the Jordan Valley underscores how apt a paraphrasing of Georges Clemenceau’s dictum “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” would be for politics in Israel. It is becoming increasingly and disturbingly apparent that here “politics is too serious a matter to entrust to the politicians.”
As an illustration as to how dangerously dysfunctional the Israeli political system and its politicians have become, consider the mind-boggling myopia of the remark made by former Labor party leader Shelly Yacimovich.
According to Yacimovich, Israel’s geopolitical situation allows it to make compromises on the Jordan Valley. In her assessment, “We live in an environment undergoing strategic changes. There is no threat to the Jordan Valley from the eastern frontier.”
This is an incredibly moronic statement, particularly from someone who not so long ago saw herself as a realistic candidate for prime minister. For it is precisely because of the strategic changes Israel’s environment is undergoing that the continued control of the Jordan Valley is imperative.
For anyone with half a brain, it should be crystal clear that the working assumption must be that the days of the current regime in Jordan – or at least the days of its current disposition towards Israel – are numbered. Not only is it facing rising challenges from ascendant Islamist elements and losing support from traditional Beduin loyalists, the country is being inundated by refugees fleeing the violence in Syria.
Not only does this influx impose a huge burden on the stability of the regime, it provides an excellent conduit for insertion of al-Qaida-affiliated extremists into the country.
This, coupled with turmoil and disintegration of law and order in Iraq, means Israel could soon be facing the daunting prospect of a vast radicalized Islamist expanse stretching from Iran westward, pressing on its eastern frontier.
Whether that frontier is the Jordan Valley or the indefensible “Auschwitz” pre-1967 lines (with/without minor land swaps) is a matter of life and death for Israel and Israelis.
Has Israel contracted political HIV?
Merely by consenting to negotiate Israeli control over the Jordan Valley, Netanyahu has gravely jeopardized that control.
In the half-decade that he has been in power, he has made unprecedented concessions, previously inconceivable, conveying that once any issue, no matter how outrageous or outlandish, is raised, Israel will eventually give way. Much like an HIV victim who has lost his/her ability to resist disease, so Israel seems bereft of its capacity to resist political pressure, no matter how pernicious or perverse.
Whether it was the unprecedented and unreciprocated decision to freeze construction in Judea-Samaria; to submit to Hamas’s conditions for the Schalit exchange; to apologize to the Turks for IDF commandos defending themselves against disembowelment by frenzied Islamists; to release scores of murderers convicted for brutal acts of terror, by bowing to each implausible demand, he has made the next implausible demand inevitable.
The fact that this cavalcade of capitulation has occurred under governments/coalitions stacked with allegedly hard-line hawks, makes it only more difficult to comprehend and accept. They have created the impression that Zionism has been gutted, its admired defiance reduced to craven compliance.
Unless the growing signs of rancor inside coalition ranks coalesce into a successful endeavor to stem the tide of Israeli submission, future historians are likely to point to the current government as inflicting the most devastating blow to the spirit of, and the belief in, the Zionist enterprise.
The true test of leadership
Netanyahu has correctly said that the test of true leadership is the ability to make and execute hard decisions.
He is right, yet he has failed in this test. Time and again he has taken the easy way out, forsaken principles rather than preserve them, bowed to pressure rather than resist or deflect it and set Israel on a perilous course from which it must be diverted.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
(www.strategic-israel.org)
yamit82 Said:
Clever Devil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shy Guy Said:
No, but I directed it to Felix to get his reaction. I doubt he would understand your objection or question.
Shy Guy Said:
I am, are Palis ducks?
honeybee Said:
I insist that you watch this clip from start to finish. No quitting or skipping. I know I can count on you. You won’t be sorry!
Shy Guy Said:
http://youtu.be/Kq8F8PeDBOU
yamit82 Said:
You’re not serious, are you?
I’d believe Daffy Duck before I’d rely on Dagan.
SarahSue Said:
Another one for my “coat of arms”.
@ yamit82:
To believe Felix or Dagan?
Former Mossad chief: We don’t need Jordan Valley
Meir Dagan says Kerry’s interest in achieving regional peace is fueled by his plans to run for US presidency
http://www.timesofisrael.com/former-mossad-chief-we-dont-need-jordan-valley/
Then he said: “Israel should not launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not because it can’t do so, but because such an attack would be very limited, he said.
“When a state, on a strategic level, decides that it wants something, the ability to stop it is very limited, even if you use the most drastic measures,” he said. “Even if we assume that we would use the military option to deal with this, I think that achievements that we would reach would be limited. It would be a delay, not an end” to Iranian nuclear development”.
Felix the great military strategist and military fighter says no!!!! You know better? What are your military credentials and exhibits of your geopolitical and military analytical acumen? You are very brave on back of an-others blood sweat and agony, any fallout does not and probably will not directly fall on your miserable head. You can afford to be bombastically militaristic. Your enemy is capitalism and your reasoning is that any major attack on Iran and your hoped for consequences would or could put the global economies in a steep depression and or global to regional conflict, thereby putting a nail in Capitalism. You hope to be around to pick up the pieces for the victorious Commies.
I’ll bet it Never occurred to you that Iran may already have a few nukes either purchased or home grown?
Felix Quigley Said:
Show me a link where I said that. It must be in the archives.
I need to smoke out the exact positions of you and Ross towards this Sherman analysis. I consider both of you as big danger to Jewish future.
Yes I think Sherman has done a sterling job in this analysis. It is vital that Israpundit explores this closely and is not diverted by trolls.
Vital lessons are contained in this analysis by Sherman.
No ifs and buts from Ross and Yamit82
This is what is good about Yamit82…his consistency
When I raised the need to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat a few years ago Yamit disagreed with me, attacking me as somebody not involved, whatever that meant
Another of Yamit 82’s stupidity. the answer to a Nuclear Iran is for Israel to hit them with everything. There is a similar answer to the Palestinian Arab issues, note I do not use the term “Palestinian” ever but Yamit does…”palis”
You do not do one … you do not do the other.
Sherman is talking about leadership in this article, solely leadership
Felix Quigley Said:
Is that a rock in you comment,or are just glad to see me?????Sugar Pie: http://youtu.be/FJS670okmZc
Honeybee said
So
Keep your hatred of men, left wing fascist anti man mentality, keep it to yourself. This is not the place as we are discussing the Sherman analysis
This is the 3rd BB led government and in each case the political right and the religious parties had a natural parliamentary majority but in each case BB opted to divide the majority and splitting their power by the inclusion of left wing parties, then giving them key ministerial portfolios.
Can anyone imagine the British or the French doing the same? Would an American president divide his majority by giving Key appointments to his opposition party?
Only in Israel and specifically BB opted to not govern with his natural ideological partners thereby dividing and weakening their power and influence in just about everything but especially where it concerns International relations and managing territorial population expansion and the relations with the Palis.
Begin appointed Moshe Dayan as FM and with his flaky brother in law, DM Ezer Weizmann, pushed Begin with another Flake and political opportunist Arik Sharon’s stamp of approval,they pushed through the Camp David Accords. There was then more opposition from the left and Labor than from the phony Land of Israel ideologists of the Likud who mostly supported Begin.
One could say that in 1979 the then Labor party was more right wing and pro settlement than Begin and the Likud. What is apparent and obvious is that BB is a true disciple of the traitorous Begin. Both demagogues talked the talk and both betrayed their constituents, their life long ideology and ultimately the Land of Israel and the Jewish people.
This palis Bull shit is a distraction from our main problem, that of a Nuclear Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama double crossed BB and not just once yet BB is the only world leader of any country that when Obama and America say to Jump he asks how high and That was after having been double crossed on Iran several times over.
For BB the hard decision is not Iran,BDS, EU or the Palsi conflict, it’s saying NO to Obama, seems he just can’t manage that simple word…Re: the confused Israeli People… For most of BB’s 3 terms his popularity polling ratings aside from some peaking is and has been in the low thirties. The last time his popularity peaked to close to 60% was when he stood up to Obama in the WH when he lectured Obama. Israelis want a strong Leader and we got BB. 🙁
…test of true leadership is the ability to make and execute hard decisions.
All of us of any age has known the agony of trying to figure out what we should do in difficult times. Often our souls quailed at the thought of the fallout that would occur no matter what we did. Some decisions were made all the more difficult because we did not have any history or precedent to guide us.
PM Netanyahu does not have this excuse. Out of his own mouth, he has made the case time and time again, why Israel could not cross certain red lines. Simply put, her future was and is at stake.
Yet we watch in horror as Iran is taken off the table, because to continue discussing it would breach some bogus political lines. Lines, I may add, that have been drawn by the enemy. Nothing seems to be sacrosanct to either the Israeli or American administrations. The general consensus seems to be that angering our enemies will bring nothing but disaster.
That is all fine and well, but what about angering our friends? Do they not count? How can you count on their support when you make decisions to placate the implacable?
Making hard decisions is not the issue, the issue is making correct decisions and sticking by them. Making correct decisions puts the country at your back. Making correct decisions gives you strength to stand up to your enemies. Making the correct decisions make your friends ask, ‘What can we to do help?’
What are Israel’s friends supposed to do now? We cannot support a government bent on national suicide, yet we cannot turn our backs on the Israeli people.
We Americans watch as our Secretary of State Kerry, a son of Belial, skips from country to country, leaving in his wake, one horrified government after another. Soon he will visit Jordan and Saudi Arabia. May they will give him a much needed reality check. They too, are about the suffer the consequences of an American and Israeli administration gone amok.
Americans and Israelis are sick and tired of being told what we need to do. We know better that you. We are constantly being told that we are sick of fighting wars, that we have lost our will to fight. Stuff and nonsense. The only thing we are sick of is losing. Losing to the stupid, the weak, the insane, the enemies of all we hold dear. We are losing because our own government want us to lose. That is what we are sick of. Because of the actions of our governments, our enemies are gleefully anticipating our destruction.
Let me leave them with this quote from WWI that sums up the situation we find ourselves in beautifully.
Ferdinand Foch, Marshal of France in the first battle of Marne, September 8, 1914: My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat: situation excellent. I shall attack.
SarahSue
Overall I agree with Sherman’s assessment of the facts. I have been pointing GOI and PM failures re YS for a while. Why assume that he has failed in the agenda he set out to implement? Why assume that he is an honest individual who has some roundabout secret reason for doing the exact opposite of what his electorate wants him to do? There are alternative explanations which I have prior raised whereby ALL his actions are completely harmonious and in sync with his agenda, but his agenda is not the agenda of those who wish to retain YS. Perhaps he works for the same parties that rabin, olmert, sharon, barak, livni work for. The one consistent agenda that can be depended on through successive GOI’s and PM’s is that of giving away YS to the muslims. If BB’s current apparent agenda is successful he will succeed in giving YS to the muslims and if he is unsuccessful his coalition will fail and the left will be brought in to power. In both cases the agenda behind the crooked politicians will be successful.
The only scenario in which this will not happen, and BB is honest, will be if there is a “secret” understanding that the talks will implode and that the release of terrorists and entering negotiations was based on this agreed outcome or a similar outcome whereby the main status quo is unchanged. The problem is that Sharon and BB had such assumed “agreements”under the table before and those “understandings” never materialized after giving away(e.g. Clintons Pollard release in 90’s, Sharon’s Bush letter and Iran promises, etc).
Felix Quigley Said:
You never spoke to my prior points re Sherman therefore I assume you have no interest in what I have to say. In fact, the behavior of politicians in this article is what I have raised before and suggested as a reason for Shermans approaches not working. His approaches rely on a GOI or a PM taking action in alignment with his agenda whereas I have been saying that a GOI or PM will have to be compelled to take action in alignment with his agenda because the GOI and PM are proven to be hostile and obstructive to any agenda promoting legal jewish settlement of YS. If a GOI or PM cannot get behind this internationally legally binding principle then further swindling should be expected. A GOI or PM that, through their acts of commission and omission, legitimize the greatest myth and libel against the Jewish people should be expected to be dishonest. Sherman and others have not yet internalized the magnitude of such a corruption or even recognized its existence. Sherman still acts as if it is merely some sort of defect or malaise that is unexplained. Therefore, his solutions always hinge on the GOI or PM waking up rather than that they are a direct cause of the catastrophe. Until the GOI and PM speaks and acts for the legality of Jewish settlement in YS we should expect continued corruption and confusion. Perhaps there will be someone who can do the right thing who will arise. The GOI and the PM reflect the current electorate, political parties and religious sector: hardly anyone speaks and ACTS for the legality of jewish settlement in YS.
Adopt Levy, dismiss Livni, instruct Ministry to demand compliance of treaties and international agreements with the Jewish people from US, EU, UN, etc. as a simple beginning.
In one day these can change everything if the GOI and PM are honest.
Quigley: read my analysis of same on the other MS article
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63592687#comment-63356000118064
yamit82 Said:
Absolutly love that,I shall place on “my coat of arms”.
yamit82 Said:
Sorry Darlin,but most men are incapable of the above statement. As I say to TX,” think before you think”!!!!!!!!
Credo quia absurdum. I believe because it is absurd.
Solving the Israeli Palis conflict even if it were a realistic possibility would do nothing to influence or AMELIORATE our existential threat from Iran. If anything concessions Israel is commanded to make will weaken our ability to confront Iran both militarily, strategically and internally by weakening our social, economic and spiritual foundations. If Israel cannot stand up to America and Europe over an issue like the Jordan valley what would Israels response be when they demand we sign on the the Nuclear Nonproliferation agreement and give up our Nukes; because such a demand with accompanied threats will surely come.
The policy of Israel must be deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post.
“In his illuminating 1982 book, The Bar Kokhba Syndrome, Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former chief of military intelligence in Israel, chose to examine a calamitous Jewish-historical event from the second century (132-135 A.D/CE). More precisely, Harkabi sought to understand how an ill-fated ancient uprising could have pushed the Jewish people to the very outer margins of history and, more important, how specific strategic lessons might still be learned from that endeavor. He concluded as follows:
(a) “In policy-making, to take a risk and to make sacrifices occasionally is necessary, but there is a limit to the dangers worthy of risk, for national existence is never to be jeopardized;” and (b) “…in (specifically) nuclear circumstances, refrain from a provocation for which the adversary may have only one response, nuclear war.” Evaluated in terms of Israel’s present and unprecedented security concerns, it appears that Harkabi would now favor virtually any promising Israeli strategies intended to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, but – failing that preferred option – would then urge implementation of maximally stable nuclear deterrence between the two adversary states. Yielding the smallest expected probabilities of catastrophic failure, this presumptively optimal system of dissuasion would be designed to convince Tehran that any actual use of its nuclear weapons in warfare, even in retaliation, would be irrational.
Strategic thinking is a net. In the Middle East, only those who cast will catch.”
yamit82 Said:
\ Here is little all other voicing an oppinion!!!!!
Felix Quigley Said:
So you agree wholeheartedly with no reservations with Sherman’s crique?
You can add nothing or reject anything he said?
Or are you just waiting for me and others to voice our opinions so you can react to them instead of to Sherman directly?
Israpundit, with great choice of articles chosen by a wise man, has in its comment section such a selection of political scoundrels that I want to see proper discussion of their positions. What better place than on an article by the asture Martin Sherman, whose analyses I have the highest regard for, and which I wish my website http://www.4intenational.me take political guidance from
I draw from the above “undeterred” and “inevitable”, two adverbs which are as correct as they are ominous.
I see this article as being a severe warning to the Jewish people and to Israel supporters and defenders wherever they are, and I am one, and my website http://www.4international.me is, as long as I am alive, going to follow in that fight to defend Israel
The ideas put forward in this article need to be taken on board by everybody connected with all websites, and by Israpundit too.
I await to see what people like Yamit82, Ross and ALL others have to say.