The abysmal political situation emerging today underscores the inability of a hopelessly naïve and incompetent Right to contend with an unscrupulously malevolent and delusional Left.
The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring its actual implementation in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than the number which they have kept.
– Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (Keter: Jerusalem, 1978), p. 255
There will be no Palestinian state…
– Binyamin Netanyahu, at the first meeting of the Likud central committee after his election as prime minister, 1996
For many who were of voting age in the early 1990s, just before the ruinous Oslo Accords were hatched, the current political realities – particularly the ongoing insistence by the US administration that Israel withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 Auschwitz borders – must seem like a scene out of a macabre, Kafkaesque fantasy.
And it is there – in the age-distribution demographics – that much of the problem lies.
Once a perfidious anathema
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, only a little over 35 percent of the population today is over 38 years of age and thus were old enough to vote 20 years ago, when the Oslo process began.
This group is the only segment of the population that has any real first-hand political memory of pre-Oslowian realities, when the ideas that process embodied were considered a perfidious anathema (see introductory excerpts).
Who then could have imagined the grotesque twist of events that were about to take place, that within a short time the Judeocidal arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat would be a Nobel Peace laureate, armed Arab militias, drawn from the ranks of murderous terror organizations, would be deployed within mortar range of the nation’s parliament, that a Likud-led government would obliterate decades of Zionist enterprise, lay waste to thriving communities, and abandon Jewish places of worship to desecration and destruction by frenzied Judeophobic mobs…? After all, polls conducted up to the late 1980s showed that well over 80% of the public was opposed to any significant territorial concessions.
Moreover, for 20 of the 28 years between 1977, when the allegedly right-wing Likud, led by Menachem Begin, first came to power on a platform championing Greater Israel, and 2005, when a Likud-led government, headed by Arik Sharon, blatantly violated its electoral pledges, and unilaterally abandoned Gaza – the prime minister came from the ranks of the Likud, which headed the ruling coalition.
Inexplicable conundrum of capitulation
Yet despite enjoying all these advantages, in terms of public sentiment and electoral outcomes, the so-called Right allowed its rivals on the Left to transform what was, until the early 1990s, a completely marginalized – indeed, borderline treasonous – political doctrine into a respectable, arguably majority, mainstream position.
Worse, time and again after having won the elections by promoting policies that opposed territorial concessions and Palestinian statehood, warning of the grave dangers they entailed, so-called right-wing coalitions began to embrace the very policies they had repudiated. Inconceivably, inexplicably and unacceptably this intellectual capitulation occurred just as it became undeniably apparent that these policies had been an abject failure and their prior rejection was completely justified.
Regrettably however, with a few – and largely marginal exceptions – the political Right has been unable and/or unwilling to follow through on the logic of these critiques and draw the conclusions their underlying rationale implies.
Accordingly, it has been appallingly remiss in not proposing a convincing, comprehensive alternative for the conduct of the affairs of the nation, which, if adopted, would result in a sustainable outcome that ensures the long-term survival of Israel as the nationstate of the Jewish people.
Thus instead of consigning the disproven formula of territorial concessions and political appeasement to the garbage pile of history, with all the attendant ridicule it so richly deserves, they breathed – albeit with professed reluctance – new life into this dangerous doctrine.
No convincing comprehensive counter-paradigm
We are compelled to conclude that the leadership of the political Right has displayed neither the intellectual depth and nor the daring necessary to formulate a cogent counter-paradigm to replace that of the political Left.
Indeed, until Netanyahu’s infamous watershed Bar- Ilan Speech in June 2009, when, in effect, it accepted the notion of Palestinian statehood – albeit with unrealistic and ineffectual reservations – the Right had never articulated a clear and comprehensive idea of how it envisioned the permanent-status arrangement with the Palestinians.
As a result, the Right found itself unable to respond effectively to the very pointed and pertinent question from left-wing adversaries: “So what’s your alternative?” With no comprehensive countervailing paradigmatic position to promote or defend, the Right found itself gradually forced to give way under the weight of this onerous question, and to adopt increasing portions of the formula it had rejected.
Recent rumblings, principally from within certain sectors of Israel’s civil society, however, show signs that awareness of the devastatingly detrimental effects of this situation seem to be dawning on some individuals and organizations associated with the Right, and that there is a growing recognition of the urgent need to address the intellectual vacuum left by their political leadership.
In principle, this is a positive development and has resulted in a spate of proposals being advanced from several sources as purported alternatives to withdrawal from large swathes of Judea-Samaria and the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.
Out of frying pan; into fire?
Regrettably, however, most of these are poorly thought through, and even if implemented, would leave Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, in a situation hardly less beleaguered – diplomatically, politically and physically – than if it adopted the perilous prescription of the Left.
Typically, these alternative proposals fall into three broad categories. (a) Those that would leave Israel with a massive enfranchised Muslim minority (up to 40%) within its frontiers, critically undermining the ability to maintain the dominant Jewish character of the state, whatever the initial electoral arithmetic; (b) those that would leave Israel with excessively long and torturous frontiers, impossible to delineate (other than on a map) and to secure; and (c) those that entail both (a) and (b).
Most of these alternative proposals draw on optimistic (but not necessarily unrealistic) demographic assumptions as to the growth of the Arab population, but pay little heed to the negative effect the proposals might have on the Jewish population, were they to be implemented.
Lamentably, by insisting on blatantly flawed and clearly counter-productive political paradigms as proffered alternatives to the Left’s prescription of appeasement and accommodation, the authors of these proposals and their supporters only bolster the false perception that the latter is the only game in town.
Intellectual surrender on the Right
The current situation smacks not only of intellectual surrender of the Right, but seems to be symptomatic of a needless and unjustified sense of intellectual inferiority.
For at base, virtually all of the ideo-political endeavor on the Right has in some way been a response to the frame of reference imposed on the political discourse by the Left, rather than setting up its own frame of reference, and compelling the Left to respond to it.
Arguably, the two principle elements of the Left’s ideo-political framing are the issue of demography and the authenticity of the Palestinian claim to nationhood.
It has been the Right’s fruitless attempts to address one or both of these elements that have made these alternative proposals seem contrived, contorted and unconvincing.
Instead, the Right’s point of departure must be the prescription of the desired strategic reality Israel requires to endure as the nation-state of the Jews (manageable geographic and demographic parameters), and the specification of the requirements necessary to achieve it (retention of geo-strategic assets and reduction of demographically incompatible and hostile elements within the frontiers that include those assets). In other words, the Right’s point of departure must be its own strategic objective and not the alleged obstacles that the Left presents as precluding its attainment.
Subtle but crucial distinction
To some this may appear an abstruse distinction, but it is of crucial importance.
For it will allow the Right to seize the initiative and force the Left to respond – the reverse of the situation that has prevailed until now. Thus, while the Left may be loath to admit it is wrong (more on this later), it must be coerced to prove it is right (no pun intended).
This is something it cannot do.
After all, how can it insist on the authenticity of Palestinian nationality when the Palestinians themselves openly admit it is a hoax to undermine the existence of Jewish nationality? How can it claim that economic incentives cannot induce Palestinian-Arabs to leave the country, when in fact it was economic incentives that induced the vast majority of them to arrive here when Zionismbegan to develop the country? But most important, since the Left clearly sees no moral defect in funding the evacuation of Jews from their homes (evacuations-compensation) to facilitate the establishment of what in all likelihood will become a failed mini-microstate and a haven for radical Islamist terror groups, how could it possibly object, on ethical grounds, to funding the evacuation of Palestinian-Arabs to preclude the establishment of such an entity?
Misreading the battlefield
The Right has totally mis-read the battlefield and shown itself incapable of understanding the nature of the forces that it has to contend with.
It has failed to grasp the scope and intensity of the enmity of its political rivals. It has failed to realize the lengths to which the Left will go to impose its worldview on the nation. It has failed to recognize the depth of the Left’s malevolent resolve to realize its demonstrably delusional prescription for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, and the Israeli-Palestinian one, in particular.
Accordingly, virtually all of the Right’s activities have been, at best, irrelevant to rebutting or reversing the relentless advance of the political program of the Left.
This is emerging with increasing clarity from the Left’s support for the Kerry initiative, which as I mentioned last week, is threatening to develop into a political tsunami that could wash away almost half a century of Zionist achievement.
The Right has approached the political debate largely in good faith, believing, naively and erroneously, that the substantively better arguments, the constructive and creative efforts on its part, the factual evidence in support of its case, and against that of the Left, would carry the day.
As a result, it has misdirected its efforts and resources into activities and causes that even if successful, will have little, if any, impact on the course events are to take, and the strategic outcomes they will produce.
Like taking a knife to a gun fight
For as noble and praiseworthy as the efforts are to prevent the desecration of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, to secure the religious rights of Jews on the Temple Mount, to purchase properties for Jews in east Jerusalem, to continue the archeological restoration of the City of David, they are in the final analysis as effective as bringing a knife to a gunfight.
For, they will do little to prevent the historic tragedy of the division of Jerusalem, unless the political will to secure its unity under Jewish sovereignty prevails.
Indeed, they siphon off resources that are needed for victory on the main and crucial front – the strategic ideological battle.
To this end it is imperative to consolidate all rightwing resources into a massive ideological onslaught to delegitimize the Palestinian narrative, and its inevitable corollary, the idea of Palestinian statehood, and to discredit any individual and organization that lends support to them.
After all, that’s what the Left would do.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategicisrael.org)
@ yamit82:
Ascorbic Acid [Vitamin C]. Megadoses (1000-mg tabs), in time-release form (IMPORTANT: to protect the kidneys from overburdening) — 6-8 grams (i.e., 60,000 – 80,000 mg) per day till all symptoms are gone.
— Then 3-4 grams per day, general maintenance.
It won’t kill the flu now that you’ve got it, but it will mitigate the symptoms and cut short the timespan of the ravages.
Vitamin D3 — 10,000 IU per day — will ALSO help speed recovery. Get the gels rather than the tabs; they absorb faster & more thoroughly.
Fresh chicken soup ain’t bad either. Turns out that, when boiled, the lipids in chicken fat have antihistamine qualities.
Flu is opportunistic.
If your resistance were higher, you’d have had a substantially reduced chance of catching it, even at the height of the season.
One of the most treacherous destroyers of resistance is emotionalism (outward OR suppressed); it chews up the immune system like termites feasting on drywall
— it’s at least as destructive as tobacco and insufficient sleep; maybe more. . . .
Bet you didn’t know that H1N1 (that’s the Hiney-Swiney Flu) was a distant relative of the Achy-Breaky Heart.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/ultra-orthodox-abandon-israeli-right-wing.html#ixzz2tEamIyvk
Europes new bosom buddies. And I thought it was only the left that was in cahoots with the euroscum. It looks like they will go wherever their perks are protected.
If the religious sector cannot get behind Israel holding YS or the religious sites then the process is doomed. the religious sector is more damaging than the secular left because they lend religious credibility to giving up YS. The enemies of the Jews must be dancing in glee to see how one Jew will sell out the other.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/rabbi-ovadia-yosef-settlements-oslo-accords-shas-party.html
(read the comments of the last link)
Perhaps they know more than us.
Felix Quigley Said:
AAVE POSTED LAST YOU HAVE POSTED SOMETHING WORTH READING!!!!!!!!!!!DARLIN
interesting article floating the idea of how some “al qaeda” jihadis can be false flags and funded by Iran. the syrian gov of Assad helped the ex army militias loyal to Saddam. both were baathist govs as opposed to religious jihadi. It shows how false fronts can be activated and operated to sow confusion. it also demonstrates how the sunni shia “war” is not really a sunni shia war but a cover to advance geopolitical agenda. I believe the same is true of the GCC funded AQ and salafis. The key is not in ideologies but in who is funding and supporting the group.
Yamit wrote 8now 3 days ago)
You are a fascist. In your opinión it is necessary to murder communists and the above shows something else that you are prepared to join with Stalinists and Fascists in murdering communists.
The above comments show something else. Every person in the comments above seem to consider the above fascismm as not worth opposing.
That will show an awful lot about the political positions of everybody writing on this blog
the phoenix Said:
When he’s weak and vunerable,NO WAY JOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Felix Quigley Said:
But still vital inspite of a bought with the flu.
Yamit82 writes above
On the contrary my opinions are worth a great deal indeed on all political issues that have come up on Israpundit over many years and will become worth more as time goes on.
These cover many world issues. But in relation to Jews and Israel I take the part unconditionally of Jews against Antisemitism and especially I insist that the Jewish Homeland, now a fact, is a place where Jews must be able to live alone unmolested by Antisemitism. That itself has got big implications as it Works out in policy and this is where in one aspect I draw close to Sherman who has come to the conclusión that Glick and Feiglins’ ideas where Arabs remain is a récipe for continuing killing of Jews.
The last part of foul mouthed ab use against Leon Trotsky is Fascist in essence and as a Fascist you are supporting the murder of Leon Trotsky by a Stalinist assasin.
You may not live to see it because I believe you are quite old, but rest assured that the great Jewish people will come to oppose your Fascist views towards Leon Trotsky with great vigour.
Finally it is a free world here on Israpundit and you can say who is a good Irishman, and I can without your permission say that Sherman is a good Jew, a patriotic Jew, a patriotic Jew who uses sarcasm against religión, a mild form of sarcasm but sarcasm nevertheless. He would be amused by your position above.
@ yamit82:
I feel guilty for posting this now (4:23am dimona time) but…. Posting at 3;40 am is not exactly slumber…..;-)
HONEYBEE!
Let the poor man sleep!…… http://youtu.be/PkhPuH8G5Hg
yamit82 Said:
My favorite vicodin
yamit82 Said:
For female mind delving or heart attacks!!!!!!!!!!
@ yamit82:
I turned off my computor, I thought yousere done with me,Darlin So sorry your ill,I shall send you some phychic chichen soup and loving sympathaty,Sweeti Thang.
@ honeybee:
http://vimeo.com/52231459
@ the phoenix:
Thanks tried them all and am over medicated to boot. Nothing helps for more than a half hour more or less. Sleep a lot though which for me is a novel experience. 🙂
http://vimeo.com/52231459
Salomon Benzimra Said:
A- There is no such thing in Israel of a the definable political right. In most cases it’s the left who defines who is the right. We all know though who is on the left and what they stand for. First step should be in defining who is a political right winger. I suspect your ideas and mine are not the same and therein lies the problem.
B- Unless the government of Israel leads there is nothing you can do if they are moving in the opposite direction by pursuing a 2 state policy and pursuing proactively PEACE AGREEMENTS with the Palis using the good offices (Sarc/) of America to both mediate and pressure Israel to make decisions against her own interests and against the majority will of the Israeli people.
C- Terror works as all gains made by the Palis since 1970 is due to the degree of Terror they have managed to wage against us. Today just the threat of terror has much the same effect as 9/11 has had on America. Just the threat has changed the nature of America and cost the American economy trillions to date. In Israel just the threat of a new intifada has influenced Israeli policy to be more compromising and to limit the power of Israel to inflict a fatal blow to the PA by withdrawing our economic support to the PA and by our usual tepid response to aggressive provocations by the Arabs against Israel.
They are now threatening to use the courts and the UN to attack Israel when the negotiations fail along with increased economic boycotts while some have threatened to return to active terror.
D- Only the IDF can change the geopolitical paradigm for Israel by being proactive. Then and only then can you make the case for Israel based on your and others papers detailing Israels rights and counter narratives to the current widely accepted palis one. it’s a one two punch.
@ yamit82:
Tea
Lemon
Honey
cognac (well known for its medicinal value… 😉 )
Repeat ad lib
honeybee Said:
My 3 choices:
Robert young in Father Knows Best?
Carroll O’Connor as Archie bunker?
Jason Alexander as George Costanza?
honeybee Said:
Not today Honey just some magical remedy to get rid of the flu bug I caught.
4yamit82 Said:
Need a piece or two of chocolate!!!!! Darlin
Salomon Benzimra Said:
In Enlish “The right” does not need to be puralized, it is understood.
yamit82 Said:
Who can delve the “female mind”, maybe more like Red Fox in “Sandford and Sons”.
Joseph Rapaport Said:
Deception!!!!
Martin Sherman laments that the Right has not produce an alternative “peace plan” to the Left’s.
In fact, the problem of the Right is different: it has produced a plethora of divergent plans, thus showing its unfortunate divisions. And the Left is capitalizing on the Right’s lack of unity by hailing the “two-state solution” as the one and only solution.
But, eventually, Martin Sherman concedes:
Since last November, I have argued that the Rights should stay away from proposing new “plans” and devote its energies to precisely what Sherman advocates in the paragraph above. I later summarized this notion in Comment #7.
Felix Quigley Said:
Your opinions are worth shit in all cases but especially when it comes to defining “who is a Jew” no less a “good Jew”. Stick to firmer ground like the manifesto of Marx, Engels and the political doctrines of that dirty stinking (Kike) Trotsky….. (spit)
Jews like Trotsky are made into good Jews when they get an axe or ice pick stuck in their head… A bad Jew then became a good Jew. Kapish???
honeybee Said:
More like her husband
Joseph Rapaport Said:
No the question should be how could Israel recognize the legitimacy of that non-people non-nation?
@ Joseph Rapaport:
Sorry Joe, I don’t see the connection . Explain!!!
If any politician spoke the truth he would never have been elected or chosen and if elected and chosen he would be dumped by his constituents or party post haste, pronto!!!
Hillel said if I’m not for myself who am I. To be part of the make-believe peace (piece) process violates this basic tenet.
Truth is another basic Jewish value and therefore it is incumbent upon GOI leaders to tell it like it is.
How can Israelis sit down with Palis who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish State.
yamit82 Said:
Sounds like” Madam Bovery”.
Joseph Rapaport Said:
What Jewish values ar you talking about???
Chief rabbi: Jewish law permits territorial concession for ‘real peace’
Yisrael Beitenu MK Says ‘Reform Movement Is not Jewish’
“Reform leaders too often make themselves look silly by bending the Bible for their own convenience.” (As if the orthodox don’t??? Yamit)
Haredi Rabbi Threatens Suicide Squads over Draft
What were you saying about Jewish values????
@ Felix Quigley:
@ David Chase:
@ yamit82:
This is how its done boys,who needs a knief or a gun when you have a mouth: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/08/Billionaire-Soros-Victim-of-Knockout-Punch-by-Ex-Girlfriend
yamit82 Said:
In my most valued and eridite opinpion, you both are full of it!!!!! Hey,but what, do I know,I am just a female in the bull yard.
David Chase Said:
@ Felix Quigley:
Feiglin is different than Glick in that he doesn’t offer voting rights to Palestinians and establishes policies to encourage Palestinians to leave. It’s the only civil thing you can do with the Palestinians although others would prefer worse.
Also, I disagree with Sherman in his assumption that swallowing the Palestinians is worse than the two state solution.
You still haven’t answered: if not Feiglin, then who has a more intellectual and cogent capability as a potential leader????
I am 100% behind Moshe Feiglin!!! What Israel needs is MORE committed ideology and LESS political pragmatism.
Feiglin exhorts the people: ZO ARTZEINU. When the GOI implements the will of the Israeli people, the conflict
will begin to be solved. When the “nations” see this happening Israel will GAIN not LOSE respect. Then it
will be a simpler matter to exert sovereignty over the land and the holy places. The obvious strategy of
providing economic incentive to encourage resettlement should be applied. Citizenship for Arabs joining the
state should be earned and contingent on demonstrations of loyalty. This type of program needs “Manhigut
Yehudit” and only someone grounded in Jewish Values like Feiglin can do the job.
DRJB
What does Feiglin actually do? Is his programme same as Glick inthat he grants permanent status of residency to Arabs in judea and Samaria.
If that is the case then Sherman has already broken not only with Glick but also with Feiglin.
Sherman has spelled out that there is the disastrous 2 state theory and one can think immediately of Peres and Livni here also
But Sherman says that calling for an Israeli overall state with a still existing 40 per cent of Muslims MAY BE WORSE
Gil White according to Belman says the same (discussion between Belman, Gil White and Sherman)
These are just the facts DJRB. Forgive me for pointing out to you just the facts. I am not saying you are a smooth talker but facts always get int he road of smooth talkers
Yamit82 is critical of Sherman because Sherman uses sarcasm against religious fundamentalists. Sherman is a good Jew in my opinión but is not religious. Yamit hates that. Thus Yamit attacks Sherman because Sherman is a rationalist and Yamit does not like that.
I criticise Sherman because I see a problem inthat despite his terrific critiques he does not advance a programme, except the Gil White récipe of advancing the telling of critical historical episodes such as that of Hajj Amin el Husseini to use one example.
But the answer is elsewhere and is found in the comparision between today and the early 1930s in Germany. This will lead into a discussion of how Hitler took power in 1933. Discussion of Hajj Amin el Husseini is critical and much needed but it is actually subsidiary to how the crisis of leadership gave Hitler the power
To sum this up…Sherman is truthful in that he describes Israel political elite stationary in front of a big Wall, and they not seeing even the Wall. Sherman describes the Wall but as a rock climber he keeps looking at the Wall but cannot find any toeholds at all. He sees the Wall which is to his credit but is badly stuck and will sadly remain stuck.
@ David Chase:
Well thought out. I agree that a good offense can be the best defense, and I am so glad that you have brought up how idiotic the left’s position is vis-a-vis security issues with a hypothetical Pali state. The thought of leaving the heart of a nation vulnerable to rocket attacks is ludicrous. Livni is clueless if she thinks the Palestinians are reformed and won’t attack Israel. Having her as a major force in the GOI makes reason stare.
“We are compelled to conclude that the leadership of the political Right has displayed neither the intellectual depth and nor the daring necessary to formulate a cogent counter-paradigm to replace that of the political Left.”
Hasn’t Sherman heard of Moshe Feiglin???? He may not have the charisma, as Yamit contends, but he certainly has the intellectual depth and a cogent argument to counteract the Left. What he needs now is the support from the likes of Sherman and Glick.
Who is more intellectual and cogent a leader?? who is less corruptible???
Please answer, if not Feiglin, then who?????
We need a plan for putting the Left on the defensive before even putting forth viable alternatives. One doesn’t need a firm grasp of the obvious that playing offense is sometimes the best defense. Even if one were to put historic and legal arguments aside (which I don’t advocate), why doesn’t anybody at least ever ask a leftist how they would contend with the practical notion (or shall we say certainty) that a Palestinian state in the heartland of the country would almost certainly eventually send missiles at the coast and Ben Gurion airport. How do they explain how a so-called people who have no concept of peace, are busy killing each other, and still call for our destruction are going to make peace with us. Livni’s got no brains when she says it’s better to accept a deal than to have one forced upon us. Take the cyanide because the arsenic will be worse? You can’t, at least without a lot of time and effort, teach a psychopath how to be a loving person and you can’t make a math teacher out of someone who doesn’t know math NO MATTER how much you may want to and you can’t make peace with a so-called people that have absolutely NO concept of peace. That’s actually a POLITICAL reality. It may seem unfortunate but let the left explain how that would work. I’d love to hear the answer.
Felix Quigley Said:
All of it rubbish Felix?
Or just some of it rubbish in you opinion?
Or is it anything I write rubbish in your opinion?
@ Felix Quigley:
I suppose the great revolutionary and Marxist you claim to be would never consider that their aim was to be arrested????
That would get their message wider dissemination than standing on some street with a bullhorn that none of the press would cover. If they have not broken any laws they will be detained for an hour or so and released. Not much harm done. If you want to paint our current government as treasonous there are much better examples you could cite.
Problem is you have a brainless hair trigger for condemnation and most of them are misplaced and misappropriated sometimes devoid of all context.
May I suggest as a friend before you engage mouth (keyboard), try to engage that small part of your cerebellum that still functions.
Ex-likudniks who opposed Oslo accords:
Livni: If We Don’t Decide, the World will Decide For Us
Livni calls on Israeli leaders to listen to Kerry, and to ‘pay the price’ for a peace deal.
US lauds Lieberman’s support of Kerry
State Department welcomes foreign minister’s support of secretary of state, stressing his statement was ‘powerful’ and representative of ‘many people in Israel’
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
‘America is Not to Blame for Our Stupidity’
Political analyst says US pressure on Israel makes sense – and that Israel only has itself to blame.
Who is a right winger???
Hevron: Right-Wing Activists Egg Housing Minister’s Car
Right-wing activists in Hevron accuse Uri Ariel and his Jewish Home party of “selling out” to become minister.
Liberman: Kerry ‘A Good Friend of Israel’
Foreign Minister praises Secretary of State, blasts Bennett over ‘belligerence,’ calls Meretz an ‘Arab party in Israel.’
Former MK Eldad Criticizes ‘Spineless’ Right</strong>
Former MK Professor Aryeh Eldad says that the right should criticize Netanyahu and not Kerry.
Main post of mine 20 mins ago (before Yamit’s) disappeared into ether. Yet rubbish in Yamit’s goes through..
SHOWING THAT ISRAEL RULERS ARE NOT NAIVE BUT TRAITORS
Activists Arrested for Demanding Kerry to ‘Go Home’
by Sagit Levi
Two activists from the Samaria Residents Council were arrested Thursday night near the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem, where visiting American Secretary of State John Kerry is staying.
The activists, who arrived with a public address system, called out, “John Kerry – go home.”
The activists also called on Kerry not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State of Israel and demanded he stop pressuring Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) to surrender the Samaria and Judea regions.
A few minutes after the activists arrived at the site, they were arrested by security personnel and their vehicles were confiscated.
“The activists legally stopped on the side of the road and called on Kerry to go home and not pressure Israel to give up strategic assets,” Sagi Kaisler, the director of the Samaria Residents Council, told journalists.
“Even though they did not break the law at any stage and only came to protest against what is shaping up to be another Oslo agreement, the police chose to silence them, confiscate their cars and arrest them.”
My main criticism of Sherman is he never defines who is a right-winger politically.
In my opinion he is too inclusive and that’s the main reason for many of his valid criticisms against what he says: “the political Right has been unable and/or unwilling to follow through on the logic of these critiques and draw the conclusions their underlying rationale implies.”
Most or at least too many Israeli Jews he includes in his right-wing tent I would reject and define them at best as being centrist or lukewarm right wing and even borderline leftists. Far too many in his broad right-wing tent are nothing more than vile political opportunists, using the ideological right as a political ladder for personal aggrandizement,power and enrichment. That for me is the equivalent of believing a woman can be half pregnant. To my mind to be considered truly a right winger or left-winger one must have a clear and unbending ideological foundation. Anything less would render them disciples of eclecticism, pragmatism, compromise and appeasement. All of those terms may have an honored place in mundane affairs but not when fighting for the national character of the State and even to the existence of the state itself.
A small coherent, cohesive like-minded, committed, even zealous group with dynamic leadership have a better chance of success than a large disjointed fragmented and leaderless group speaking with conflicting and even opposing ideological messages rendering them a (Machiavellian opponents dream).
I disagree with Gil-White’s conclusion. Everyone involved with Oslo from the start knew of the Nazi connection and chose to ignore it. I don’t see continuing it as treason but as stupidity or naivete. Ted Belman
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63591148
A strange response by Ted Belman
A similar situation is that your friend is being conned by a conman out of his life savings and you sitting there beside your friend while this is going on know he is a conman but your friend does not, and you say nothing. If you do that you are not a friend, not naive, not stupid but you are a traitor to your friend
The same applies with all these political leaders in Israel. Call them right call them left, whatever, if you do that just shows your political and historical ignorance
The Jews are being continually conned here by the US Government. They were conned over OSLO, conned over the Gaza withdrawal.
But on this score the US Government would not have been able to con the Jews if it had not been for the Jewish leadership in Israel.
The Likud leadership knew exactly what Sharon was doing in 2005 and yet the Likud leaders refused to act against Sharon. There was lots of time and the very first thing the Likud leaders should have done was expel the bastard. (To add to my argument who emerged as the greatest traitors of the Jews? It was the rabbis and the Settlers leaders)
While all this was going on Netanyahu was there but he basically was lying low, and he only put up a bit of a show at the very end, when it was too late, and moreover he knew it was too late. How do you characterise this kind of behaviour, naïve!!! No traitors to the Jews. All human activity is conscious.
Note that these are what is called the right
1. Netanyahu made his name as a right politician
2. Likud to a man and woman is opposed to socialism
Now since this is about Martin Sherman what about him? Well Sherman looks at the situation in Israel and does 2 things
1. Sherman like Belman thinks that the Likud and Right are also naive
2. While he sees the right as naive only Sherman then confuses the issue totally by referring to what he calls the “left” thus echoing the confusers supreme on this score Geller and Spencer.
Those therefore are two big problems about Sherman.
He ends up like Gil White appealing to somebody (but who) to raise a campaign to show the Nazi roots of the Arab Palestinians.
And out of the whole mish-mash that is Sherman this emerges…He is obscuring that both the right and left so called are the traitors of Jews in the situation
If he is really truthful and to be respected Sherman needs to label the whole of the present leadership in Israel as being traitors to the Jews and take it from there.
HE DOES NOT DO THAT