many of whom promptly took up their weapons and returned to ply their trade. –Binyamin Netanyahu, Fighting Terrorism, 2001… we cannot gloss over the colossal capitulation of our prime minister… Binyamin Netanyahu has degenerated from merely disappointing to downright dangerous.
– Rabbi Stewart Weiss, The Jerusalem Post, August 8.
Why is such a move, which the American broker would probably not agree to at all if the terrorists had killed US citizens, let alone as a condition for starting negotiations, become a legitimate condition because Palestinians are demanding it of Israel?
– Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, in rejecting (??) a petition to prevent Tuesday’s release of 26 convicted Palestinians murderers, August 12.
The shameful release of over a score of Palestinian murderers, conducted in the thick of night as surreptitiously as possible, is the culmination of an ongoing process that has stripped the government of any residual shred of moral authority that it may have had up to now.
It can no longer reasonably expect to command the respect of the nation or to retain its trust. The Netanyahu government is irretrievably bereft of credibility – in the eyes of allies and adversaries alike.
Indefensible, inexcusable and incomprehensible
The move is indefensible – whichever way you slice it.
It is inexcusable on moral grounds and incomprehensible on substantive operational ones.
It has left many in Israel – and many of its supporters abroad – utterly bewildered. Perhaps the most perplexed are those who tend to be supportive of Netanyahu.
Typical of the confusion left in its wake were the sentiments in a recent Facebook exchange posted by Karyn Simon Basle: “Many Israeli’s have criticized Bibi for caving.
I have supported him forever and as much as I disagree with the release of MURD[ER]ERS….I always felt he must have had good reason to agree to the prisoner release. I still believe there is much going on behind doors that we don’t know. Maybe I am naive but I just don’t understand why Netanyahu would jeopardize Israel’s safety.”
I am willing to bet that when Karyn’s long-standing support for Netanyahu began, he was ardently advocating policies diametrically opposed to those he has recently embarked upon, and was powerfully and persuasively warning of the dire perils entailed in adopting his current course.
I am quite willing to concede that Karyn is probably right. It is quite likely that “much is going on behind doors that we don’t know” and that Netanyahu “had good reason to agree to the prisoner release.” But though this might be true it is entirely irrelevant.
Let me be quite categorical about this: No matter what was going on behind closed doors, no matter how good Netanyahu’s reasons were for making the decision that he did, the reasons for not doing so were better.
Bemused befuddled and bewildered
Predictably, the High Court found there were no grounds for judicial intervention and refused to annul the government decision. However, from the tenor of remarks from some of the justices (see introductory excerpt), an informed layman might be excused for wondering why they did not invoke principles such as “extreme unreasonableness” or “gross violation of natural justice” as grounds for preventing the release.
The bewilderment Karyn expressed in her Facebook posting was clearly reflected in another seemingly exasperated interrogative from Justice Rubinstein: “Why is this being done now as a prelude to negotiations – a move I believe is unprecedented – and not later, if at all, as a result of headway in the talks?” Why, indeed? And why did the High Court justices not deem the release an unconscionable governmental perversion of justice and an unacceptable abuse of executive discretion? After all, none of the designated releasees were incarcerated without trial by administrative decree or under preemptive detention. All were convicted, unrepentant killers, sentenced after due process, their acts of barbaric butchery undisputed. None of their victims were enemy combatants, or even collateral civilian casualties in attacks on military installations/personnel. They were all targeted civilians, including seniors, women and children. Several of the killers exploited their personal acquaintance with their victims to perpetrate their homicidal acts.
And what was the intended political quid pro quo, lofty policy goal or vital national interest that allegedly justified this unprecedented Israeli largesse and dissuaded the High Court from intervening in the executive branch decision, as it has done in many previous cases, deeming them “disproportionate” – and hence invalid? Certainly nothing the justices seemed able to discern.
Meager payoffs; myriad pitfalls
It did not take long for the devastating potential of the detrimental and dysfunctional decision to emerge.
Last week, with the egregious capitulation under his belt, John Kerry convened a meeting with leaders of the America Jewish Committee in the White House, to underscore presidential endorsement, and basically conveyed that Israel had better continue to concede – or else! After all, how are we to interpret the reports (Jerusalem Post, August 9) that Kerry warned the group of “negative consequences” for Israel if the parties fail to clinch peace? Note: “negative consequences” for Israel, not – perish the thought – for the Palestinians.
Just in case there should be any doubt as the message conveyed, along comes White House mouthpiece Jeffrey Goldberg (“Israel Faces Deepening Isolation, Kerry Warns,” August 12.) and informs us “Kerry… has warned Netanyahu… that if the current peace talks bear no fruit, Israel may soon be facing an international delegitimization campaign – in his words – ‘on steroids.’” This makes the substantive outcome – or lack thereof – of the negotiations irrelevant. After all, Kerry has already informed Israel that if the talks are unproductive, Israel will face massive retribution.
What more could the Palestinians need to hear to endorse and intensify their intransigence? One can almost hear them rubbing their hands in glee, while digging their collective heels in with obdurate obstinacy.
For all intents and purposes Israel has institutionalized its inability/unwillingness to hold firm on any issue. Now that it has shown that it will comply with the most operationally absurd and morally egregious demands, all they (the Palestinians) need to do is keep pressing for evermore absurd and egregious demands.
If Israel caves in, fine. If it does not, it will be delegitimized “steroidally.”
This then is the depressing lie of the political landscape in the foreseeable future following the Netanyahu government’s new strategy of surrender: Win-win for the Palestinians; lose-lose for Israel.
Way to go, Bibi
Dealing with delegitimization
For a (refreshing) change, Goldberg actually makes some cogent points this time. He writes: “Kerry thinks the one thing Netanyahu fears as much as Iran’s nuclear program is the growing power of the international movement that seeks to isolate… and demonize his country.”
Goldberg continues: “… Netanyahu… is worried that this campaign will erode Israel’s ability to defend itself. The theory is simple: A country seen as illegitimate… by Western powers, will have little standing if it is forced to retaliate against sustained attacks from groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah… Netanyahu thinks that the campaign to delegitimize Israel could force Western powers to rein in Israel… before it has the chance to defend itself… Netanyahu’s two fears are related. Israel will find it increasingly difficult to one day act against the Iranian nuclear program if it is hobbled by the hostility of the international community.”
Goldberg/Kerry are right in diagnosing that Netanyahu (and those close to him) greatly fear international delegitimization. And so they should.
For, as I have argued in previous columns, it is perhaps the gravest strategic threat confronting Israel today – at least on a par with the Iranian menace, and in fact, acts to intensify the latter. Delegitimization does impinge on the nation’s ability to physically defend itself. For not only does increasing delegitimization make Israel an increasingly legitimate target, but it makes its endeavors to deal with adversaries increasingly illegitimate.
But a nation cannot seek legitimization by abandoning its vital interests. It must do so by legitimizing those interests through effective conduct of its diplomacy.
Alternatives to appeasement
Netanyahu has been in office for almost half-adecade, during which he has done virtually nothing to establish robust, assertive and effective mechanisms, with adequate resources and a clear mandate, to confront, curtail and counter the delegitimization phenomenon.
This neglect, rather than any particular instance of failure of resolve, is his greatest transgression and gravest failing.
Instead of committing massive resources to the defense and promotion of Israel’s image abroad, he has allotted a mere pittance, and left the country almost defenseless against a well-oiled, well-funded assault on its legitimacy, which has critically jeopardized the government’s decision-making freedom.
With a GDP of almost a quarter-trillion dollars, a fraction of 1 percent would provide up to $1 billion for a strategic diplomacy offensive for world opinion, targeting US campuses and liberal Jewish communities and exposing the brutal nature of Israel’s adversaries.
In addition to displaying cartoon bombs on the UN podium, a formidable task force – comprised of top experts on Islam – could be set up to drive home to global opinion-makers the dangers of a nuclear Iran and the implications of the theological underpinnings of the regime and to mobilize international opinion against Tehran’s drive for weaponized nuclear capability.
But inexplicably, these eminently viable alternatives to appeasement have been studiously ignored.
Justifying Judeocide
But perhaps worse than the pernicious practical policy ramifications that this odious release of murderers is almost certain to have, is the appalling symbolic significance that it conveys – to Jews, Arabs and the world at large.
For stripped to basics, it conveys a message that Judeocide is justified.
It reflects a disregard – or at least a diminished regard – for the value of Jewish lives, and does so in a dual sense: Both toward the known victims of the past and toward the unknown victims of the future.
With regard to the past: It cheapens the value of Jewish blood, because it signals that those who shed it will be exonerated; that even the most heinous slaughter of Jews can be overlooked and its perpetrators pardoned; that Jewish lives and their memory are in the final analysis a “barterable” commodity.
In a recent blog entry, David Horovitz, former Jerusalem Post editor in chief, succinctly encapsulated the futility and foolishness of the government decision: “Only Israel could be pressured by the free world to release convicted killers before the ends of their sentences (something that the US, UK and others would not dream of doing), agree to do so at the start rather than the culmination of peace negotiations, and still wind up looking like the bad guy the next morning.”
With regard to the future: Given precedent and probability, it is a statistical certainty that some of the releasees will revert to acts of terror that result in the death of Israelis.
In the past, scores of Israelis have been killed and maimed by terrorists released in “deals.” There is little reason to believe that this time will different.
Accordingly, the government’s decision is conceptually tantamount to firing a gun into a crowd without knowing who will be hit, but knowing that someone certainly will be.
Mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook
Jonathan Tobin, in his August 13 Commentary blog, writes: “… history shows us that Israel not only never gets credit for being reasonable and making concessions, it actually suffers from the process.”
He is of course quite right. No mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook about the “national interest” or cryptic allusions to “wider strategic considerations” can justify the release of over a score of Judeocidal Palestinian murderers. It is merely the result of poor, weak-willed government on the part of people who could and should know – and do – better, much better.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
SarahSue Said:
True that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SarahSue Said:
I cannot contenance the killing or injuring of children.
Mladen Andrijasevic Said:
If Obama decides to Attack Iran it will only be because it’s in Americas interest. It will have nothing to do with Israel unless it fails and then Obama will blame it on Israel. Israel can do it if at all without American help.
So why justify a great immoral act to paying for an Iranian attack that I doubt will occur and if it does it won’t be America doing the attacking or helping Israel to do it????
That’s like paying taxes willingly that you don’t owe. Your argument and defense of BB is illogical based on your reasoning and conclusions.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Israelis oppose withdrawals in exchange for dropping right of return
Poll: Most Israelis oppose withdrawals in exchange for dropping right of
return
Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 16 August 2013
Maagor Mochot poll commissioned by Ma’ariv and published 16 August:
57% believe that the Oslo agreements hurt Israel on a political, security
and economic level.
53% would not vote today in favor of an agreement that includes a withdrawal
from Judea and Samaria, even if the Palestinians would recognize Israel as a
Jewish state and give up the right of return.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
@ Mladen Andrijasevic:
forgot to add this link:
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
The government’s action of freeing the prisoners, I agree, has no justification whatsoever, except in the context of a looming Iranian nuclear threat. And yet Martin Sherman refuses to take this side of the argument and then debunk it. Why doesn’t he quote Bernard Lewis, Reza Kahlili and Matias Kuntzel , mention the Twelvers, the Mahdi, the death of the MAD doctrine and then declare that even taking this all into consideration releasing the prisoners would still be wrong. Then he would have covered all the sides of the argument. But he doesn’t do that . He demands the PM’s resignation without explaining that the government in their decision-making would have to take into consideration concerns which Martin Sherman refuses to discuss.
Sometimes when there is no choice, leaders concentrate on the ultimate goal and do things that are morally reprehensible, except in a global context. Churchill knew that the Katyn massacre was perpetrated by Stalin, not the Nazis, yet he did everything to hide that fact because he needed Stalin on the same side against Hitler.
Netanyahu vs. Obama… Whom do you trust more on Iran?
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/netanyahu-vs-obama-whom-do-you-trust.html
Kahane wrote in 1990: “The Jew does not wish to be isolated. He fears being alone, without allies. He fears man, he trusts only in man and so – in the exquisitely Divine way of the Almighty – precisely that which he fears will be sent upon him. He fears to do that which the Almighty demands – to annex the territories and establish Jewish sovereignty over them, as part of the Holy Land of Israel. The Almighty repays him by turning them into burning caldrons of an intifada, with confused Israeli youth not knowing whether these Holy lands are indeed Jewish or “occupied.” While a world that is normal and knows that if land belongs to you then you annex it, feels free to condemn a country that does not do so as an “occupier.”
He fears to throw out the cancer raging in his midst – the Arab enemy – lest the world turn on him. He is repaid measure for measure by a grim Almighty as the world, daily, condemns him for “oppression” of people that would not have been there had he had faith in G-d rather than fear of the Gentile.”
“…Be vigilant not to seal a covenant with the inhabitants of the Land to which you are coming, since they will be a fatal trap for you.'” (Exodus 34:11-12)
“… if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, those of them whom you leave shall be pins in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you upon the Land in which you dwell. And it shall be that what I had meant to do to them, I shall do to you.”‘” (Numbers 33:50-56)
“They [Children of Israel] provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them.” (Deuteronomy 32:21)
Stupid Jews ,the Road Map Solutions are already inscribed in our Book.
@ SarahSue:
Your 3-4 posted comments a year are far to few, far to few! 🙁
Miss you, hope all is well with you.
SarahSue Said:
Exactly, an irrational premise.
yamit82 Said:
Exactly
Netanyahu is acting like the Ghetto Jew. This is the way Jews have behaved for centuries, making concessions here and there to buy themselves time. Until the Nazis came along it worked pretty well.
I don’t agree with appeasement but as a weak country Israel has traditionally taken full advantage of the power of being weak. I expect that to continue into the future.
The problems in Israel did not start with releasing murderers, but with having murderers to release.
But the problem goes deeper that that. It is not that Israel did not use the death penalty, but that she had people to put to death.
When Israel was recognized in 1948, her leaders had a unique chance to make Israel a safe haven for all Jewry. But rather than do that, they let the enemies of Jews stay. They let muslims, who already had the blood of millions of Jews on their hands, live in the heartland of Israel. It was always the Jews who had to compromise, not their enemies.
They did not identify the enemy and deal with the enemy as an enemy. Black and white, no gray. Jews could come and stay, everyone else had to go. Exceptions could be made, carefully and reversible with needed.
The leaders of Israel could have used the same strategy as King David, and killed every man, women and child along with their animals, leaving no one to sound the alarm. King David was on the side of the angels and so would have been Israel’s leaders.
When the Israelis took back Jerusalem, they could have wiped all traces of their enemies from Jerusalem and made it a wholly Jewish place. That would have been an answer to millions and millions of prayers. But, no, they are stuck with that latrine on the Temple Mount and millions of enemies living in their midst.
The leaders of Israel have allowed their enemies to dictate policy from the very beginning, starting with the British and ending with the muslims.
Now, Israel is stuck with an implacable enemy that wants Israel destroyed. It so happens that a lot of people would like Israel destroyed. These people have banded together and become a formidable foe.
In the present climate, Israel cannot win. Martin Sherman and well-intentioned people like him, try to find solutions that take into account the facts on the ground. It never seems to occur to them this places them too far behind the eight ball. All their solutions are just band-aids masking the real wound. All their solutions depend on the good will of the enemy, an enemy that has no good will.
The recent suggestions such as paying the enemy to go are morally repugnant made by people who do not understand the root problems. The correct way is to scare the enemy to death so that they leave fearing for their lives just like they did in 1967. Only this time it would be the Israelis doing the scaring.
For Israel to win this ongoing war, they must change the facts on the ground. They must first identify the enemy within, then they must deal with this enemy in the most ruthless way possible. The enemy must be vanquished so thoroughly that they no longer exist.
Israel must not depend on the good will of the enemy, but the good will of the Israelis. If Israeli blood must be shed, let it be shed for the good of Israel and not as a sacrifice to their enemies.
Everyone loves a winner and the winners write history.
God Bless America, God Bless Israel.
SarahSue
@ CuriousAmerican:
I don’t consider Sherman a right winger.
I agree with him sometimes and others I don’t.
He still has not come to grips with root causes and as much as I agree with him RE: BB…He is not the root cause of Israels problems externally or internally.
Sherman because either he doesn’t know or ignores identifying the underlying root causes cannot offer reasoned or the correct remedies.
Neither can you as you and those like you are part of the root causes I referred to.
Ban Ki Moon was in Israel for Photo Op and to condemn Israel for announcing new construction in the most pressing problem in the world: THE CONTROL OF JUDEA AND SHOMRON! Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia,Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iran are all in either civil war or civil unrest with terrorism holding sway. There is an undeclared inter Islamic war being played out with Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni. Russia staking out where it can pick up on the cheap Americas leavings. It looks like the UN, Turkey the EU and America have once again sided with the wrong side which will only acerbate the regional and global instability.
These moves have placed Israel in the strange position of being the supporter of a status quo ante in that Assad is looking not bad and we seem to have no choice but to support the Egyptian military and in doing that we have allowed the Egyptian to militarize the Sinai and that makes “Camp David Accords” shrift of it’s main provision: EGYPTIAN DEMILITARIZATION OF THE SINAI.
So what does the world do? They push Israel to move back to the 1947 borders. The very fact that the World is more concerned with their affirmative action pets, that non nation of non people. Meanwhile Back at Fukushima…. and Fukushima:3 Meltdowns and Counting irradiating the world (AIR, WATER, FOWL and FISH)!!! Yet the overridding world Number 1, problem is to move Israel back to our Auschwitz borders and to make sure their perennial pets get a state? Makes little sense, is irrational and illogical yet that’s what is happening.
No I don’t agree with Sherman nor you. You cannot apply rational and logical solutions to illogical and irrational behavior.
Martin Sherman is a right wing commentator who wants to make the Jewish state more Jewish.
http://www.think-israel.org/sherman.newparadigm.html
He wants to do this by paying the Arabs to leave.
I know you hate me for suggesting this.
Will you now hate him?
Sherman’s idea is a good idea. We arrived at similar ideas, figures, and numbers independent of each other.