By MARTIN SHERMAN
Astonishingly, having been proved entirely justified in its condemnation of the dangerous defects of the “Left’s” political credo, the “Right” proceeded to embrace it
Pussification: The act or process of pussifying…
Pussify: To make weak and effeminate – Collins online dictionary
In the day-to-day political discourse, the current Netanyahu-led coalition is frequently referred to as the “most Right-wing” ever in Israel’s political history.
This is, of course, totally absurd.
The extinction of the “Right” as we once knew it
Indeed, the “Right”, as it once was on the eve of the Oslo process, is totally extinct in terms of the substantive content of its then-political credo.
True, in terms of organizational labels of what are commonly accepted as denoting “Left” and “Right”, political factions labelled as “Right” have regularly defeated their adversaries labeled as “Left” in parliamentary elections and, in fact, have for almost the last decade, comprised the ruling coalitions.
Appearances, however, are gravely misleading. For if one examines the political prescriptions adopted by the current “Right-wing”, in most cases they are, in principle, indistinguishable—except for nuance and detail—from those of the pre-Oslo “Left”.
It should be recalled that in the years preceding Oslo, contact with PLO personnel was a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. Moreover, advocating the establishment of a Palestinian state was borderline sedition. Yet this was precisely what the leader of the “Right”, Benjamin Netanyahu, embraced in his ill-advised speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009.
Although Netanyahu attempted to hedge his acceptance of Palestinian statehood with totally impractical and hence, irrelevant reservations, in a stroke he transformed the strategic structure of the debate—from whether or not there should be a Palestinian state, to what the parameters of that state should be.
In effect, this was a point of singularity in the history of Israeli politics, one which marked the extinction of the “Right” as we knew it before.
“Right’s” organizational victory and ideological defeat
For, although the “Right” retained its formal organizational structure, the substance of its ideological contents was dramatically transformed. What was once taboo was now acceptable.
Indeed, today, the declared policy of the Likud, the leading faction of the “Right,” is essentially the same as that of the far-Left Meretz faction in the early 90s: A policy that envisions the establishment of a demilitarized, self-governing Palestinian-Arab entity on large portions of the territory across the pre-1967 lines in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.
The only real difference now between the Israeli “Right” and “Left” is the degree of resigned reluctance on the one hand, and the enthusiastic endorsement on the other, with which they respectively appraised the prospect of Palestinian self-determination. Thus, while the “Right” saw it as an undesirable but inevitable imposition, the “Left” saw it as a welcome, eagerly anticipated outcome.
Once the qualitative schism between “Left” and “Right” had effectively been bridged (or at least, blurred); once the “Right” accepted the central tenet of the Left”—i.e. that the Jewish state must forsake its claim to full territorial control over all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and share that control with the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria—the “Right’s” ability to offer any alternative policy option—clearly distinguishable from that of “Left’s”—began to flounder.
Crossing the ideological Rubicon
Indeed, in the wake of Oslo and up until recent years, the “Right” focused its energies in (rightly) condemning the dangerous defects of the concessionary policy of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal that the “Left” had embarked upon—without ever offering an actionable prescription of its own.
As a result, it found itself unable to respond effectively to the pointed and pertinent question from adversaries on the “Left”: “So what’s your alternative?” With no comprehensive, countervailing policy paradigm to promote or defend, the “Right” found itself gradually forced to give way under the weight of this irksome question, and to adopt increasing portions of the failed formula it had once rejected.
This process culminated in 2009 at Bar Ilan University, when Palestinian statehood was officially—albeit under duress—embraced.
Having crossed the ideological Rubicon into the “Land of the Left”, the “Right” found itself in what, for it, was largely uncharted territory.
In large measure, this ideological capitulation by the “Right” is totally inexplicable—for it came about after all its censure of the “Left’s” wildly reckless doctrine had been totally vindicated.
After all, by 2009, the jury was longer out—or at least, should not have been. None of the promises of sweeping benefits, pledged by the architects of the land-for-peace initiative, launched by the Left over a decade and a half previously, had been fulfilled; while all the perils, warned of by its opponents on the “Right”, had indeed materialized.
Astonishing ideological capitulation
In light of the unequivocal repudiation of the “Left’s” political doctrine by recalcitrant realities, one might have reasonably expected it to have been utterly vanquished by a victorious “Right”.
Sadly, this was not the case.
Astonishingly, having been proved entirely justified in its criticism of the dangerous defects and detriments of the “Left’s” political credo, the “Right” proceeded to embrace it—at least, in broad principle.
This perplexing—and vexing—ideo-intellectual capitulation has had at least three deeply disturbing consequences.
Firstly, it has crippled—or at least, critically curtailed—its ability to formulate any cogent, countervailing ideo-intellectual paradigm that does not include significant elements of the failed political philosophy of the “Left”.
In this regard, Elyakim Ha’Etzni, the doyen of the traditional “Right”, wrote recently in a piercing lament (Hebrew):
“When I raised the ‘heretical’ idea that Israel should take renewed responsibility for Areas A and B in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip, I found little enthusiasm for it even in Right wing circles. Does this mean that even the “Right” is willing to divide the Land … If so, what remains of its ideological base?”
There is much room for Ha’Etzeni’s sense of unease. For once the “Right” has accepted the permanence of Arab residence in Judea-Samaria, and is open to relinquishing control to it over large tracts of that territory, the difference between itself and its adversaries on the “Left” is largely one of degree, not of kind.
Operational paralysis?
But it is not only on the ideological level that the “Right’s” retreat has constricted its political efficacy. The same is true regarding operational responses on the ground.
Indeed, as Ha’Etzni points out: “Not only ideology, but also reality repudiates any attempt to evade the responsibility that necessarily arises from our right over the Land, all the Land”.
He elaborates: This reality communicates with us by means of rockets, terror tunnels, menacing marches, blazing fields…murderous hate [inculcated] from kindergarten to university. All of these should be constant reminders of the failure of past attempts to divide the land…There will come a day when we will be forced to face the question: Quo vadis?”
The mindset adopted by the “Right”, which necessarily perceives of the Palestinian-Arab collective as a prospective interlocutor on the future of the territory west of the Jordan River and on some future configuration of shared control over it, seems to have blunted Israel’s operational responses to Palestinian-Arab aggression.
The feeble reaction to the incendiary kites/balloons is a telling case in point. For by its muted response to the potentially lethal—albeit, primitive—offensive, Israel, under allegedly the most “Right”-wing government ever”, has, for all intents and purposes, legitimized Arab arson against Jews. After all, the fact that dozens of Jews were not consumed by the flames caused by these risibly inexpensive devices is due to good fortune, rather than any benign intent on the other side to avoid the loss of life.
Misplaced moderation
The perceived need to preserve the Palestinian-Arab collective as a prospective interlocutor for some future non-belligerency arrangement in the future has, paradoxically (or not) prolonged the very belligerency it was intended to end.
Indeed, by inflicting only “proportional” (read, “acceptable”) damage on the Palestinian-Arabs—by avoiding inflicting “unacceptable” damage—Israel is in fact signaling that it is prepared to tolerate their Judeophobic aggression against it—and its people. The result has been recurring inconclusive military campaigns in the South and countless counter-terror operations in Judea-Samaria to foil ongoing efforts to murder and maim Jews.
Time and time again, Israel has invested millions in trying to counter the means of attack rather than eliminate the will, or the ability, to mount these attacks against Israel. Thus, suicide attacks gave rise to the walls and fences, rockets to Iron Domes, tunnels to underground barriers and new technologies to locate them, and incendiary kites to some yet-to-be devised multi-million dollar. new-fangled, hi-tech response.
Every new terror tactic was met with some counter tactic, never an overarching strategy to terminate terror—or at least, to convey that Israel will not tolerate terror, and not merely thwart it.
The reason for this ongoing flaccidity is that to undertake the required action to uproot Palestinian terror is to do what Ha’Etzni previously diagnosed as necessary—to extend Israeli control over Areas A and B and Gaza. But since the “Right” has wedded itself to the prospect of some future arrangement with the Palestinian-Arabs, it cannot bring itself to do this.
The other required “Victory”
The third detrimental consequence of the “Right’s” compliance with Left-wing parameters (apart from the previously mentioned ideological and operational ones), is that it permits the “Left” to avoid admitting its disastrous error. Indeed, many on the “Right” have been at pains to convince the “Left” that it can in fact “live with” their policy proposals, which do not preclude much of the political parameters sanctified by the “Left”.
This is a grave error. For it breathes political life into proposals that should have be dead and buried long ago. Instead of trying to mollify and reassure its political adversaries, the “Right” needs to explicitly expose the nonsensical, self-contradictory two-state dogma of the Left as the dangerous drivel that it undeniably is—and dispatch it, post-haste, to the trash can of history, where it richly deserves to languish.
Two years ago, a laudable initiative was launched to counter the prevailing paradigm of ongoing, never-ending concessions to the Palestinians. Dubbed the Israel Victory Project (IVP), it correctly contended that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs will end only when Israel is victorious and the Palestinian-Arabs are defeated and accept that defeat.
Although last week I expressed some concern as to the direction which the IVP seems to have taken, there can be no doubt as to the validity and veracity of its basic tenet—that only decisive victory will bring an end to conflict.
The same is true for the ideological conflict in Israel between “Left” and “Right”. To ensure that there is no resurgence of the ill-conceived doctrine of the “Left” that has wrought so much predictable—and predicted—tragedy in the past, the “Right” must achieve unequivocal victory over its ideo-political adversaries and their corrosive credo, based on bogus enemy claims to nationhood and statehood.
An end to pussification?
To ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, the “Right” must halt the ongoing erosion of its political positions. For this, it needs to correctly conceptualize the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs and derive its resultant strategy to deal with it—together with means to promote it—from that conceptualization.
In essence, the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs over the control of the Holy Land is the archetypical zero-sum game. It is a clash between two rival collectives, with irreconcilable foundational narratives. It is a clash in which only one side can emerge victorious; the other, vanquished.
It is a clash in which the Jewish collective cannot sacrifice its collective rights for the individual right of those in the enemy collective. If it does so, it will lose both its collective rights and the individual rights of its constituent members.
In the final analysis, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there can—and eventually will—be either total Jewish sovereignty or total Arab sovereignty. The side that will prevail will be the side whose national will is the strongest and whose political vision is the sharpest. If that is to be the Jews, the “Right” needs to arrest the current process of “pussification” it appears to be undergoing.
This is not radical right wing extremism or religious fundamentalism. It is just sound political science.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies
@ Felix Quigley:
So I have sent a message to a group in Ireland
“A TWO MILE PROTECTION AREA ON HAMAS SIDE OF BORDER TO STOP TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION FROM CONDOM GAS KITES
But I mean this very very much in the sense of an immediate measure. Second measure very very closely to follow is open all the borders OUT.
My second suggestion therefore to the Jews of Israelis doing that also with Lebanon, with Syria, with Jordan and with Egypt (from Gaza) or a route from Gaza into Israel to another part of the border.
Why? So that Arabs can leave.
Help all these Arabs called “Palestinians” get themselves into Europe. Help them by all means to do this.”
https://www.facebook.com/muisraelsoc/
Adam what I wrote was this and I think it is the opposite of what you think it is…
“There are a couple of other things. One is the old golfing idea KIS which is keep it simple, sometimes they say KISS but I think KIS is better. You have heard of the poor golfer who has his head filled with so many ideas when he comes to swing he cannot move a muscle.
Another is repetition. Repetition can be good. Against our dearly beloved friends who say Israel is apartheid I would repeat ad (their) nauseam Israel leads the fight against Islamic Jihad. And that would be no lie either.”
I said this in the context of Israel taking decisive action. That is paramount. So I used the image of the golfer standing on the tee and shaking like a jelly. He has to check on too many htings….such as you worrying about a word that MS uses.
Who cares about a flipping word!!! In this context.
I break it into immediate and a little beyond. So immediate Israel has the ability to create safety zones. That means taking control of a necessary area on the other side of the border, just for safety, and immediate.
It is an immediate step.
Just do it. As Greg Norman kept saying in his video…”and hit it!”
My idea of KIS was that, it was related to THAT.
Then the type of mind you have Adam you start talking to me about Nazi propaganda!!! Come on do not be so insulting to me and to my meagre attempts to help!
You are tying us up before we do anything Adam!
I didn’t realize this was a joke, at first, when somebody shared this with me. It’s hilarious.
@ Felix Quigley: I agree with most of this . Repeating some simple truths over and over can be a very effective counter-propaganda strategy, just as repteating lies over and over again (as proposed by Hitler in Mein Kamph) can be an effective but pernicious propaganda strategy. Counter simplistic lies with simple truths.
@ ms: It is less offensive to women to praise masculinity than to deprecate femininity. Some women still like virile men, after all, and even want their own partners to be virile. It also offensive to “gays” (including some Jewish gays who support Israel) to criticize “effeminate” men. On balance, I think it is best to avoid “gender” and sexual references, though, when discussing Israel , since in the present hypersensitive era any references to these aspects of the human experience seem to anger one or another group unnecessarily. And they distract from the real issue you and the other pro-Israel advocates are focusing on, which of course is Israeli security and viability.
I do have a suggestion for a word to replace “pussification” which expresses your meaning just as well or even better. That is “wussification,” derived from “wus,” meaning a “tame ” individual who is unaggressive. and willing to be dominated by others. It is derived from the expressions “pussy-wussy,” used by people when petting their cats. Because it refers not to women or their sex organs but rather to a beloved house pet that is unaggressive, andthat people find easy to direct and control, it is a very good metaphor for Israel’s cowardly , weak politicians who readily accept direction from their American and Europen “masters.” Calling someone a “was” or “fraidy cat” is less likely to offend people than suggesting that they are weak women. Even pet owners who love their cats will admit that they are not appropriate role models for statesmen!
@ Bear Klein: Amen, Bear! I have tried to propose a step by step approach as well.
My position on this issue in a general sense and without going into details of action is that Israelis facing pretty closely the same struggle that people are facing in every country. Basically Israel has to affirm its nation and it cannot do this with a fifth column inside of it, or close by in a Palestinian State, a cancerous situation without a doubt.
There is a book published fairly recently called “Enoch was right” by Raheem Kassam. You will notice that I am recommending a book published by an avowed anti communist. I think he is even against mild social democracy. I cannot be sure on that. In any case it does not matter to me. What his book is about is the idea of having and holding to a nation…”You have a republic, madam, if you can keep it” kind of thing.
So there is a weakness in all of these comments and this is it. The struggle to assert a nation is what is facing Israel. It cannot do this with the Arabs attacking and sapping time, money and self confidence. It cannot do this without a leadership, a party, and this is not just words but is a practical thing. In such a party what comes first…well a programme does.
There needs to be no messing about in formulating this programme. All Arabs except the Druze and a few others need to go asap. Go from where? Certainly from west of the river Jordan but make no promises about Jordan either because that historically belongs to the Jewish Homeland.
What is the deeper appeal? Jews are settling their Jihadic question and thus once more in their practice become a beacon of light for the world. That will be very appealing and I think being appealing is a good thing not a bad thing. Plus it is no more than the truth.
There are a couple of other things. One is the old golfing idea KIS which is keep it simple, sometimes they say KISS but I think KIS is better. You have heard of the poor golfer who has his head filled with so many ideas when he comes to swing he cannot move a muscle.
Another is repetition. Repetition can be good. Against our dearly beloved friends who say Israel is apartheid I would repeat ad (their) nauseam Israel leads the fight against Islamic Jihad. And that would be no lie either.
@ ms:
Conversely -the word “virile” connotes vigor and potency as associated with masculinity. It also can suggest a strong “male sex drive”.
Should we refrain from its use to avoid possible offense to ultra-feminist sensitivities?
Leaders in Israel talk about artificial Islands for Gaza or a port in Cyprus. That does not make Hamas go away it actually makes it stronger.
Blow up every building where Hamas leaders live and every Hamas and Islamic Jihad facility. Blow up all the underground bunkers. Do this in waves of planes and not one or two at a time. Send Cruise Ships off the shore of Gaza and let non terrorists board. Let them go to Turkey, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia.
Make Hamas put out a white flag with unconditional surrender. Take over the Gaza Strip. Plan the timing of this latest part strategically as this will require a lot of foot soldiers and will be slow to pull every terrorist out of his hiding spot.
@ Bear Klein:
You write:
Precisely!
Pussification, anyone?
@ adamdalgliesh:
You write:
So does the word “effeminate” are you suggesting that it be purged from use in the English language
The word “pussification” is intended to convey a sense of flaccidity and “sissification” which also conveys a sense of emasculated masculinity , loss of virility — it has no necessary sexual connotations–except for those who….
@ adamdalgliesh:
Adam, you actually think Martin does not know what he was writing, please give him more credit. Really you think Israel will sink because Martin was trying to shame the right wing as weaklings.
He actually is correct that the leaders of Israel for a while now have not taken bold decisive clear action. They are more worried about lawyers and PR instead of making the decisions and actions needed to keep a terrorist regime in Gaza from disrupting life and terrorizing the residents living near the Strip.
Calling leaders of the right derogatory names is not the issue, even though it serves no constructive purpose. It is like an act of desperation.
The problem is compounded when people like Martin who do see things clearly are not able to articulate in precise clear wording what actions need to be taken so that people will follow their lead. So people with a vision of the problems, need figure out how to get others to act in the direction they see beneficial to the State of Israel.
@ ms:”Pussy” is a slang term for the female sexual organ. Even the dictionary definition that you cite equates femininity with weakness. Any educated woman with even the slightest tendency toward feminism (and that includes nearly all educated Jewish women these days) will find this term offensive. And even Orthodox, non-feminist women will find it offensive because of its sexual overtones.
@ ms:
Gaza is a front because the IDF starts with lawyers for seeing their course of action. If the IDF unleashed its power they would be destroyed in two days. That will not happen because Israel does not want the noise and legal threats from the outside world. So the people living near Gaza have a significantly reduced quality of life.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
No I am for destroying the terrorist regimes in charge with or without paying the Arabs to leave. I was only pointing border controls or is in Gaza lack thereof. I am for getting rid of the PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad…….etc.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
you write:
Why are the Hamas even considered “a front” –against the IDF, purportedly the “strongest army in the Middle East” with a massive airforce, modern armour and artillery, naval forces and which greatly outnumber the 10-20,000 guerillas that allegedly make up the Hamas.
If the Hamas can “deter the IDF – what message does that send to Iran –and its proxies
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You write:
Clearly, here can be no durable alternative unless the current administrative mechanisms of PA & Hamas are disarmed, dismantled nd dispersed.
The blame for casualties incurred in said disarming, dismantling and dispersion must be placed on those who promoted installing these regimes in the first place
@ Bear Klein:
So they couldn’t sneak back in and once there work with the enemy administration to reintegrate? Are you saying that compensated emigration will work with the terrorists still in charge? Also, bearing in mind that they have a death penalty for selling land to Jews, they could just as easily have one for accepting money to leave.
Incidentally, Kahane outlined the most detailed and practical plan for compensated emigration I have ever seen in “They Must Go.” He said back then that many if not most wanted to emigrate.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Currently Israel controls the borders and all access to all of Judea/Samaria. Gaza is limited because Egypt controls one of the borders so that is partially open at times.
@ Edgar G.:
Except I eliminated the part you specifically objected to. If you want to object to more feel free, The conflict is 100 years old and no one is going to have a perfect solution or one above constructive commentary.
@ Bear Klein:
I don’t need memory pills and you don’t either…I think. Yes, we agreed to differ, so what’s wrong with that. It doesn’t give you a gold certificate for anything. You have kept mentioning your plan for Arab inclusiveness, and I’ve kept criticising it.. So we’re differing…just like we agreed. Don’t tell me that you though “agreeing to differ”, meant you could keep mentioning this item in your Plan, (as you have a perfect right to,) but that I was restricted from criticism. No surely not that.
As I’ve said many times too, I really like the rest of your Plan. So you could assume that this would be my plan too….in a sort of a way with a few tweaks, omissions and additions..
I mean Areas A and B. As to timing, could Hamas be trying to trick Israel into a two front war on behalf of its Iranian paymasters right now?
Another thought occurs, unless authority is taken away from Hamas and the PA and restored to the IDF, what is to stop Arabs from taking the money, leaving and then just coming right back into one of their domains?
Area C could be fully integrated into the rest of Israel tomorrow morning. As to the rest, doesn’t it require reimposing martial law, in Areas B, C and Gaza, doesn’t that require a committment to total war and doesn’t that require a consensus to avoid being stabbed in the back again with Vietnam syndrome coupled with Oslo syndrome.
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar sharpen those memory pills kindly sir. One you objected to a citizenship option I had in some of the prior versions. We agreed to disagree after debating it several times. So it is different but if you object again feel free. You objection noted. I have reduced that to a residency option for the time being (thinking on it).
You and others say there are zero Arabs worthy of residents. Fine I look at it is sort of Sodom & Gemurah if their is one worthy then they can stay as a resident. One can argue move em all out, blow em all up. Israelis are unlikely do any of this unless there ends up being and all out and out war.
My concept is trying to achieve what is realistic. Just like the two state solution does not work. Dreaming of ridding the land of every Arab is not going to happen. So achieve the best possible. Having some carrots for those who are not violent, want to co-exist and wish to stay is something that needs to be considered. Some say throw them into the desert. Some say make their lives miserable or offer them some money to go as alternative. Deal with the details of how you get them out of the country later and when you pay them later. Got it can be bothered to deal with how it actually happens, we like academic theory.
I am not a lover of Arabs and want their numbers reduced in the country as much as possible and I want Israeli Civil Law from the Jordan to the Med. To do this we need a detailed outline of a plan to start. I have not seen one so I offer a suggestion on steps that might be considered.
Martin says all the right wingers are wimps (no he said they are pussies, surprised he did not say wusses). So Macho Man will ride into the sunset and we will be at square one but everyone else is a wus, sorry I mean pussy.
Give me anyone please (Edgar what is your plan) an outline of a plan that can be implemented in Israel by Israeli leaders. Remember Kahane is dead and he was not nor would he ever have been Prime Minister
@ Bear Klein:
I don’t understand the last sentence….”make who all enemies”…?? If you’re talking about the Arabs…..there’s something wrong…… They ARE all either enemies, or potential enemies if given our turning our backs, or if they become the majority. Well, to be fair, let’s say only 95% of them.
What do you all think about the reports that nearly all Gazans would get out if they were allowed, and that there was a rush when Egypt opened the barriers, that in the first few days, there were 17,000 (I think) who left, those who were best able to.able to bribe and arrange.
Assuming this to have been true. If we neutralise the Gazan leadership -an easy task for Israel to do, then ISRAEL could allow the Gazans to emigrate, and give them a little financial help too. All the bribery, negotiations with “facilitators and middle-men, and arrangements that the wealthy Gazans underwent would not be necessary to any great extent. Should Israel follow up on this.?? It is a great opportunity, and they would be looked on as “saviours”………some hope….!!!! The Gazans would go before Israel was forced to stop by the EU or other interfering swine who think it’s their lifes’ work to pull down Israel.
Naturally I’m speaking broadly here, with no details nor specific plan, just a suggestion worth thinking about.
Perhaps Israel prefers to throw away their excess billions in underground walls. How long will it be before in lieu of tunnels. the terrorists use gas filled balloons to transport themselves at night over the fence, and land in a field, with suicidal intent. A sort of cousin to the “suicide” bombers. They are growing more sub-normal kids every day there who, drugged up, can be talked into anything. And they have a hard core of fanatics who are sex obsessed with 72 virgins.
@ ms:
You saved me the trouble of responding to that effect. Myself, i always have understood the term, a sort of modern slang word which has crept into our vocabulary (although not mine-except when referring to a cat) as meaning “damped-down, innocuous, afraid, hesitant from fear of consequences, etc. The kind of word a schoolyard bully would taunt an unwilling adversary with..
@ Bear Klein:
You’ve posted this about 5-6-7 time in recent months. And I have accepted for the past 5-6-7 months, EVERYTHING….except # 6, which has to be completely “went” (as in “never was”) and absorbed into the preceding clauses. And during that 5-6-7 months I’ve strongly said so. That you completely ignore me shows either doubling-down in the face of being wrong, or/and a lack of respect for my concern, upon which you never commented, or likely even noticed.
@ bondmanp:
You write:
“International public opinion is an excuse not a reason for Israel’s anemic policy.
If the current leadership really wanted to contend with world opinion they would not be spending such miserly amounts on public diplomacy
See:
IF I WERE PRIME MINISTER…
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-The-Fray-If-I-were-prime-minister-330300
The first order of business would be to devise and deploy a political “Iron Dome” to protect Israel from the incoming barrages of delegitimization and demonization…
I admire the basic goals of the Israel Victory Project, but how much thought has been given to winning the peace? Israel’s history is replete with victories, all of which were followed by capitulation at the “peace process” table. So, what will be different after Israel’s next victory? How will Israel win the peace? How will Israel maximize the advantages afforded by such a victory (like just about every other nation in history that won a war)? It will take genuine right-wing leaders to win the peace. Leaders who simply don’t care what the EU, the UN or the State Department thinks. Such potential leaders exist, but even the Ha’Etznis of the world are afraid to embrace them. At the core of that fear is an absence of fear of the Almighty, and an abundance of the fear of man. Faith-based leadership (as distinct from theocracy) by Israelis of strong character and Jewish identity, who are indeed to the right of Israel’s current right, is the only way forward if Israel is to survive and thrive.
Bear,
Why should Israel spend billions of dollars, to accomplish what a company of bayonet-toting soldiers, plus a few trucks, can accomplish? They can use the Algerian precedent of leaving them in the desert, with the option of walking or starving.
Sounds humane to me. Nobody’s said Boo! to the Algerians.
@ Bear Klein:
This is not what I am suggesting at all.
In principle, any non-belligerent Palestinian will be faced with an option
(a) to continue living in increasingly onerous conditions with diminishing supplies of utilities and essential services ;
or
(b) to emigrate with a generous relocation grant to a destination of his/her choice.
All the rest are operational details which can be adapted as time goes on
@ ms:
Actual effective implementation should go area by area otherwise you will be wasting time money and resources. When a business expands via franchises it does not do it everywhere at once because they have neither the money nor the people resources do it everywhere at once.
So what I suggest you work on a few locals at once to obtain maximum effectiveness. Otherwise you may get one person here to move and one there and the net effect is useless. It needs an actual planning mechanism to work. Saying you are going to buy properties and help Arab moves from everywhere at once is not likely to work. Showing an actual plan not a theory will get more people think it will work.
@ Bear Klein:
You write
This a multi-billion dollar undertaking – I do not see NGO’s being able to handle it
1. Not sure what you base your assessment on – th is clear evidence of a widespread desire to leave–even without a purposeful policy o induce them to do so
2.Do not needto get rid of ALL the Arabs – just enough to make Palestinian statehood lose credibility
My whole proposal is based on carrots…and sticks
Positive incentives to leave (generous relocation loans) and negative disincentives (gradual withdrawal of services) to stay
@ ms:
I agree with your statement modifying my proposal.
I concur that it needs to be government sanctioned but to function best it needs to run by NGOs
Fine on the one hand. On other hand you actually believe you will get rid of all the Arabs? I believe this highly unlikely. So if you have no zero carrots you will make them all enemies.
@ adamdalgliesh:
“Pussy” has multiple meanings – including a feline quaraped (a.k.a. “cat”)
To avoid any misunderstanding I gave the dictionary definition of the sense I was referring to
Why would that be offensive to anyone??@ Bear Klein:
@ Bear Klein:
Yes indeed
Correct
Agree
Probably need more proactive steps – accompanied by an appropriately assertive public diplomacy campaign
Substantively correct – but htis is too large an undertaking for NGOs – must be governmental sanctioned and promoted
The Arabs residents of Judea-Samaria are enemy aliens Proof of their non-belligerent status is the acceptance of the relocation grants
@ Bear Klein:
1. That was a quote from Elyakim Ha’Etzni not me
2.Israel controlled Area A & B for almost a quarter century – both the Arabs and the Jews were far better off
3. You write
(a) Gee, I wonder why no one demands/demanded a trial to prove feasibility of any other proposal
(b) Thisa strategic plan that can only be successful on a large scale.
(c) for small sale evidence -see Haaretz
https://www.israpundit.org/opinion-how-turkey-has-become-the-palestinian-promised-land/?utm_source=phplist3874&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=ISRAPUNDIT+DAILY+DIGEST++JULY+11%2F18
@ Bear Klein:
1. That was a quote from Elyakim Ha’Etzni not me
2.Israel controlled Area A & B for almost a quarter century – both the Arabs and the Jews were far better off
3. You write
(a) Gee, I wonder why no one demands/demanded a trial to prove feasibility of any other proposal
(b) This a strategic plan that can only be successful on a large scale.
(c) for small sale evidence -see Haaretz
https://www.israpundit.org/opinion-how-turkey-has-become-the-palestinian-promised-land/?utm_source=phplist3874&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=ISRAPUNDIT+DAILY+DIGEST++JULY+11%2F18
@ adamdalgliesh:
“Pussy” has multiple meanings – including a feline quaraped (a.k.a. “cat”)
To avoid any misunderstanding I gave the dictionary definition of the sense I was referring to
Why would that be offensive to anyone??
While I agree with the substance of this column, in this age of intense female raised consciences, the word “pussification” is deeply offensive to most educated women. There is no need for you to alienate female readers, Dr. Sherman.
The Peace Process is OVER!
Time for Israel to go step by step in making sure Israel secures all the land via measures that legally and physically safe guard Israel.
1. Apply Israeli Civil Law to all Jewish Towns. State that Israel reserves the right to apply Israeli Civil Law to anywhere else in Judea/Samaria.
2. Build in all of Judea and.Samaria. Focus on E1, the Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion to start.
3. Plan for the day the PA implodes or explodes or stops security cooperation. Getting ready to take over and administer the Arab Cities and surrounding villages. Any villages or cities that turn violence will be closed off and workers will not be allowed to exit to work in Israel.
4. Form an NGO to buy Palestinian Properties in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea/Samaria starting with Area C in villages next to Jewish Towns. Resell these properties to Jews and recycle the money to buy more Arab owned properties.
5. Form a different NGO to help Arabs quickly move to other countries. Provide financial incentives to help them go. Make sure they receive their funds when it is confirmed they are leaving.
6. Residency for Arabs in new areas where Israeli Civil Law is applied shall only be possible after a vetting process which determines they are not a security risk.
They will need to demonstrate loyalty to the Jewish Democratic State of Israel.
This will require learning Hebrew; your children will be required to provide civil national service at age 18 to 20.
Arab residents will be required to inform on anyone planning terrorist acts including family members. This will be a condition of residency!
Martin, you point out
That is because taking this many Arabs at once is a disaster. That is consensus. Okay you help them to go. People object or are skeptical at best right when you bring it up.
So you need to prove it works by starting in a couple of Arab villages buy out the locals and help them move. You are into theory and I believe in your objectives and your theories have the possibility of working but need to be proven. I will post my plan which has the long-term objectives as yours but it is a step by step approach.
If you would should a pragmatic step by step plan you would have a better chance of convincing people of your concept.