The Israeli leadership would do well to bear in mind that commitment to the principle of democratic governance is not a suicide pact.
Incredibly, today, except for detail in nuance and tone, the formal positions of the major “right-wing” faction, the Likud, has become indistinguishable from positions expounded by the far-left Meretz faction.
In terms of political affiliation, 51 percent of respondents said they were right-wing, 22% said they were in the Center and 27% defined themselves as left-wing. Among young people, a greater percentage called themselves right-wing than left-wing
– Recent opinion poll, “Israel today – the state of the nation,” Ynetnews, May 5.
At first glance, the findings of the poll conducted over the last week of April should be cause of great encouragement and satisfaction for the political “Right.” That is until you examine political realities and take a long, hard look at the political “Right’s” performance over the past two-and-a-half decades.
Organizational victory, ideological defeat
According to the survey, over half the population holds views presumably compatible with what might be expected of “right-wing” political platforms – almost double that found for what presumably might be expected of the political platforms of its “left-wing” rivals. No less significant, the “Right” enjoys greater support than the “Left” among the young.It seem the younger the age group, the stronger the support for the “Right.”
All of this seems to bode a rosy future for the “Right” in Israel. This, however, would be a highly simplistic – even deceptive—take on Israeli political realities. For the political outcomes that have taken place in the past, and seem probable in the future, provide a very different picture.
Although it is true that there has been serious erosion in the electoral strength of the “Left” and of its representation in the Knesset, the ideology it embraced has totally eclipsed that of its “right-wing” rivals.
After all, since the early 1990s, political realities in Israel have clearly shown that electoral victory has little bearing on the policies resultant governments will pursue.
Quite the reverse.
As I have pointed out in previous columns, the official ideology adopted by the allegedly “right-wing” Likud is demonstratively far more concessionary than that embraced by the post-Oslo Labor Party under the Nobel peace laureate Yitzhak Rabin. Yet any Israeli leader who were to adopt Rabin’s prescription for a permanent settlement with the Palestinians would be immediately dismissed as an unrealistic extremist.
Little more than a limousine chauffeur
Thus, in terms of the substantive policy positions today, the “Right” has totally capitulated to the “Left” and is carrying out – or at least is committed to carrying out – the latter’s political prescriptions.
In this regard the political “Right” has become little more than a reluctant limousine chauffeur, delivering its political rivals ever closer to their designated destination.
After all, during any journey, the chauffeur makes many operational decisions. To avoid obstacles, he decides when to tilt the steering wheel one way and when the other way; he decides when to accelerate and when to brake; which lane to take and when to change it…, but never the final destination. Similarly, the political “Right,” which for decades has been in a position of formal power, ostensibly “in the driver’s seat, sitting behind the wheel,” makes many decisions that affect life in the country, but seems powerless to determine its “final destination” in terms of defining the frontiers of the state and the extent of its sovereignty.
Worse, it has become increasingly compliant in abandoning its clearly stated positions on these crucial issues, and increasingly subservient in embracing those of its diametrical political adversaries.
The results of the recent poll make this puzzling phenomenon even more difficult to comprehend and to accept.
To the vanquished, the spoils?
No matter how often the doctrine of political appeasement and territorial concession failed to win approval at the ballot box, it continues to dominate the policy-making decisions of governments – even of those elected in express opposition to it.
No matter how many times it resulted in dramatic and disastrous failure, no matter how many times it proved itself to be a dangerous delusion, governments led by men who built their political careers on opposing it, failed to discredit it and certainly never discarded it.
Quite the reverse, on taking over the reins of government, they embraced it, presenting this as proof of their moderation, reasonableness and political acumen.
Astonishingly, time and time again, the prescriptions of the vanquished became the policy of the victors.
It is almost impossible to believe the situation that has emerged following Binyamin Netanyahu’s infamous watershed Bar-Ilan speech, in June 2009, when, however reluctantly, he accepted the notion of Palestinian statehood. After all, today the formal position of the major “right-wing” faction, the Likud, the party of Menachem Begin, founded on the ideas expounded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, has, except for detail in nuance and tone, become indistinguishable from the positions expounded by the “far-left” Meretz faction.
At least, I find myself unable to identify any divergence – and would be grateful if anyone could enlighten me on this score.
The “Right” has been utterly and completely – but, one hopes, not irretrievably – routed ideologically.
Rudderless Right
Ideologically the “Right” today is like a ship adrift without a compass, captain or rudder – without any ideological direction, any leadership to set it, or any means of holding to it.
The political “Right” has never articulated – much less adhered to – a clear and comprehensive prescription of how it envisions the permanent-status arrangement with the Palestinian-Arabs. Clearly, you cannot reach your destination if you don’t have one; and if you don’t have one, there is little reason to expect fellow travelers to “get on board.”
As a result, the political “Right” has found itself unable to respond effectively to the 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 failed formula it had rejected.
So, while in opposition, members of the political “Right” made very convincing and at times even caustic critiques of the “left-wing” policy of concession and appeasement. But once in power, they found they had “nowhere to go,” and thus felt compelled to disregard their previous caveats and embraced the self-same concessionary approach they had previously condemned.
There appears little choice, then, other than to conclude that the leadership of the political “Right” does not possess – or at least has not displayed – either the intellectual depth and daring, or the ideological commitment and coherence, necessary to formulate a cogent counter-paradigm to replace that of the “Left.”
Politics abhors a vacuum
In many ways, this is an inexcusable dereliction of duty – especially in light of the resounding failure of the “left-wing” doctrine (as revealed by the devastating outcomes of its attempted implementation), and the predominance of “right-wing” preferences in the public (as revealed by repeated election results and polls such as that cited above).
Predictably, this gross negligence has begun to produce disgruntled rumblings within certain sectors of Israel’s civil society. After all, much like Nature, politics abhors a vacuum – and the ideo-intellectual vacuum left by the aversion of successive (mainly Likud-led) governments to fashion a durable Zionist-compliant blueprint vis-à-vis the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs is generating pressures for it to be filled.
The disturbingly detrimental effects of this situation seem to be dawning on some individuals and organizations associated with the “Right,” and 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 alternatives to the policy of withdrawal from large swathes of Judea-Samaria and the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan.
Out of frying pan, into fire?
Regrettably, however, most of these are poorly thought through, and even if implemented, would leave the Jewish state 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 permanent 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 (other than at prohibitive cost); and (c) those that entail both (a) and (b).
As I have demonstrated in previous columns, it is difficult to see, except under wildly optimistic, unrealistic and hence irresponsible assumptions of best case scenarios, how these alternatives could produce any outcome other than either the Lebanonization or the Balkanization of Israel – i.e. transforming it into a country riven by internal ethnic strife or dismembering it into numerous smaller, potentially rivalrous geographic entities).
Perhaps the harshest condemnation of these well-intentioned but ill-conceived schemes is the warm commendation they have received from Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the vehemently anti-Zionist Electronic Intifada, whom I cited last week. In response to the ideas being touted on the Israel “Right,” Abunimah told Al Jazeera: “The proposals from the Israeli right wing, however inadequate… add a little bit to that hope [of bringing an end to Jewish Israel]… We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it.
What more is there to add?
How to right the rout of Right?
A durable Zionist-compliant alternative to the silly and/or sinister two-state principle must be based on the awareness of at least three major factors:
(a) The Zionist movement bears no responsibility to fulfill the national aspirations of anyone other than the Jews – especially not those of Palestinian-Arabs, who openly admit their aspirations are nothing but a hoax maintained solely to undermine those of the Jews.
(b) There is little point in relating to the Palestinian- Arabs – as a collective – as anything other than what they openly declare themselves to be: an implacable enemy, obdurately opposed to the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in any form, within any frontiers.
They should not be considered peace partners or potentially loyal residents of the Jewish nation-state.
(c) To endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel must address two imperatives: The geographic and the demographic. The former implies the necessity of retaining the territory of Judea-Samaria. The latter implies the necessity of not retaining the Arab population of Judea-Samaria.
The Israeli leadership would do well to bear in mind that commitment to the principle of democratic governance is not a suicide pact. The obligations in the social contract between an elected government and the people who elected it is to provide its own people – not the population of an enemy collective – with good governance and protection.
The Israeli government has no obligation – democratic or moral – to sustain the Palestinian enemy’s economy.
To the contrary, it should let it collapse – and to avoid an inevitable humanitarian crisis, offer individual Palestinian bread winners generous relocation grants to help them build a better life for themselves and their families elsewhere, free of the incompetence and corruption of the cruel cliques that have led them astray for decades.
That, to my mind, is the only non-coercive policy that can ensure long-term survival of the Jewish nation-state in the ancient homeland of the Jews. If there are any others, I would be happy to learn of them.
Finally, if, as many on the “Left” claim, there is no moral defect in funding Jews to vacate homes to allow the establishment of a micro-mini entity that in all likelihood will become a bastion of Islamist terror on the fringes of Europe, why then would there be any moral defect in funding Arabs to vacate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity? That is the question that the “Right” should be forcing into the public discourse – and to which it should demand a rational response.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
@ yamit82:
TX says blowing on it wil open it faster then tickles
yamit82 Said:
West Texas Rabbit Hunting: Smile its a beautiful morning and I must go for my walk,
http://youtu.be/PO4JcgD3vq0
@ yamit82:
Won’t open and I tickled like crazy.
bernard ross Said:
@ honeybee:
A somewhat dated discussion of NWO and Israel
@ honeybee:
😛
What doesn’t fit multiple choice…..
@ yamit82:
In case you need a job while in Texas: http://www.millercountyliberal.com/news/2013-06-19/Public_Safety/The_official_Texas_Sheriffs_exam.html
yamit82 Said:
I am shocked !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ yamit82:
Watch the fourth quarter and overtime of the game last night. TX never watches the first tree quarters, he says they’re fore-play, the real fun doesn’t start till the last bit. I think I broke my spring form pan in all the excitement, bought a new one at the flea market. Thought of you while there. the mannequins that display the clothing are all quite zoftig. Mexicans don’t care for tall slim Dior types, [blond OK]. Mexican men like , as cattlemen say, feed out and well marbled.
@ bernard ross:
Listen to this podcast.
http://www.israelendtimes.com/media-files/narrett-on-israel-national-radio-with-tovia-singer-july-18-2006.wma
Prfo Narrett Z”L was murdered a few months ago in Vermont by a Hit and Run driver while crossing a street.
honeybee Said:
An offer I can’t refuse!!!
Have Vodka, will Travel!!!!
On my way!!!
@ yamit82:
We both got up on ‘the wrong side of the bed’ today. I baked a cheese cake yesterday, bring over some vodka and we’ll mellow out. Strawberries in syrup for the topping. I’ll invite phoenix too.
Pre-Emption and Slander
@ bernard ross:
Classic Contrived Dialectic Conflict
September 12th, 2010
“History shows that the great powers do not want peace: in the 20th century they perfected the art of contriving wars of attrition which ‘require’ or ‘justify’ management by the diplomatic-military cadres of the powers and UN to “secure lasting peace.” In Orwellian fashion, this War Process is defined as “security.””
@ bernard ross:
Nothing new here: It’s long been the goal of managed cultural breakdown by Western elites, leading to the creation of a world security state.
The Era of Triumphant Fictions
@ beniyyar:
Till Begin No Jewish home or settlement was ever destroyed by Jewish forces or under orders by the Israeli government.
The precedent of Land for Peace is a Likud invention. What the extreme left could only dream of the Likud executed on the ground. Peres the arch Villain of the right was the actual political father of the settlement movement after 67. He approved the first settlements and built more in Y&S than BB has in over 8 years.
Labor ( Mapai) before Rabin was more right wing than the Likud is today. Every action BB has taken can be ascribed to the Meretz playbook and is one of the reasons why Meretz is mostly uncritical of BB and is according to polls back in the political game with substantial support.
The real right wing both religious and non observant are looking for a political home and most have rejected the Likud largely because of BB and his policies and perceived leftist directions of his policies. Without Lieberman the Likud today controls only 20 seats in the Knesset although most polls give the political right in Israel of being around 50% or more depending on definitions of who and what is right wing.
Based on actions and policy tell me how BB’s Likud is different from Labor and Meretz re: Peace with the Arabs, the Land of Israel and how they perceive Israel in a Jewish context?
The obvious differences relate to societal and social and civil matters where the Likud under both Sharon and BB have tried with some success to make Israel an epitome of the worst example of crony capitalism and concentration of wealth not even seen in the so called Banana Republics.
Everything the Likud touches turns to shit when one looks at outcomes objectively. Labor for all their faults and differences of world view I object to, knew how to govern. The Likud never learned and so they have always failed.
Bill Narvey Said:
He has already divided jerusalem defacto by his actions and inaction in light of what the PA is doing in the eastern sections of Jerusalem. He has allowed the UN, Vatican Wakf (Jordanians) and EU and Americans to gain control over most of the institutions regulating E Jerusalem.
Admin actions against the Jews and Jewish rights and claims substantiates his duplicity. His words against his actions whether by commission or omission. The record is there if one cares to look. You must look at the big picture not individual single events…AND DISCOUNT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING HE SAYS.
That’s the simple way of trying to rationalize what otherwise are irrational acts and behavior…
@ bernard ross:
Prophetic Words
Israel Eldad was learned both in the Western humanities and in Hebrew texts and tradition. He also was a central member of the underground forces that enabled Israel to approach independence in the mid-1940s and a writer who explained this process and how it was co-opted and fell short.
Eldad was a master stylist. Since 2008, those who read well only in English have been able to appreciate how deep was his understanding of modern Jewish and Israeli dilemmas and how prescient was his analysis of the Jewish people in exile (both outside and within Israel) and, more briefly for it is not his main concern, of Western civilization.
Consider the following analysis of the choice confronting Jews by late 1939:
yamit82 Said:
beniyyar Said:
You are suggesting that Sherman and Glick are more left than BB? Other than you find criticism of BB’s actions unacceptable what evidence do you have for this statement?
If I were given a choice as to who is more left I would have to choose BB based on his actions and ignoring his words.
Other than assert that he has stood up to impossible pressure from the US, what has BB done in actions, not words, that evidence to you that he is a “true Israeli nationalist who are trying to successfully oppose the Israeli Left”.
He is resolute about not removing one settler. However, I read that settlements outside the major blocks will remain for a period of 5-10 years until Israel makes final security arrangements and at that time the remaining settlers will have the choice to remain under pal sovereignty with pal citizenship, residence and/or dual citizenship. This will satisfy his pledge not to forcibly remove one settler. During this period I would expect Sherman type incentives of money and new houses to be offered the settlers who move.
Imagine a similar approach to Jerusalem: he promised an undivided Jerusalem but did not promise Israel sovereignty over it. I have read various proposals satisfying “an undivided Jerusalem”. One is where a sovereign area is created within Jerusalem similar to a diplomatic compound. Jordan is buying lots of land near the Mount. Another proposal is for a united Jerusalem administered by a joint authority. there are many versions that can satisfy the fine print of “a united Jerusalem”. I also read that dual citizenship for Jerusalem residents is proposed. Until the end BB can claim to be for the settlers, not remove forcibly one settlers and be resolute about a united Jerusalem. The reason why I do not trust his statements is because he has in fact obstructed settlement both through edict and through Livni as Justice minister. He appointed LIvni I believe EXACTLY for this purpose as she is in on the final deal. He only builds in the major settlement blocks to be kept and prevents settlement in other areas of C. He announced E1 for political gain and never progressed. He is a master of announcement that goes nowhere. The announcements appear designed to maintain his “constituency” who are satisfied with words and protestations of outside pressure when they confront his obstruction. Foreign pressure is a convenient way of distracting from your agreement with that pressure. I have seen nothing to prove that BB’s statements had any truth. when his electorate is deserting him he makes announcements and makes the US the bogeyman and of course, as they are in on it they happily play the role of bogey man to continue the con.
@ yamit82:
GO SPURS
Yamit, Thx for your thoughtful #5. Re: Netanyahu’s hinting that Israel might cede parts of Jerusalem in any final settlement with Palestinians is troubling.
I now recall reading about this exchange with Hoenlien back in 2010 and being troubled by it then.
I don’t see how any kind of pressure from the U.S. or others might have induced Netanyahu back in 2010 to even think dividing Jerusalem is a possibility. Further, his saying to Hoenlein that imposing pre-conditions is counterproductive to serious engagement for peace with Palestinians, strikes me as very odd and hardly induced by outside pressures shaping his thinking.
Palestinians have a whole list of pre-conditions. It seems to work for them to get concessions. Israel following suit and making clear its own very red line pre-conditions seems to me to be a very good negotiating strategy. Such strategy is strengthened if Israeli takes actual steps to ensure those pre-conditions will inevitably be an integral part of any peace agreement should the Palestinians ever get serious about making peace with Israel. Expanding communities beyond the green line is one way to emphasize the point.
From what I recall reading since however, I have understood Netanyahu is resolute about not dividing Jerusalem.
External pressures do provide a rational explanation for many of Netanyahu’s words and actions appearing as submission to the will of the U.S. led West, but not all.
bernard ross Said:
Israel since Barak, has already ceded 93% of the West Bank, leaving only 7% to be haggled over including Jerusalem.
Once again, sadly, Martin Sherman has become a prisoner of his own excessive rhetoric and gone off the deep end with his fantasies. Now we are told that the Likud is just another Meretz/Hadash party which has fooled the voters into thinking otherwise. Give me a break, Martin, just because occasionally the Israeli nationalists find common ground with the Israeli nutjob Left wing, does not mean that the do not differ and with big differences as well. This sort of ridiculous rhetoric by the likes of Sherman and Glick only further divides and confuses the Israeli nationalists, strengthens the radical anti Israel and pro Palestinian Israeli Left, and leaves non affiliated Israeli voters angry and confused. No, absolutely not Martin Sherman and Caroline Glick, Netanyahu is not Zahava Gal On or Achmad Tibi in disguise, and the Likud is not Meretz or Hadash in drag no matter who you two try to pettifog and obscure the persons and their political parties. I often feel that both Sherman and Glick are puppets and pawns of the anti Israel, anti Jewish, and pro Palestinian Israeli Left and that they are trying to do as much damage as they can to those of us true Israeli nationalists who are trying to successfully oppose the Israeli Left by making these stupid, dangerous, and false accusations against the Likud and it’s leadership.
yamit82 Said:
a member of the ruling global elite, set for life, fame and fortune. It’s going to be one world anyway so why fight it. Once transfer is ruled out it becomes a matter of haggling over C and Jerusalem. At that point he probably figures they will get someone else to implement their plan if not him(livni, barak, peres, etc etc) He plays along or they get someone else, also on the right, to implement their plan. Most of Israel will accept just getting the major settlement blocks. I notice there is no talk on the golan perhaps they will let him keep the golan if they get rid of assad at the border. That leave Jerusalem where they will probably have some sort of soverign area for the pals together with the jordan wakf. Maybe like a diplomatic compound.
@ yamit82:
I rather be dancing.
@ bernard ross:
Looks that way. Question is why because he doesn’t have to?
Obama will never abide by any agreement or promises made as a quid pro quo.
In 2 and a half years obama is gone and we will have to deal with another President. Saying No to Obama will call his bluff and make any actions against Israel a bipartisan election political issue.
Any threats unless they are personal can be deflected. I belive BB has always intended to halt the expansion of settlements and to reduce our footprint in the territories. He has acted in that direction since his first term in 1996.
I think I know why partially and it has a lot to do with his world view.
Money talks shit walks. He is a hard core neo- conservative economically he adored Thatcher and has always sought to emulate her here in Israel.
is a true believer that economic interests will always trump any other ideology and expects the Palis to act in concert with his theories if we help them to improve their economic well being and attain a higher living standard.
He will get a Nobel and be the darling of the VIP speakers circuit making 200K a speech or more.
Chamish said he saw BB listed as a member of the CFR before his election in 96 but later he was not listed. Chamish also said when ever BB traveled to the States his first stop was always to see Kissinger.
That along with the speculation of who picked him for political leadership when he was just out of MIT and an unknown Zero here in Israel lends credence to Chamish theories that BB is a shill for the CFR and neo-cons in America.
yamit82 Said:
This fits in with the Clinton and international plan of jewish neighborhoods to the Jews and arab neighborhoods to the arabs. It appears that BB is helping the international plan by obstructing everything that contradicts it. Hence building only in the major blocks they agreed to be kept. the problem is that when BB says he is for the settlers he refers only to the major blocks so he is not technically lying. Same with not removing any settlements. During a 5-10 year period of retaining C and the Jordan for security purposes only he will give incentives for settlers to leave and if they want to remain they can be pal citizens or residents under pal sovereignty: hence not technically lying when he boasts he will not remove one settler(they will leave on their own choice) He is implementing transfer in reverse just like Sharon only not forced. He will use the Sherman incentive plan to bring the settlers. Pay them and build them houses.
Neither abbas or BB can implement a public peace agreement now but can agree to run a drama over time where each is allowed to accommodate their electorate while making concessions. Some concessions can be disgised as unilateral actions of the other party.
yamit82 Said:
Agree 100%
yamit82 Said:
Agree 100%, and add that focus should be put on getting Israelis to reach the consensus.
yamit82 Said:
Agree, and this is the opposite of BB’s plan who wants to help them economically. I say it is a war that allows only one victor.
yamit82 Said:
Facts unfolding tend to support that the GOI(BB) is in agreement with the american/international position and is just unfolding it slowly.
yamit82 Said:
I absolutely agree 100% and this is exactly why I don’t believe them. They keep everyone mystified with intentional deception.
Bill Narvey Said:
“Transfer”…. “This idea in itself is not new to Zionism. Israel Zangwill suggested it in 1920, the British put it forward in the Peel Report of 1937 as did Avraham Sharon and Avraham Stern in the ’40s. Official Zionists opposed the plan due to moral hesitations (not a Jewish morality but one influenced by liberal emancipation and in continuation of their naive belief that the Arabs will agree to coexistence if we succeed in convincing them that Zionism is beneficial for them…. ” Dr. Israel
There are always pressures on leaders of most national states. In democracy’s that’s what they are chosen to do… deal with those pressures in the national Interest. Is there any pressure anyone could impose on Canada to cede Alberta to another sovereignty or Toronto? What pressure could America impose upon Israels leaders to cede the heart of our land and the seat of our national heritage to anyone especially our sworn enemies…. It can’t be money.. Is there enough for such a loss? I can agree that Israel might be persuaded to make certain and less vital concessions to “Pressure” but the big stuff? Agreeing to a Palis State. on the Land that is our historical and spiritual heartland and Soul of our nation? I think not, most Israelis would never willingly do so especially under duress and pressure. Our leaders and especially BB have never in my memory stood up to so called pressure and therefore I believe they are agreeable in the first place to do what America asks or demands of them otherwise they wouldn’t, even if there is a price to be paid….The people of Israel will endure much deprivation rather than succumb to blackmail. Israel is not so friendless, militarily weak, and economically poor that any threatened attack cannot be resisted successfully even by an Obama administration. What really can he do to us? In January Israel receives her annual remittance in a lump some payment so the rest of this year we are immune from any delay in transfer of funds.
Obama could hold up military parts transfers in the pipeline which could effect some operational functions of the IDF but we should have stockpiles of essential parts and if not we can find work around, we have done so in the past even lately to Apache choppers. Obama won’t sell us new Apaches so we upgraded on our own fleets. Cheaper and probably better for the effort. America refused to sell us AWACS we built our own and even sold a few to China and India, same with cruise missiles and bunker buster bombs. Israel performs best under pressure and there is always a long term benefit for Israel. I have written to you many posts concerning the strong hand Israel has with the Americans. We give them much more than they give us and America is replaceable but we are not so for the Americans. Congress will support us I believe and I don’t think Obama wants to make Israel a political issue in the coming mid term elections. It could guarantee the loss of the Senate and an increase in the house over and above what they expect to get already. There could be a veto overriding majority in both houses…. Israel could play hardball if the pressure were so great as you assume but which I believe conforms to what our political leaders invite so they can explain unpopular decisions.
One would need to ask why do our leaders want a Palis state and to give away most or all of our gains in 67???
I have only some theories but I believe some will hold up under scrutiny with support just from the public record.
The Real Netanyahu: Is he defending Israel?
Read More
Yamit, re: your point #3 – “Population transfer is the only rational means of effecting internal security and cultural homogeneity for the Jewish majority.”
Without agreeing with your point that population transfer is the ONLY RATIONAL path to Israeli security and best interests, it certainly is an obvious rational path.
The problem I alluded to however is that Israel has not been free to act rationally as regards the Palestinians because of interference in such efforts by the U.S. led West and a variety of nuanced exigent circumstances that operate singularly or in tandem with a variety of factors to prevent Israel devising rational policies for its best interests, present and anticipated, based on hard prevailing facts and the lessons history teaches.
As to your point #7 – “7) There is no American pressure. It is a fiction that our traitorous politicians hide behind to justify their perfidious and incompetent governance.”
Come now Yamit. You are denying the obvious that there is pressure on Israel and plenty of it.
As to whether Netanyahu and past leaders have responded appropriately to that pressure, either by mistakenly or wisely relenting under it or foolishly or correctly standing firm against it, one can only make that determination if the particular pressure Netanyahu or past leaders contended with at particular moments in time, is precisely known.
I expect that many times when Obama or past Presidents have chosen to put the screws to Israel, that there was an additional threat made that if Israel refused to bend to that pressure and revealed what threats America was making, things would become quickly much worse for Israel.
Leaks have sometimes revealed what kind of pressure was applied, but I expect in most instances Israel has been pressured successfully by the U.S. to keep their mouths shut about what threats accompanied pressure to force Israel to keep that threat secret regardless of whether Israel bent or resisted pressure for her to make a statement or take a position that the U.S. led West was demanding.
@ Bill Narvey:
I’ll begin my reply to you from last to first.
1) We don’t want PEACE. We do want Peace and Quiet.
2) We don’t want Arabs here in Israel or the Territories. Not because they are Arabs, that’s racist but because they are our enemies and want to both murder us if they could and replace us if they can. No normal people and nation can abide a 5th column enemy in their midst, That’s just plain nuts and suicidal.
3) Population transfer is the only rational means of effecting internal security and cultural homogeneity for the Jewish majority.
4) Once a consensus is reached even if it’s understated and not put in the public square for open ; an agreed method for transfer can be reached and implemented.
5) Thousands of Arabs leave Israel and territories every year to make their lives in other countries and that includes America and Canada. How many more would leave if pushed and encouraged to do so if there was an unofficial government policy to do so?
I say drain the swamp by making life quite unbearable for them giving them no hope for a future if they remain. Consider that till now the Arabs with Israeli citizenship enjoy a form of affirmative action on steroids here in Israel… First thing is to stop it!!!!! Paying them is immoral and impossible but a combination of making them equal under our laws not just in rights but in obligations will drain the swamp of a fair number and quickly. You cannot annex the territories unless they are depopulated of Arabs and you cannot depopulate the territories without doing the same to Israeli Arabs.
7) There is no American pressure. It is a fiction that our traitorous politicians hide behind to justify their perfidious and incompetent governance.
Any PM if he was really under unbearable pressure to do what he otherwise would not consider or ,could resist by blowing out the water any threat to Israel by an American president easily by leaking the nature of the pressure to the supporters of Israel in the Congress and to any Jewish and non Jewish organizations still supporting Israel. Israel playing by that rule book could also leak any information they have and I am sure we have some that would put any president especially Obama in impeachment jeopardy.
Mr Putin would give a lot for Israel to break from America… There are options to avoid any harsh outcomes with America and that includes UN sanctions. That BB is a stinking cowardly stooge is no justification for wilting but again he isn’t wilting he wants a deal and he wants to be out of the territories just like Livni, Sharon, Barak and Olmert not to mention Peres.
Until some of these corrupt traitors detail specifics as to what pressure and consequences we face if we don’t comply with the supposed threats I will not believe any of them. We Israelis who may have to pay dearly should know and have a right to know what threats by the Americans are so great they are willing to sell the country down the drain and endanger us all in the process.
Does anyone seriously fear Obama in the World except BB? Does it make any sense that every country in the world is laughing at Obama and distancing themselves from him except BB?
So many opinionators who before, during and after the fact/circumstances that they had no influence and still have no influence over, weigh in with their views on what woulda, coulda, shoulda been, if only.
Sherman, as before notes as a seminal moment in the gutting of the right, “Binyamin Netanyahu’s infamous watershed Bar-Ilan speech, in June 2009, when, however reluctantly, he accepted the notion of Palestinian statehood.”
Sherman expressly and/or implicitly concedes here and in past writings that Netanyahu’s 2009 fundamental positional shift to accepting the notion of Palestinian statehood is not what Netanyahu wanted. It is well known that successive American governments saw a necessity to advance American interests and influence in the Mid East, for Israel to come to embrace the 2 state peace solution.
Netanyahu, like Israeli leaders before him were being pressured to seek peace with Palestinians premised on a 2 state solution. That pressure came not only from the U.S., but Western democratic nations.
As to the nature and extent of the kind and force of pressure applied to Israel at any particular time from the U.S. led West, it of course depended on various exigent factors as well as the mindset, views and will of the particular U.S. leader at the time.
We all know that Pres. Obama, for a variety of reasons which his critics would say all had to do with his early and later life experiences, his rather obvious leftist ideological views, possible influence on his thinking by some past associates and friends in particular, Pres. Obama almost as soon as he ascended to the presidency, made realization of the 2 state solution a center piece of his foreign policy or his holy grail as it were. His critics also say that Pres. Obama did so, not our of concern for the welfare and interests of Israel, but rather his own welfare and interest in establishing his legacy as legendary, even in his own time, in a fashion that met the demands he placed upon himself by virtue of his supremely arrogant, narcissistic and conceited nature.
Netanyahu not only was known as right wing, but tough and shrewd.
So what was it that forced Netanyahu to be pushed over the edge into accepting the 2 state solution model for further peace discussions with the Palestinians?
Sherman simply faults Netanyahu for not being tough or shrewd enough to fend off the pressure he was under from Obama. Other right wing critics have done so as well.
Where are the right wing inquiring minds, possessed of even normal modicum of curiosity to find out exactly what pressure Netanyahu was under that caused him to bend and accept the 2 state solution premise for further peace talks?
Nowhere to be found. They appear to operate on the premise that only a strong resolute leader, firm in their convictions and true to what they were known to have stood for in past would have been able to resist any kind of pressure Obama or any other world leaders could throw at him. The fact that Netanyahu wilted under Obama’s pressure, does not even pique the curiosity of Netanyahu’s critics as to what that pressure was. That he wilted is enough for them to conclude Netanyahu is weak, a turn coat, a political opportunist without scruples and the like.
That issue aside however, Sherman’s proposal is for Israel to establish and push a “Palestinian population transfer” policy that sees Israel inducing Palestinians to voluntarily leave the West Bank for other parts by offers of money.
Sounds like a simple idea premised on the theory, “everyone can be bought if the price is right”.
Nothing however, is going to be that simple.
What price? How many Palestinians have to be induced to leave before the remaining Palestinians are so few that they are neutered as any threat to Israel? Can Israel afford the cost, whatever it may be to effect such kind of money based voluntary “population transfer”?
Then there is the matter of how Palestinians, both Hamas and Fatah and the PA would see such new Israeli policy? You can bet they need all the Palestinians presently in the West Bank to remain in place and to do their bidding in their efforts to ultimately destroy Israel, if not in one fell swoop, then in stages, with the first stage being getting their own independent Palestinians state, which once strength is gathered to be used as a launching pad for a genocidal minded attack on Israel.
Palestinian thuggish leaders have already been reported to have threatened any Palestinian with death who might be induced by Israel’s offer of money to leave the West Bank. Certainly any Palestinian who has spoken words or committed deeds that could be interpreted as being favorable to Israel, has been branded a traitor or collaborator and they paid with their lives.
Finally, the reality is that the majority of the Arab/Muslim world would be against any such Israeli population transfer policy.
And where do you figure the U.S. led West would be with such Palestinian “population transfer” policy if Israel were to enact it?
Yes, “population transfer” and extended sovereignty over the West Bank makes a whole lot of sense to bring peace to Israel but there are many U.S. led Western and international interests that would forcefully stand in the way of Israel proceeding with such policy if it was ever enacted.
Israel is not the master of her own fate in that regard as history has shown time and again.
In spite of that, Israel is still thriving, strong and charting her own course as best she can. In spite of a great many hurdles and obstacles in her way, including a number of tough and painful domestic issues, Israel is doing admirably well all things considered.
Of course she can do better. We all want Israel to be the master of her own fate, to outsmart, out hustle and defang her enemies at every turn and turn them to willingly make peace with Israel and to tell those who seek to force Israel to do things for their and not Israel interests, where to get off and instead be creative and smart enough to get her friends to become totally on side with her.
That is the goal to aspire to, strive and pray for.
Sherman is right. The Israeli government should use both carrots and sticks to encourage the Arabs to emigrate. Causing the PA to collapse would be a solid first step. Under no circumstance should the Arabs in Judea and Samaria be given citizenship.