By MARTIN SHERMAN
Despite being in power continuously for over a half- decade, Netanyahu has done virtually nothing to install effective mechanisms to contain and counter the pernicious effects of the White House’s predilections
“If the aim of the Israeli government is to prevent a peace deal with the Palestinians, now or in the future, it’s close to realizing that goal…The Obama administration, with every justification, strongly condemned the…betrayal of the idea of a two-state solution in the Middle East. But Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t care what Washington thinks, so it will be up to President Obama to find another way to preserve that option before he leaves office.”
At the Boiling Point with Israel, The New York Times Editorial, October 6, 2016
For all the opprobrium and outrage one might feel for the egregious malevolence of the action –and inaction—of the Obama regime in the final throes of its incumbency, hard truths as to the part Israel itself played in facilitating these appalling and infuriating outbursts of vindictive pique cannot—and should not—be overlooked. Especially if there is to be any hope of avoiding such future fiascos…or of repairing the damage of past ones
Ignoring the brewing storm
Almost three months ago I wrote a column entitled Obama:The Blame Bibi Bears, warning of an impending anti-Israeli UN initiative, and lamenting the ongoing lack of any Israeli action, for well over half a decade, to contend with the emerging threat. Much of what I wrote then attained renewed—and sharpened—significance this week.
With a sense of urgency and frustration, which has only intensified in the intervening months, I asked: If one knows a storm is brewing, but takes no measures to prepare for it, when the storm hits, who is to blame for the damage? The storm… or those who did not prepare for it?
Then, almost exactly a month later, in Obama Unplugged: What To Do?, I urged that Israel adopt a preemptive deterrent stance to forestall any vindictive initiative from the Obama administration in the eight week “interregnum”, until his successor is inaugurated, by credibly conveying that support for such action “will not be a cost-free decision for whoever acts to effect it…or fails to foil it” To this end, I prescribed that “should Israel be confronted with [the prospect of] an un-vetoed resolution to promote Palestinian statehood, it must convey in unequivocally clear terms to the Palestinians – and to their supporters, Israel will cease, forthwith, to provide all services and merchandise that it provides them…and vividly expose the farcical futility of the Palestinians’ endeavor for statehood [as] unsustainable without the largesse of its alleged ‘oppressor.’”
Unsurprisingly, little effort was taken to implement any such a-priori deterrent action—and subsequent ex-post angry Israeli responses, understandable and well-justified as they may be, are unlikely to have much more impact than slamming the stable doors after the horses have long bolted.
My beef with Bibi
As readers of my column will know, I am not one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s fiercest or most relentless detractors. Indeed, in the past I have written several articles stoutly defending him against what I saw as unwarranted and unfair ad hominem criticism—see for example Netanyahu: The pathology and Bibi vs. B.G: The Good, the Bad and the Remarkable
However, at times, I have been dismayed at some of his policy decisions and have criticized them with commensurate severity. These include: the freeze on construction in Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria; the unilateral release of droves of convicted homicidal terrorists as a forlorn “goodwill” gesture to the Palestinians; the shameful payment of compensation to the families of the Turkish thugs, killed trying to lynch IDF naval commandoes on the Mavi Marmara; the granting of special status to the Erdogan-regime in Gaza—to name some of them.
But of all his injudicious decisions, undoubtedly the one that has had the gravest and most far-reaching consequences was his acceptance – in violation of his electoral pledge—of Palestinian statehood during his regrettable 2009 Bar-Ilan speech. For in a stroke, he dramatically transformed the strategic structure of the discourse—from whether or not there should be a Palestinian state to what the characteristics of that state should be. So although he tried to “hedge” his acceptance with unrealistic reservations and unenforceable constraints, the two-state “genie” was already out of the bottle.
The diplomatic debacle: Tracing the roots
It is a decision that has hounded him—and Israeli policy-making—ever since that sorry day, and in effect has put Israel in an untenable position.
Indeed, it requires little imagination to trace a direct line from the ill-fated Bar Ilan speech to the diplomatic debacles of the last few days.
For once Israel formally committed to the two-state paradigm, it doomed itself to being perceived as disingenuous and deceptive. After all, given the prevailing geo-political conditions—and those likely to prevail in any foreseeable future scenarios—the establishment of a Palestinian state, in any configuration even remotely acceptable to even the most moderate Palestinian interlocutor, requires territorial concessions so perilous that no responsible Israeli government could undertake them.
Accordingly, any such government, especially one voted into power by a skeptical, hawkish constituency, would find itself trapped in an irresolvable contradiction between its declared intentions and its inability to implement measures necessary to fulfill them.
Indeed, as an aside, it is worth noting that Netanyahu’s volte face on Palestinian statehood could hardly have come at a more inopportune time. For it was made precisely as the “Green Revolution” against the tyrannical regime in Tehran erupted. So rather than allow world attention be focused on unfolding events in Iran and Obama’s callous refusal to support the protesters in face of brutal government repression, Netanyahu provided him with a welcome diplomatic victory and sorely needed media distraction.
Dereliction of diplomatic duty
But my major criticism of Netanyahu is not over what he has done—but rather over what he has not done.
Indeed, the real question is not how Netanyahu could have dealt with any particular situation (including Friday’s US Security Council abstention) more effectively once it had arisen, but what he could—and should—have done to prevent such situations from arising—or at least, making them far more unlikely and less widely supported.
Indeed, for the past eight years, during which Netanyahu has had an unbroken hold on power, he has led the country into what is looking increasingly like a diplomatic impasse.
Even with full recognition of the innate anti-Israeli predilections of the Obama administration, and sympathy for the Israeli governments that have had to contend with it, there is still significant blame that Netanyahu must bear for the accumulating US and international pressure on Israel.
After all, ever since he assumed office in January 2009 (and arguably well-before that), the inherent antipathy Obama harbored towards Israel—together with his undisguised Islamophilic proclivities—have been painfully clear to anyone with the intellectual integrity to read the abundantly unequivocal signs.
Yet despite the fact that Netanyahu has been in power continuously for well over a half- decade, he and his government have done virtually nothing to put in place effective mechanisms to contend with the pernicious effects of the White House’s predilections.
Indeed, it is difficult to view this as anything short of a grave dereliction of diplomatic duty on the part of the Netanyahu government.
What if Hillary had won…?
True, the inauguration of Donald Trump may well bring a welcome respite to this pernicious trend—but that can hardly be credited to the sagacity or foresight of Netanyahu’s policy. Indeed, one can only shudder at the thought of what dire straits Israel would have been in, had the designated Obama surrogate, Hillary Clinton, won the November elections—as was widely expected.
Depressingly, this disregard for diplomacy–particularly public diplomacy—is a matter I have raised repeatedly in the past years, warning time and again of the gravely detrimental repercussion that would inevitably result from such dereliction—to no avail. See for example If I were Prime Minister…; My Billion-Dollar Budget: If I Were PM (Cont.); Dereliction of Duty; Intellectual Warriors, Not Slicker Diplomats.
With the pitiful amounts allotted for the fight for the hearts and minds of the international community, Israel has all but abandoned what British journalist, Melanie Phillips, termed “the battle field of the mind” to its adversaries—whether the Palestinians and their well-oiled propaganda machine or the inimical politically-correct mainstream media.
Astonishingly, until recently, the total budget allocation for Israel’s global public diplomacy effort was less than the advertising budget of a single Israeli food manufacturer for promoting its fast-foods and snacks!
So much for Israel’s strategic diplomacy.
A paucity of political will, not funds
With such a feeble effort made to establish Israel’s case in the world, there should be little surprise that the Palestinian narrative, portraying the Palestinian-Arabs as down-trodden, dispossessed victims of the Zionist ogre, has dominated the international discourse on the Israel-Arab conflict—and made Israel such an easy target for international censure—and possibly future sanctions.
This dismal situation is not a result of a lack of funds. It is rather a lack of political resolve and of political awareness of the crucial role public diplomacy plays in the nation’s strategic arsenal.
After all, with a state budget of around $100 billion, allotting a mere 1% for public diplomacy would provide a sum of one billion dollars (!) for making Israel’s case in the world—and no less important—for debunking that of its adversaries.
Such resources should of course not be devoted to futile attempts to win over implacable adversaries of Israel and the Zionist endeavor, but to the creation of a political climate, in which their positions are exposed to be ridiculous, self-contradictory, immoral and irrational—and hence untenable as the basis for any policy decisions by any responsible government.
Sadly, such a strategic diplomatic offensive was never undertaken—providing Israel’s detractors with unfettered freedom to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and to pave the way for the diplomatic assault we saw this week.
The bitter fruits of Bibi’s Bar Ilan blunder
Regrettably, by his imprudent acceptance of the idea of Palestinian statehood in his 2009 Bar Ilan speech, Netanyahu has gravely hamstrung much of the freedom of action needed for any official diplomatic effort to rebuff adversarial diplomatic initiatives against Israel.
For having committed himself to the perilously impractical idea of two-states, he cannot articulate arguments that show it to be a totally unfeasible and counterproductive objective, which will precipitate outcomes—both moral and practical—that are the diametric opposite of those its proponents claim it will achieve.
Thus, for example he cannot publicly tear the mask off the demand to preserve the option of a two-state formula and demonstrate it to be a perversely immoral demand, which will result in realities that are the utter negation of those invoked for creating them.
He cannot publicly denounce the call for Palestinian statehood as a grotesquely irrational call that will culminate in the very bloodshed and violence it was designed to prevent.
He cannot work to publicly expose the pressure for Palestinian self-determination as nothing more than pressure to set up yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hall marks would be religious intolerance, gender discrimination, persecution of homosexuals and suppression of political dissidents.
This was the clarion-clear message that Israel should have been conveying robustly and pervasively in international forums, in the mainstream media, and across campuses throughout the western world.
Sadly, tethered to his Bar Ilan commitment to Palestinian statehood, it was not one that Netanyahu could adopt, articulate or promote.
“Between the River and the Sea…”
But Netanyahu’s approach is afflicted by an even more profound defect.
For if one eschews any wildly optimistic and naïve “best case” scenarios, it is relatively easy to show that the Palestinian and the Zionist narratives are mutually exclusive—at least in practice, if not in theory. Accordingly, any attempt to re-legitimize the Zionist narrative must, ipso facto, entail the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative.
However since the Netanyahu government is wedded to the two-state formula—which presupposes the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative –it cannot work to undermine that legitimacy.
It is difficult to understate the gravity of this predicament.
For any clear-eyed view of prevailing political realities will quickly lead to the stark conclusion that between the River and the Sea there can—and eventually will—prevail either total Jewish sovereignty or total Arab sovereignty. By blurring the stark clarity of the choice that confronts it, Netanyahu has done the nation a grave disservice—and with all the distaste one might have for the outgoing Obama regime, that is the blame Bibi must bear.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
@ John F:
Yes. It would be a miracle if not. Netanyahu has never failed to destroy Jewish villages that he has committed to destroy.
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
Do you reeally think Amona will be destroyed 10 days after the inauguration of the Donald?
@ John F:
Naturally Netanyahu is directly responsible for most if not all of the conditions we endure. The bottom line is, as President Truman’s indicated for the US, “the buck stops here”. Netanyahu performed terribly with h respect to Iran threats. The speechster prattled and performed antics using cardboard and markers props as ways to deter Iran. Failed.
Netanyahu is purportedly in charge and he could have supported the legislation to normalize the election of judges aberration. He prevented that repeatedly. He personally chose the “freeze” Jewish construction. Still in place. He blocked the Judge Levi Report adoption.
He supported Sharon’s “disengagement” and never personally, directly apologized. On the contrary, he uses the SC to continue the destruction of Jewish holdings and abandonment of Heritage. Amona is about 30 days away from being erased by him.
In days he will destroy yet another Jewish village.
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
Then you are blaming Netanyahu for the actions of the Supreme Court (in supporting the left wing NGO’s that bring these actions in the first place) A Supreme Court run by self- perpetuating left wing lawyers resisting changes that Ayelet Shaked is at last trying hard to change for all our benefit.
@ dreuveni:
Greetings,
Your heading statements appear to contradict each other.
As to being on Netanyahu shoes. I believe that there is some other entity rather Netanyahu in Netanyahu shoes and it has been so for many years.
He has until after inauguration in the US, just days, not years. I could care less about further “pressures” by police investigations or self inflicted. If he continues “freezing”, blocking the Judge Levi Report or destroys Amona those shilling for the fellow should express mea culpa.
ANSWER OF NETANYAHU TO KERRY WAS USELESS IN THE EXTREME
Netanyahu is a reactionary leader of the very worst kind.
Netanyahu like Caroline Glick is essentially, when you strip everything down, is a tool of US and World Imperialism.
Jews who understand what is really happening must be thoroughly fed up with this man. The struggle of the Jews in Israel is now TOTALLY tied up with the struggle of all who are opposed to BLOODTHIRSTY ISLAM. Netanyahu left this out.
Not once did Netanyahu refer to Libya, Egypt, Syria. Syria above all and the defence of Assad.
It is as if Netanyahu draws a huge barrier around Israel and that all Jews in Israel, according to this fraud, are living inside of a bubble.
But this bubble idea is wrong and misleading because the people that are tormenting the Jews in Israel, the “Palestinians” are really in every sense of the term the exact same people as ISIS. No different. I defy you to find a difference between Arafat and ISIS, or Abbas and ISIS, and I have not even mentioned Hamas!
There are the true brothers of the Palestinian Arabs. They are Muslim Fascists. They are the offspring of Hajj Amin el Husseini. All of them! When the Palestinian Arab hajj Amin el Husseini travelled to Berlin in 1941 to throw himself into the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust he did so on behalf of all of these Arabs who were devoted to Islam. He was the clear and known leader of Islam.
Hajj Amin el Husseini was the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
He was sent by Hitler and Himmler to the Balkans where he recruited and formed sections of the hated SS and joined up with another member of the Muslim Brotherhood Izetbegovic.
This was the central message in the Netanyahu speech in his (non) answer to the Antisemite Kerry with Obama in the wing as he surfs in Hawaii directing operation from on top of his surf board. This is the great “genius” of Obama. He has been so cunning throughout these eight years.
But I digress back to Netanyahu. To talk about having “P E A C E with Muslim Fascists is the greatest betrayal of Jews and of all truly progressive people (let us rescue that word because it is a good word is it not!)
To be progressive, to make progress for humanity, means to make war on the scourge of Fascist Islam.
I would say that the response of Netanyahu to the Kerry attacks was at least as dangerous for Jews and all of us as the Kerry speech itself.
They ARE the same as the “Palestinians”. They are the exact same as the “Palestinians”. The savages who murdered Gadhafi were the very same as the savages called the “Palestinians”. It’s the Jihad stupid!
ms Said:
My last comment reads not right because when I submitted it it was in response to somthing else way before. This comment by Yamit82 concerning “Peace” is very apt.
Much of this problem that Israel is in is a result of the Palestinian Narrative having free sway for so many decades and we have seen in many examples how the Media are relentless and how they have polished the technique of repeating a lie tens of millions of times, Dir Yassin, Lydda, Expulsions they claim and other very nasty lies like the el Dura case. Tens of millions! And many of these lies being spread by Israeli Jewish people and Media too like Ari Shavit.
In this point I believe that Sherman is right and he makes this point continually which is also good. I have other differences but we can certainly fight together on that point.
The Jewish story has simply not been told or fought for.
It is very doubtful though that this is a matter of will. It is not done wilfully but is the end result of other things.
What these things are is seen in a careful analysis of the recent Netanyhau response to the Kerry speech. This is well worth careful analysis. I will submit this later.
Netanyahu uses the word “peace” about a hundred zillion times. By doing so he is cutting his own throat and the throat of all who oppose Islam today.
He needed to have said there is no peace with Islam. There is only war.
But Netanyahu throughout this speech was disarming us all. I mean that he was also disarming those non Jews of us who are fighting against Islam.
This is the big fault line in Netanyahu. Of course you will have people like Geert Wilders come on and say what a great speech. This is a form of lying by Wilders. I am nt Wilders and it is better to say the truth.
@ John F:
Then you feel that Netanyahu’s support of wanton destruction of Jewish homes, villages, farms, etc, will stop Jan 20, 2017 and his stopping will include not destroying Amona due to be destroyed by him and his accomplices in about a month?
Some may know 20 days. I have no doubt that his line of destruction, freeze and heritage abandonment will continue unabated.
THE POSITIVE SIDES OF THE UN RESOLUTION
It has exposed Obama and Kerry for all time as Antisemites
It has exposed the empty prattle of Israeli PM Netanyahu and shows that he is an empty windbag
It has exposed the whole of the leading Israeli ruling class or elites and showed that they cannot protect Jews ever and there is a goodly section of them that are TRAITOROUS
That is the plain honest truth and many know it
But there is a positive. Donald Trump was there and he defended Israel with nothing to gain for himself in fact the opposite
What I said above and which was ignored is that the positions of Sherman are only formally correct, if that.
The MAIN thing about Israeli elites today is that they are unable to put anything into practice.
People like Yamit82 who was invovled in some way (he has written little on it) in the withdrawal from Sinai by Begin also in this post offers nothing. He actually says DO NOTHING. That expresses the sheer bankruptcy of this person.
He expresses his hatred of Lenin and Trotsky but he can hardly claim that Lenin and Trotsky DID NOTHING.
Or when he mentioned the Soviets did he mean the Stalinists. That is typical confusion mongering.
In one sense I hate this UN rsolution. It unleashes mass Antisemitism and will be difficult to fight. But on the other as I say above it has exposed the sheer bankruptcy of all of these elites from top to bottom (Obviously I include Sherman and this fellow Yamit82 in this…they are good at words (kind of) but DO NOTHING)
There is one side to this position of Yamit82 which is to ignore thenm all…that is or can be quite useful…do not run after any of these vermin like Obama and Kerry
But with that in Yamit82 there is also a big suggestion (much more than a suggestion really) just sit on his backside and really DO NOTHING. But he is very old and without being ageist maybe that is all he can do but that is not a policy.
There is really no hope at all for Israel in any of these comments or indeed article by Sherman. In fact the opposite.
The only way out for Israel would seem to be that we give the Palestinians everything they ask for and then, after a short time, find ourselves at war with them once again. This is the kind of circular argument that is presented all the time, i.e. if they do not hold up their end of the agreement, take back whatever we gave them. That that effort would cost us dear Jewish blood (whatever the consequences for the Palestinians), seems to be ignored by everybody, especially the Europeans. The pressure would once again be mounted to cease all military efforts and get back immediately to the ICJ or the UNSC. In short, this is a null sum equation where there is no benefit.
In my honest opinion, Bibi has done his best to avoid the most obvious pitfalls. That he was coerced into making his Bar Ilan speech in 2009 was one appeasement step along the way, and as we know, there have been many.
Instead of muddying the waters at this time, I suggest that we wait a few weeks to see what will transpire when the Donald takes over. Maybe the Europeans will also find a new tune to play when they are not being driven along by the pig-herd in chief from DC.
@ Marianne Tioran:
You miss the point – As the article stresses: The objective is not to engage in
.
yamit82 Said:
For whom??
@ honeybee:
At what price looking back in history?
A ‘Peace Lesson’ Russia understands but Jews in Israel have never learned: An annihilated enemy is the only ‘good’ peace partner.
yamit82 Said:
What do you mean Yamit82??? The USA has peace with the British Empire, Mexico, the Amer Indians, Germany and the Japanese.
Quest for peace is leftist invention. Nations historically cooperated and coexisted without peace treaties. In the sensible world, no one expected a treaty to hold if situation changes. Leftists seek Wilsonian eternal peace, guaranteed by paper treaties. That’s a typical leftists approach, that world’s complexities can be rationalized, studied, agreed upon, settled, and planned. Soviet communists expected the economy to confirm to their prescriptions; Israeli leftists imagine the Arabs will stick to the agreements.
Even if all Muslim countries conclude peace with Israel, we won’t be able to count on their good intentions but will have to maintain the army nonetheless. In practical terms, there is no difference between peace treaty and the absence thereof.
Why give Jewish land in return for elusive peace?
yamit82 Said:
Are you really questioning the fecundity of the Men and Woman of the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS.
yamit82 Said:
Pobrecito tsk tsk
honeybee Said:
Don’t have to they will reoccupy Texas through immigration and high-birth rate now what is % of Hispanics in Texas to non Hispanics today???? Haaaaaa
Ted my last comment got botted pls find retrieve and post.
The Peace process doesn’t lead to peace. Concessions to Arabs and imploring for peace only provoke them for the last-ditch fighting. That correlation is clear at least since the Oslo accords.
The Peace process cannot lead to peace. If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved through crushing defeat of one’s enemy.
The Peace process is illegal. The original arrangement for the Jewish state included Transjordan, but the British illegally cut it off. Then the UN further partitioned Israel to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.
The Peace process is immoral. Palestinian Arabs don’t constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews.
The Peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state rather than a beach strip eight miles wide.
The Peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the peace process gives to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could as well settle in Uganda or Arizona.
The Peace process is not for real. Israeli government employs the peace process for the sole objective of destroying Jewish religious and nationalist opposition to its rule. Neither security of the Jewish state, nor fulfillment of Jewish objectives are the peace process’ goals.
The Peace process is pointless. Israel can settle with Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will always attack Israel employing terrorist tactics.
The Peace process fails to address the major issue of Israel’s Jewishness. Israeli Arabs already constitute more than a third of Israeli youth. Arabs constitute majority in many important areas of Israel. The area of Lod near Ben Gurion airport is as much hostile to Israel as Gaza. Israel’s real problem is not the Palestinian Authority, but the Israeli Arabs who can field the largest faction in the Knesset ten-fifteen years from now.
Peace is not viable in our case. After the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel continues immense military spending. Egypt continues anti-Israeli propaganda and builds an army whose only target is Israel.
Peace is not a proper objective. Jews moved into Israel to fulfill religious and nationalist objectives. If peace and security are the utmost objectives, Israelis should move to Canada.
yamit82 Said:
But nobodies hocking Texas to give back the Rio Grande Valley to Mexico.
@ honeybee:
A state of inbreeding morons haaaaaa
yamit82 Said:
So tell us what you really think ?????
@ Marianne Tioran:
Agree with all you wrote except whitewashing BB…. of his own responsibility…… For a smart guy he is very stupid leader mostly because of his bad character traits… being a coward only one of the better ones.
yamit82 Said:
Texas peace talk !!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApIyQK-vEQ
@ John F:
.
How do you know that to be the real case?
What should be done about peace talks with Arabs is simple: nothing. Israel gains nothing from peace treaties with Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the like. We will not risk substantially reducing the IDF, and Arabs will not start loving us as cousins. Palestinian peace advances should be ignored: if they want a state, let them proclaim it in whatever areas they actually possess. If they continue fighting us, we will fight back as one fights states. If they carp at Jerusalem or settlement blocs, we will repel that aggressor state. No Palestinian migrant workers in Israel, no trade with Palestine, no services provided to it, just abandon the areas densely settled by Arabs. Many countries have unruly border areas, and Israel can live with unruly West Bank. Don’t object to Palestinian statehood and don’t agree to it, but ignore it. In any negotiations, Israel only gives, but takes nothing. Abandoning all negotiations with Arabs is objectively the most beneficent approach Israel can take.
@ John F:
Your post is very much on the mark. Bibi actually was threatend with much worse than the current resolution by Obama before he reluctantly made his Bar Illan speech.
Great you moved to Israel!
Pushing Bibi now to annex and create a post two state concept and a new paradigm are many in the Likud and Bennett (plus all of the Bayit Yehudi)
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/ANALYSIS-Will-the-Trump-era-be-Bennetts-finest-hour-476964
Netanyahu has had to play Obama ever since his presidency eight years ago from the time of his Cairo speech. Had he not capitulated at the Bar Ilan speech to the two State paradigm and then played for time it is probable that Obama would have imposed something akin to this resolution seven or eight years ago and we would have had to deal with that and further actions by him putting us in a much worse position now.
Regarding public diplomacy and a major budget I saw how the BBC used to missreport for years with biased comments from reporters married to Palestinians. No Israeli diplomatic budgets can overcome the basic hatred of Jews by the U.K. Foreign Office or France 24 that promoted the All Dura lies. Awareness of this persistent attitude helped to persuade me to make Aliyah some years ago.
Since Israel is passing another two year budget. The next Israeli elections will be held mostly likely between February 2019 and November 2019.
Israel Law now says except for not passing a budget to cause a new election one must not just have a vote of no confidence but must also have 61 MKs vote for a New Party to take over.
So if one likes it or not Israel will mostly likely have Bibi has Prime Minister for several more years.
Hopefully the rightwing MKs of the Likud (large majority of them) and Bayit Yehudi and Bennett can push Bibi to start the annexation of parts of Judea/Samaria.
It is not Bibi’s fault.
you cannot communicate with irrational selfish beings, and no concession will make a difference.
concessions just make the enemy stronger.
I see criticisms blaming Bibi when it is the arab’s fault all the way.
this is unfair.
obama is a psychopathic demon from hell, and will never change.
and the psychopathic arabs will never change as well.
they only want to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map.
Part of the trouble is a failure to make the point that peace has to be made by both parties so pressuring Israel alone will not work with the Palestine mob who since refusing Peel in 1937 and half a dozen other offers of a state in the country have refused all because they do not want to sign an end of conflict end of claims agreement. Israel has to blacken the Arab parties on the moral plane.
OK. Posted 4 times in varying form and 4 times discarded. I get the message.
there are a number of points that bear remembering:
1. You are not in Bibi’s shoes. If you had to make the same decisions, they might have been worse in the end.
2. The result of appeasement is always more pressure. This is exactly what has happened over the years.
3. The only way out for Israel would seem to be that we give the Palestinians everything they ask for and then, after a short time, find ourselves at war with them once again. This is the kind of circular argument that is presented all the time, i.e. if they do not hold up their end of the agreement, take back whatever we gave them. That that effort would cost us dear Jewish blood (whatever the consequences for the Palestinians), seems to be ignored by everybody, especially the Europeans. The pressure would once again be mounted to cease all military efforts and get back immediately to the ICJ or the UNSC. In short, this is a null sum equation where there is no benefit.
In my honest opinion, Bibi has done his best to avoid the most obvious pitfalls. That he was coerced into making his Bar Ilan speech in 2009 was one appeasement step along the way, and as we know, there have been many.
Instead of muddying the waters at this time, I suggest that we wait a few weeks to see what will transpire when the Donald takes over. Maybe the Europeans will also find a new tune to play when they are not being driven along by the pig-herd in chief from DC.
there are a number of points that bear remembering:
1. You are not in Bibi’s shoes. If you had to make the same decisions, they might have been worse in the end.
2. The result of appeasement is always more pressure. This is exactly what has happened over the years.
3. The only way out for Israel would seem to be that we give the Palestinians everything they ask for and then, after a short time, find ourselves at war with them once again. This is the kind of circular argument that is presented all the time, i.e. if they do not hold up their end of the agreement, take back whatever we gave them. That that effort would cost us dear Jewish blood (whatever the consequences for the Palestinians), seems to be ignored by everybody, especially the Europeans. The pressure would once again be mounted to cease all military efforts and get back immediately to the ICJ or the UNSC. In short, this is a null sum equation where there is no benefit.
In my honest opinion, Bibi has done his best to avoid the most obvious pitfalls. That he was coerced into making his Bar Ilan speech in 2009 was one appeasement step along the way, and as we know, there have been many.
Instead of muddying the waters at this time, I suggest that we wait a few weeks to see what will transpire when the Donald takes over. Maybe the Europeans will also find a new tune to play when they are not being driven along by the pig-herd in chief from DC.
Dear Mr. Sherman,
while your opinion pieces are much more to the point than most of the drivel posted elsewhere, there are a number of points that bear remembering:
1. You are not in Bibi’s shoes. If you had to make the same decisions, they might have been worse in the end.
2. The result of appeasement is always more pressure. This is exactly what has happened over the years.
3. The only way out for Israel would seem to be that we give the Palestinians everything they ask for and then, after a short time, find ourselves at war with them once again. This is the kind of circular argument that is presented all the time, i.e. if they do not hold up their end of the agreement, take back whatever we gave them. That that effort would cost us dear Jewish blood (whatever the consequences for the Palestinians), seems to be ignored by everybody, especially the Europeans. The pressure would once again be mounted to cease all military efforts and get back immediately to the ICJ or the UNSC. In short, this is a null sum equation where there is no benefit.
In my honest opinion, Bibi has done his best to avoid the most obvious pitfalls. That he was coerced into making his Bar Ilan speech in 2009 was one appeasement step along the way, and as we know, there have been many.
Instead of muddying the waters at this time, I suggest that we wait a few weeks to see what will transpire when the Donald takes over. Maybe the Europeans will also find a new tune to play when they are not being driven along by the pig-herd in chief from DC.
OK, I just learned that I need to copy my comments before posting them.
If this ever happens again, I’m gone!
Dear Mr. Sherman,
while your opinion pieces are much more to the point than most of the drivel posted elsewhere, there are a number of points that bear remembering:
1. You are not in Bibi’s shoes. If you had to make the same decisions, they might have been worse in the end.
2. The result of appeasement is always more pressure. This is exactly what has happened over the years.
3. The only way out for Israel would seem to be that we give the Palestinians everything they ask for and then, after a short time, find ourselves at war with them once again. This is the kind of circular argument that is presented all the time, i.e. if they do not hold up their end of the agreement, take back whatever we gave them. That that effort would cost us dear Jewish blood (whatever the consequences for the Palestinians), seems to be ignored by everybody, especially the Europeans. The pressure would once again be mounted to cease all military efforts and get back immediately to the ICJ or the UNSC. In short, this is a null sum equation where there is no benefit.
In my honest opinion, Bibi has done his best to avoid the most obvious pitfalls. That he was coerced into making his Bar Ilan speech in 2009 was one appeasement step along the way, and as we know, there have been many.
Instead of muddying the waters at this time, I suggest that we wait a few weeks to see what will transpire when the Donald takes over. Maybe the Europeans will also find a new tune to play when they are not being driven along by the pig-herd in chief from DC.
SHmuel HaLevi Said:
The murderous people in Syria are the Jihadists backed by Obama previously by Clinton now by Kerry.
Whose side are you actually on there? Need I ask! You are OBVIOUSLY on the side of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obviously so, your words above, nearly a slip of the tongue but betraying where you really stand, show this and the danger also. The difference between you and Trotskyism is that I as a Trotskyist am not Assad and am not Putin in any form BUT I DEFEND THEM AGAINST OBAMA.
I had to intervene on that comment because it shows so much what is wrong with commentators claiming to be Zionist at this stage in its life.
I agree in general with Sherman but it is obvious to me that Sherman did not really (emphasis on really) FIGHT for Trump to defeat Clinton but now Sherman admits what a terrible situation it would be for Israel if Clinton had defeated Trump. Nor is that over and Sherman misses it (the fact that the election in America unlike anything before is NOT over). It is very noticeable that Trump will have to fight the Republican Establishment Still There in the form of Congress Speaker who has come out and supported the iniquitous leading to nuclear war comments on Russia by Obama, and expelling of diplomats (Paul Ryan is a cur and I bet Sherman will never cover that issue I mean never ever I have noticed how selective he is and how he obscures major issues happening in the world). Zionists really have to make up their minds on these issues. Sherman is silent on all of these huge world events and so much of the silence of Sherman, and the comment above of this guy on Israpundit, shows that ZIONISM IS IN THE POCKET OF CAPITALISM IMPERIALISM. Imperialism can kick the Zionists up the street and down the street again but they will still line up for the capitalist system.
That means one thing and one thing above all others. It is not just this Netanyahu Imperialist stooge at the centre of Zionism that is the problem, it is the WHOLE LEADERSHIP RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD. Not the concept of Zionism but the leadership as it has existed and still exists to this day.
Israel under Netanyahu succeeds at every possibility to shoot itself in the foot. Announcing bullding plans during a visit from the US administration for example, and NOT adopting the Levi report and establishing beyond a doubt publically Israel’s absolute legal right to the land, but the delay in doing so has only intimated that maybe it was not correct. It cannot be tried in any court in the world because virtually every court will rule against Israel. Therefore the only thing to do was to declare it, and then move on it. I have corresponded with many people who tell me that they support Israel to be the Jewish homeland, but they despise Bibi. As well, Bibi’s pandering to the Hardim, the ones who want to establish that only Orthodox Jews can pray at the wall. That’s a great way to lose the support of the diaspora Jews on whom Israel relies – because most Jews in Canada and the US who DO support Israel are Refore or Conservative and I would predict that they would tell Israel to go…….itself.
There must be no role whatsoever for Netanyahu, the main driver of terribly negative policies against Eretz Israel and Heritage. If the same person and his accolytes remain in there that would be, albeit less murderous, tantamount to having Assad and his remain in control of Syria.
An Independent Investigative Commission directly elected by he people must perform all that is required to ascertain the true scope of that persons harmful acts.
Even before that, the self elected judges ensemble must be disbanded and FREE elections called for to elect, directly by the people and vetted by Parliament, new judges.
Neyanyahu and his accomplices are still moving to destroy Amona and so far as we know, has done nothing to comply with his agreement with the Amona families. AMona must remain in place.
The Israeli Knesset of Israel must legislate to immediately remove the military government in Y & S and extend Jewish Law to the whole of Eretz Israel.
Illegal Muslim buildings and farms must be destroyed.
etc.
Moderation?????
Martin is correct Bibi let the two state solution genie out of the bottle with a set of conditions that he knew the Palestinians would never meet.
He now with the Trump administration needs to reverse this and say while annexing territory that since the Palestinians have clearly stated over the last years they do not accept a Jewish State, do not accept the Palestinians refugees would have to go back to a Palestinian, refuse to talk about security and in fact are partnered by terrorists and refuse to accept the permanence of Israel and a united Jerusalem. If fact they refuse to negotiate or discuss any of this we do not believe the two state solution viable.
Israel then needs build in E1 while annexing Ma’lah Adumim. Israel needs to annex all the Jewish Towns and Jordan Valley as first steps. The ultimate goal will be soverignty from the river to the sea.
Israel WILL prevail!
I agree that Netanyahu is partly responsible for the latest developments in the UNSC. He has failed diplomatically in defending Israel’s right, historically and legally, to possess, control, and settle Judea and Samaria with Jews since becoming the Prime Minister the second time. His Bar Ilan speech, which acknowledged his public support for a two-state solution opened the door for the PA narrative to rule the world’s opinion since then. Maybe this is why Netanyahu failed to adopt the Levi Report, even though he commissioned it, thinking it could undermine his commitment to the two-state solution. Maybe that is also why he tried so hard to enlist Buji (Issac) Herzog and the Labor Party into his current coalition. Netanyahu, like others, moved away from his traditional Likud position and could not find comfort anywhere.