Prophecy in Israel: Expression of the Collective Hebrew Soul and Unity of Creation

“Two men remained behind in the camp, the name of one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad, and the spirit rested upon them; they had been among the recorded ones, but they had not gone out to the Tent, and they prophesied in the camp. The youth ran and told Moshe, and he said, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp’. Yehoshua Bin Nun, the servant of Moshe since his youth, spoke up and said, ‘My lord Moshe, incarcerate them!’ Moshe said to him, ‘Are you being zealous for my sake? Would that the entire people of HaShem could be nevi’im, if HaShem would but place His Spirit upon them!’” (BAMIDBAR 11:26-29)

While both the youth and Yehoshua had expected their teacher to be angry with Eldad and Medad, Moshe astonished them with his wish that the entire Hebrew Nation become prophets. One navi per generation cannot be enough as no one else would be capable of grasping his Divine message. In order for the masses to understand and internalize the basic teachings being communicated by the leading prophet, all Israel must attain some minimum level of nevua.

Israel’s concept of nevua should not be confused with the notions of divination or fortunetelling found amongst other peoples. The Hebrew word navi is to a certain extent mistranslated by the word “prophet” which, according to Greek etymology, designates “a person who foretells.” The navi has a much more exalted role, since he is a spokesperson in this world for the Kadosh Barukh Hu, who “creates the expression (niv) of the lips” (YISHAYAHU 57:19). Thus, the navi is HaShem’s interpreter, charged with transmitting a message to the people. This message is not limited to a prediction of the future, for it possesses all the dimensions – moral, spiritual, meta-physical and meta-historical – of authentic knowledge in the broadest sense of the term.

Nevi’im are not mere forecasters. If they display the ability to foretell the future, it is only because they have achieved a sufficient level of emotional maturity and identification with the collective Hebrew soul to recognize the unity of Creation and perceive it from the back end. This perception allows them to attain a higher understanding of the world from a holistic perspective, as well as its most secret inner workings, at various levels of existence. This perspective in turn allows them to see the evolution of this enormous system of forces we call Creation. In this sense, a prophet is comparable to the scientist whose knowledge of the interplay of forces composing a limited system allows him to predict its evolution. The navi is no more a medium than the scholar announcing an eclipse of the moon. The scholar’s clairvoyance does not stem from some mysterious power but is actually the fruit of his learning, which permits him to grasp dimensions of reality invisible to others.

Throughout Scripture, we see prophets failing to rescue Israel from physical and spiritual threats. These failures are not due to a shortcoming on the part of the navi or his message but rather in the public’s ability to receive that message. There are recorded cases in which prophets have been dismissed by Israel’s political leadership and portrayed to the people as irrational public menaces. These prophets spoke a language of pure simplicity that brushed off the psychological barriers of the masses – especially those stuck in their egoistic illusions of separateness.

The Hebrew Nation is not the sum total of every Jew but rather one colossal spirit – Knesset Yisrael – that manifests itself in space and time through millions of bodies. While human beings each possess a personal soul, Israel shares one massive national soul – like a giant tree of which each Jew is an individual branch.

Rabbi Avraham Yitzḥak HaKohen Kook teaches that the highest level of Ahavat Yisrael (love for Israel) a person can achieve results from obtaining the belief, knowledge and deep understanding of Israel’s true inner essence and unity. A man who loves his son does not simply love the sum total of each limb. He loves his child as a single entity and therefore loves every individual piece of that entity. He can see each finger, leg and ear as an expression of that one soul he knows to be his son.

Through a deep self-awareness and love for Knesset Yisrael, the navi understands himself to be one with every Jew and simply a piece of a much greater whole whose distinct value derives from his personal contribution to that whole. But Jews trapped in their illusions of separateness view themselves as individuals detached from the bigger collective and therefore have trouble grasping the prophet’s impassioned language. Their illusions erect psychological barriers that cause them to perceive the navi as insane.

Rashi explains regarding SHMUEL I 18:10, that: Vayitnabeh, usually translated as “and he prophesied” is used in this verse to describe King Shaul’s mental illness because both a prophet and a madman express ideas often unintelligible to those around them.

Throughout Israel’s history, nevi’im are rarely taken seriously because the masses are seldom on a level to understand them. Therefore, a “prophet” – one who through deep love and greater consciousness has already broken free of his own illusions – is most often unable to bring his message to people whose fortified egos shield their hearts from his words.

Although Moshe wishes for all Israel to become nevi’im, not every Jew need reach the same heights. In his Guide to the Perplexed, the Rambam enumerates eleven distinct levels of nevua (with Moshe surpassing them all). And while it may not be necessary for each Jew to attain the highest plane of Divine Spirit, it is still necessary for us each to develop a minimal level of prophecy – a genuine sensitivity to Israel’s national situation – in order to understand the words of the greater nevi’im who come with simple messages of warning or salvation.

As the Jewish people return to national independence, we have already seen sparks of the Divine Spirit return, specifically among those whose compassion for their people has empowered them to break through their own psychological barriers. Clear illustrations of what the Rambam describes as the first level of nevua can be found in the valor and heroism of the pre-state Jewish freedom fighters and subsequent Israeli soldiers whose deeds resemble those of Shimshon, of whom it says “A spirit of HaShem came over him… and he struck down thirty men” (SHOFTIM 14:19). And a unique example of an even higher prophetic level in modern times was the revolutionary Hebrew poet Uri Zvi Greenberg.

The fact that Greenberg’s poetry features the pre-state Jewish underground, the Holocaust in Europe and Hebrew wars of liberation would not astonish anyone unless they were to read the dates at the bottom of each poem. Each historic event was recorded by the poet several years before actually occurring. Fellow poet Ḥaim Naḥman Bialik once asked Uri Zvi how he was able to write of the Holocaust and describe the slaughter of millions of Jews in 5682 (1922).  Greenberg replied “But I see it.” In fact, many of the poems inReḥovot Hanahar, a 5711 (1951) volume detailing the Shoah, were written the previous decade before reports of Nazi atrocities had begun to reach the world. Yet all of the details that later emerged corresponded to the words found in Greenberg’s poetry. Holy of Holies describes the brutal murder of the poet’s mother. He had written it before the actual event from a nightmare he once had, simply recording what he torturously saw.

From 5682, Uri Zvi wrote and spoke incessantly about the terrible catastrophe approaching Europe’s Jews. But although his poems were widely accepted as great cultural works, the masses were not able to heed their warnings or to recognize the dangers rapidly approaching.

Throughout the decade leading up to World War II, the poet pleaded with the Jews of Poland to organize an emergency evacuation home to Palestine. But the people could not grasp the truth in Greenberg’s warnings. Trapped in the day-to-day realities of their individual lives, most Jews were too shortsighted to see the events developing around them.

Following the miraculous Exodus from Egypt, the Children of Israel were crossing through the Sea of Reeds to freedom. The Midrashrelates that one Hebrew complained to another about the mud they had to walk through in order to get across (Shemot Rabbah 24:1). They were on their way from slavery to freedom and one man could not see past the mud on his feet. A navi does not allow the mud to concern him because he can envision a greater historic picture unfolding. He sees the course of events shaping and is consciously attached to the higher life of Israel’s national soul, encompassing each Jew in every generation throughout time.

Following the Holocaust, Uri Zvi wrote a poem in which he dialogues with HaShem. In it he asks: “How did I ever get here? A man of vision befouled by their mud…”

Like the Hebrew complaining about mud while crossing the sea, many Jews in Europe saw only what was immediate in front of them. And because they were blinded by their illusions of ego, they could not attain the minimum level of Divine Spirit necessary to understand a man trying so desperately to save them.

True love grants the vision to see beyond the present. And only a person possessing such love can be sensitive to the forces of hatred before they are mature enough to strike. While Adolf Hitler was still formulating his ideology, Greenberg had identified the danger to his people. He was able to feel and internalize the humiliation of Israel – the desecration of HaShem’s Ideal for this world – because he so deeply lived the national aspirations of his people. The central theme found woven through most of his literary work is the redemption of Israel, often focusing on wars of liberation and the eventual rebuilding of our Temple in Jerusalem.

“Every Sage in Israel who possesses the words of Torah according to their true significance and grieves for the honor of the Kadosh Barukh Hu and for the honor of Israel all his days, and lusts and feels pain for the honor of Jerusalem and of the Temple and for the swift flowering of salvation and the ingathering of the exiles, attains to the infusion of the Divine Spirit in his words…” (Tanna d’bei Eliyahu chapter 4,Mesillat Yesharim chapter 19)

Uri Zvi once told a journalist how he came to write I’ll tell it to a Child. “I dreamt one night… I saw the Temple Mount, above it an eagle, and around it circles and circles of Jews. And from the Mount a slope inclined straight to the sea. On either side were lines of soldiers from all the world’s armies. In the dream I felt that the Divine Presence was leaving the Mount. I woke up weeping. My cries woke everyone in the house. They asked ‘What happened, what happened?’ That morning I went to Chief Rabbi Kook and found him wrapped in his prayer shawl. I told him the dream. He did not say a word, just took my hand in his and wept. I went home and wrote I’ll tell it to a Child.”

Uri Zvi Greenberg was able to see so clearly what so many scholars and political leaders could not. His life and efforts serve as a vindication for Moshe’s wish that all Israel be prophets and that this is not merely a luxury but a necessity for the Hebrew mission. Greenberg had, to a certain extent, destroyed his own psychological barriers in order to attain a clearer awareness of himself as a unique piece of Knesset Yisrael. He saw himself and every Jew as parts of the same organic whole and was therefore able to see beyond “the mud on his feet.” He foretold disaster before the Nazi party had even begun its climb to power and he envisioned Israel’s redemption when few Jews were psychologically capable of even thinking in such terms. Uri Zvi’s poetry stemmed from what our Sages call the “Wisdom of the Heart” – a wisdom that views the soul of reality from an emotionally mature perspective spanning history.

Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi teaches in The Kuzari (chapter 3) that as Israel returns to our ancestral homeland, nevua will begin to reappear within our people. Israel’s current education system is based on a primitive and imbalanced Western model that places disproportionate focus on intellectual advancement and individual achievement at the expense of social and emotional development, reinforcing illusions of ego that erect barriers to attaining prophecy. But because all Israel must aspire to a basic level of Divine Spirit, it is crucial that our education system be altered to one that places at least the same emphasis on emotional and spiritual development as is currently placed on intellectual growth. Israel must raise and educate our children to be sensitive to the pain of others and to Israel’s collective destiny. Our next generation must be sufficiently compassionate to clearly see reality and to understand the words of our national shepherds. Such a generation – unable to passively endure the profanation of HaShem’s Ideal or the humiliation of His people – will be the generation of nevi’im that will usher in an era of true peace and Divine blessing for not only the Hebrew Nation but also for the whole of human civilization.

The story of the Jewish the aunt of the terrorists in Tel Aviv

Originally published in HaKol HaYehudi

An emotional Facebook post has gone viral in Israel and laid bare the sad state of intermarriage in the Jewish State.

“Nice to meet you, I’m Raza’le the aunt of Khalid and Muhammad Mahamra,” began the post by Yael Cohen. She wrote the post shortly after the terror attack at the Sarona Market in Tel Aviv.

“The attack in Sarona takes me back 15-20 years. Khalid and Muhammad used to run around in my house as small children. They would sit on my lap and they were even babysitters for my young children. The Haredi suits that they dressed up in gave me deja vu and brought back bitter memories.”

Yael further detailed the story of her childhood and how she came to be the aunt of the two Arab terrorists. “I was 14 years old and living in a stable Jewish home in Malaga, Spain. My parents had marital problems and got a divorce. My older sister made Aliyah to Israel, met a Haredi boy from a good home, and got married. I followed in my sister’s path and was accepted to a well-known Haredi seminary in Jerusalem. I was a good student and was liked by both my friends and teachers. The teachers highly praised by me.”

“As a good student and a responsible girl, I was placed in charge of collecting small change from the girls of the seminary to buy treats for Shabbat. I would buy the treats in the Tzion mini-market next to the dormitory. There was a nice boy there named Netanel. He was Haredi, wore a white shirt and jacket, had short payos like Lithuanian yeshiva boys, and an ‘American-style’ black kippah.  Most importantly, he wasn’t Ashkenazi…”

“After a year of exchanging glances as I would buy treats, Netanel gathered the courage to speak to me about things beyond my purchases. He started by saying things like, ‘You’re very pretty’ and ‘It would be great if Hashem decided to set us up.’ He also said other nice things. One day my father came to visit me. I went proudly with him to the mini-market and Netanel asked to speak to him alone. Netanel said to him, ‘Hi Mr. Cohen, I’m also from a Cohen family, Netanel Cohen. I know it’s not generally accepted, but I’d like to ask you to speak to my parents about setting me up with your daughter.’ In front of my father, he identified himself as the son of the store owner. My father told me the story and noted that the gentle way Netanel had asked and the self-confidence he showed impressed him. Netanel had also told my father that he learned in Sephardi yeshivas. Netanel took my father’s phone and address in order to be in contact to set up a meeting between the two families.”

“My father was very impressed with the young man, but asked me not to see him until the families had a chance to speak as was accepted. In the meantime, my father wanted to double check the family and the boy. Two days later, on Erev Shavuot, Netanel asked to meet alone in order to get to know one another. I agreed. Six weeks later I found myself in the home of Netanel who had pretended to be a Haredi boy from a good home. His real home was in the village of Yatta.”

“Netanel suddenly became Abdallah. His Haredi uniform became the costume that he wore to work. Suddenly, I was barely 16 and already had a baby in my stomach.”

“Five years passed and I, Raza’le (Yael in Hebrew), had my world destroyed. I had two children on my lap. I quickly learned the Arabic language and maintaining my optimism, I tried to keep up Jewish practices. I lit candles, kept Kosher, and was Shomer Shabbat. Nonetheless, my status was as a maidservant. The beatings and humiliation were constant. The house was my only world- cleaning, cooking, and having relations with a man who had become evil, violent, and disgusting. I was in a living hell.”

“In 2007 I found a phone that someone had forgotten in the house. I called my father and he didn’t answer. I didn’t know at the time that my father was in the hospital after having his heart broken. He later passed away. Next, I called my sister and described where I was. A week later I was free with my two sons. Somehow we managed to obtain Spanish visas for the children and we returned to Spain.”

“The story doesn’t end there. My Arab ex-husband, along with his brother (who is the father of the terrorist, Khalid) flew to Spain in order to take me back. However, in Spain the two received a lesson in Jewish solidarity (without the involvement of the High Court or B’tselem). The lesson they received wiped out any future thoughts they may have had of taking me back.”

“I have recovered since then and thank G-d, my sons now learn in yeshiva and are excelling in their studies. They are good Jewish boys. Seeing the suits of the Arab terrorists from Yatta reminded me of another Arab from Yatta who dressed in a suit on Erev Shavuot. For me it was deja vu. Apparently it is the modus operandi of that cursed family from Yatta to dress in suits.”

Can Chaos Be Controlled?

Israel increasingly finds itself in a chaotic world. The West it so latched onto all these years seems bent on pursuing suicidal policies in the face of a Radical Islamic war seeking to destroy it. The irony is that the chaos that has metastasized was encouraged, funded, and born from the USA’s own cold war policy to arm and train the Mujihadeen of Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets during their invasion of Afghanistan.  

The Mujihadeen were more than a typical rebel group.  They were a product of aggressive islamization by   neighboring Pakistan as well as an amalgamation of foreign fighters such as Osama Bin Laden.  The idea behind President Jimmy Carter’s Operation Cyclone  was to enable the Mujihadeen to wage Jihad against the Soviets.  The Mujihadeen won, thus proving the American strategy of using heavily Islamicised groups to fight proxy wars.  The American government went on to support Islamists across the Middle East. This created created chaos with the sole objective to harm Soviet and later secular Arabist control of oil and mineral flush areas in the Middle East.  

The strategy made sense.  With the USA being an ocean away and Europe still relatively set apart from the “barbaric” deserts of the Middle East, there was never any push back against these sorts of covert neo-colonial policies. Afterall, Israel would continue to sponge up the rage of the Arab street. Of course as long as the West could fund the very allies that helped to redirect the street’s animosity to the tiny Jewish State.

Islam Can No Longer Be Controlled

The problem with creating a monster is that there is a good chance that monster will eventually turn on its maker.

The problem with creating a monster is that there is a good chance that monster will eventually turn on its maker. With the open border policies of Europe and naivety of the USA, muslims have been streaming into the west at record levels.  The immigrants themselves may not be dangerous, but they provide an opportune breeding ground for the armies of the once and future caliphate.  Even with this fact the current situation could have been avoided, but the USA played one last very dangerous game.

Department of Defense documents that have been declassified in the last year confirm that the Obama administration encouraged the flow of weapons into the moderate rebel groups in Syria, knowing they would eventually fall into Jihadists.  This worked well as it helped grow an independent Sunni state in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq.  Of course, when this state, later to be renamed ISIS refused to play by the rules, the game had turned dangerous.  Far worse was the West’s Sunni Caliphate than Assad or Iran.  Now to destroy the Frankenstein they built, the USA is forced to work with its sworn enemies.

In today’s world, geography is meaningless. ISIS has used its strength to rally disenfranchised Muslims across the world, giving them a global army in the once calm West. Chaos has become the norm and yet Western leaders, especially in the USA, seek to harness the chaos for their own benefit.

After the recent Orlando attack, calls to enforce stricter gun control laws became part of the mainstream cacophony of solutions. Not only that, calls on the right to make a Declaration of War against terrorism became part of the chorus of solutions. Both of these moves renders Americans less prepared to deal with a problem their government initiated nearly 40 years ago as well as effectively shredding the Constitution.

Does Israel Stand Alone?

The funny thing about chaos is that it is never permanent.  Chaos always leads to new order.  That is how the world works. The recent overtures between Israel and Russia are the results of finding new order amidst the global chaos. The burgeoning relationship between Israel and India as well as China and other East Asian countries will now only increase as the West crumbles.

The question for Israel going forward is how long does it stick with the West as it builds long standing relationships with an opposing bloc of nations?  The answer to that question may lie in how the West deals with the monster it helped create. If Europe and America continue to ignore the threat of Radical Islam, opting to utilize the threat to grab more power from their citizens, rather than snuff it out, their days will be quickly numbered.

Making America Unsafe

(Originally published in Israel Hayom]

There is a deep and unacknowledged irony to the fact that U.S. President Barack Obama, of all people, has opined in the days since the terror attack in Orlando that how you term things makes no difference.

“What exactly would using this label [‘radical Islam’] accomplish? … Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction,” Obama said on Tuesday in response to the heavy criticism poured on him after he, once more, refused to use the term in connection with the mass shooting. Islamic State quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, perhaps frustrated that no one in the U.S. administration, nor the Democratic presidential candidate, will give it credit for it.

Positing that calling something or someone a particular name makes no difference is the very epitome of hypocritical dissembling, especially coming from the person at the very top of the Democratic echelons.

These are the same people who for decades fought to entrench political correctness into American society, making it impossible to call certain things by their rightful names without facing a barrage of vilification and personal smears. The American Left has fought ceaselessly to shape language according to its ideas and has succeeded so tremendously that Americans are now afraid to report suspicious activity out of fear of coming across as “Islamophobic.” This has already cost lives. Before the attack, the security company that Omar Mateen worked for was afraid of reporting him, despite his suspicious behavior, exactly because it feared being castigated as “Islamophobic.”

The U.S. has much to learn from Israel in this regard. Israel is so efficient at fighting terrorism precisely because it cannot afford the luxury of integrating political correctness into its security doctrines. The very idea is preposterous. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Obama has done.

Five years ago, Obama erased all references to Islam in the educational materials used to train the American law enforcement and national security communities. In 2011, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed that the Obama administration was recalling all its training materials to eliminate references to Islam that some Muslim groups had claimed were offensive.

In 2013, The Washington Times also reported that countless experts on Islamic terrorism had been banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences, including those of the FBI and CIA. Government agencies were instead ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

If it is only a matter of labels, then why has Obama endangered American lives by deliberately blindsiding law enforcement and national security communities on the nature of Islamic terrorism? How are they supposed to grapple with the urgent issue of jihad if they are prohibited from learning about the nature of jihad?

When Obama claims, as he did on Tuesday, that “there’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ If someone seriously thinks we don’t know who we’re fighting, if there’s anyone out there who thinks we’re confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists we’ve taken off the battlefield,” he is simply dissembling. You cannot know an enemy when you prohibit your law enforcement and intelligence personnel from studying or even mentioning them.

These are all relevant questions that the mainstream media has consistently refused to ask the administration — instead, dangerously dismissing them as conspiracy theories. The price is now being paid by innocent Americans, from a Christmas party in San Bernardino to a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Words matter tremendously, and you cannot fight an enemy that you are forbidden to name. Imagine Churchill telling the British that there was “no magic” in calling out the Nazi ideology and prohibiting his intelligence community from studying Nazi Germany’s strategy and tactics.

Hillary Clinton, feeling the backlash after publishing identical statements to those of Obama, has now opportunistically declared that she is ready to say those “magical words.”

But this is meaningless pandering, especially when you know she was part of the administration that purged training materials of all things Islam.

“In my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say,” Clinton said. “To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but that’s not the point.”

The administration pretends there is no Islamist threat. This is what it has firmly projected to its law enforcement and intelligence communities, and Clinton is of course fully aware of the intricate details of this fact. Stating that it matters “what we do” then becomes an empty and even dangerous statement, because it deludes Americans into believing that there is a solid and credible intelligence effort underway to prevent future Islamist terror attacks in the United States, when this cannot logically be the case given that the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities are not allowed to study jihad or Islamic extremism.

Imbecility Squared – Part 1

(This article was originally published on Arutz Sheva)

“Commanders for Israel’s Security” are a group I would much rather respect than ridicule, but drivel is drivel, even when it comes from men with an illustrious past and an accumulated 6000 years of security experience.

One does not have to be a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967 (Deputy PM Yigal Allon, former commander of Palmah strike-force, 1976).

…historians a thousand years hence will still be baffled by the mystery of our affairs. They will never understand how it was that a victorious nation, with everything in hand, suffered themselves to be brought low, and to cast away all that they had gained by measureless sacrifice and absolute victory…Now the victors are the vanquished… (Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons, 1938).

The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse… Then we will move forward (Abbas Zaki, PLO ambassador to Lebanon, 2009).

It genuinely distresses me to have to write this article—but I feel I have little option.

Despite my personal bias

I confess that I have a strong personal bias in favor of men who have devoted years of their lives to the defense of their country and endangered themselves to protect others. The members of the Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS) certainly fit that bill – comprising a group of over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.

Today, however, we are faced with the bitter irony of a spectacle, in which scores of ex-senior security officials, who spent most of their adult life defending Israel, are now promoting a political initiative that will make it indefensible.

Recently, CIS, an allegedly non-politically partisan organization, which ran a virulently anti-Netanyahu campaign in the run-up to the March 2015 elections, published what purports to be a “plan” to break the ongoing deadlock over the “Palestinian issue”, appealingly but misleadingly,  entitled “Security First: Changing the Rules of the GameA Plan to Improve Israel’s Security and International Standing”  .

In broad brush strokes, the seminal elements on which the entire proposal is based are that Israel should:

(a)    Proclaim, unilaterally, that it forgoes any claim to sovereignty beyond the yet-to-be completed security barrier, which in large measure coincides with the pre-1967 “Green Line”, adjusted to include several major settlement blocks adjacent to those lines; but,

(b)    Leave the IDF deployed there—until some “acceptable alternative security arrangement” is found – presumably the emergence of a yet-to-be located pliant Palestinian-Arab who will pledge to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation-state; and

(c)    Embrace the Saudi Peace Plan–a.k.a. Arab Peace Initiative (API) subject to certain changes which the Arabs/Saudis recently resolutely refused to consider.

Noxious brew of the fanciful, the false & the failed

According to the CIS folk (p.7), implementation of this so-called “plan” will:

– Enhance personal and national security.

– Preserve conditions for a future permanent status agreement with the Palestinians.

– Increase prospects of Israel’s integration into regional security/political arrangements with pragmatic Arab states.

– Improve Israel’s international standing and ‘pull the rug’ from under BDS-like movements.

Sadly, little analytical acumen is needed to show that not only will the CIS plan fail to achieve the objectives it claims it will,  but in all probability, it will precipitate precisely the opposite results, exacerbating the dangers it was designed to ameliorate.

Admittedly this is harsh condemnation of the public positions of a large group of prominent figures. However, over the coming weeks, I will be at pains to substantiate my severe censure of their policy recommendations.

Indeed, as I read the CIS proposal my sense of despair and dismay deepened. It is a document so embarrassingly implausible, it seems inconceivable that men who boast of 6,000 years of accumulated security experience would allow – much less, wish –their names to be associated with it.

For what it presents is little more than a disturbing brew of the fanciful, the false and the failed—deeply flawed both in the political principle on which it bases itself and the practical details which it prescribes.

Attempting to eschew being labelled yet-another (and largely discredited) attempt to achieve peace, something which it concedes is “currently unfeasible” (p.10), the CIS plan is presented as focusing primarily on enhancing security—hence the title “Security First”.

Taking the name of “security” in vain?

Curiously, however, throughout its almost 70 pages (in the English version), the proposal deals only scantily with security, the professed forte of its authors, and then only in a very general manner, with virtually no stipulation of operational details. By contrast, it devotes much time to political assessments, municipal administration, water supplies, employment , even suggesting (see pp. 45-47) that Israel intervene in the internecine Palestinian feud between Fatah and Hamas.

These are, of course, issues of considerable importance in their own right, with pursuant impact on overall security, but hardly ones in which CIS, as an organization, can claim any special professional expertise, on the basis of their long experience in the military or the security services.

But it is precisely these accumulated years of service that CIS invoke for the authority they attribute to their policy prescriptions.

After all, however admirable it may be in its own right, the battle-tested experience of an intrepid armored corps commander hardly provides any professional edge in stipulating how Jerusalem should be administered, or determining why the Palestinians have not developed wastewater treatment plants, or in assessing the state of Palestinian agriculture—all of which comprise elements of significance in the CIS policy proposal.

Accordingly, one might well be excused for feeling a sense of uneasy suspicion that CIS just might be taking the name of security in vain—to further a political agenda, which they strenuously deny they have.

“Based on our cumulative 6,000 years of experience…”

Thus, on its well-endowed bilingual website, the fellows from CIS attempt to sweep aside any dissent from mere mortals, enlisting their formidable security credentials to launch into the promotion of a political initiative that has been rejected not only by successive Israeli governments—including some of the most Palestinian-compliant (PC) in the nation’s history–but also by a sound majority of the Israeli electorate.

Accordingly, they proclaim:

Based on our cumulative 6,000 years of experience in Israel’s various security agencies, we emphatically state that:

– Political agreements and security arrangements with the Arab World, including the Palestinians, are vital Israeli national security objectives.

– Local and regional realities make it mandatory and urgent to pursue these objectives. They also make them attainable.

– The IDF [as] by far the most potent military force in the region… can provide effective security and address all challenges within the present or any future borderline as agreed-to by our government and endorsed by our people…”

In terms of recommended policy elements, this translates (see p.8), among other thing, into Israel:

-Accepting, in principle, the Arab Peace Initiative (API), with requisite adjustments to accommodate Israel’s security and demographic needs as a basis for negotiation.

-Reiterating its commitment to resolving the conflict through negotiations towards a permanent status agreement based on the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’.

-Foregoing claims to sovereignty over West Bank territories east of the ‘security fence’, but continuing to exercise control over them in a custodial capacity until alternative security arrangement are put into place within the framework of a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians

– Freezing the construction of new settlements, the expansion of existing ones or the development of civilian infrastructures east of the ‘security fence’

The most glaring defect?

Clearly, then, this is not a non-partisan ,apolitical position but a clear endorsement of the longstanding predilections of the concessionary Israeli left, which have failed so dramatically over the last quarter-century, and now are allegedly “justified” anew by ongoing changes in the region, which, if anything, make them more implausible, irresponsible and inappropriate than ever.

As I noted previously, CIS’s plan is so deeply flawed, both in principle and in detail, that it would require far more than a single opinion column to expose and analyze them all. Accordingly in this week’s column, I will limit myself to a far-from-exhaustive discussion of what is, arguably, its most glaring defect, postponing debate on further flaws and faults for the coming weeks:

This is the a-priori (read “unilateral”) renouncing of any claims to sovereignty over the territory beyond the security barrier.

CIS wish to sidestep criticism of their plan, that could be ascribed it, given the dismal failure of the unilateral evacuation of Gaza (and South Lebanon), and the consequent emergence of a Jihadi-controlled enclave, with an arsenal bristling with weapons capable of reaching virtually the whole of Israel.

Accordingly, they claim (pp.28-9): “In contrast [to] the unilateral withdrawals Israel carried out in 2000 (from South Lebanon) and 2005 (from Gaza), the ‘Security First’ Plan calls for the

IDF to remain in the West Bank…until a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.”
This of course raises the intriguing question of how CIS imagine events would have unfolded in, say, Gaza, had their plan been adopted, and the IDF remained deployed there, waiting with bated breath until some Palestinian emerged to “usher in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.”

Unilateral withdrawal in principle

Indeed, despite all the semantic acrobatics, the unilateral capitulation inherent in the CIS proposal cannot be camouflaged by rhetoric. For whichever way you spin it, the CIS prescription comprises a unilateral acknowledgement, without any commensurate quid-pro-quo, of Arab sovereignty over the territory east of the ‘security barrier’.

In effect this constitutes a “unilateral withdrawal in principle”, entailing the abandonment of positions long held by successive Israeli governments’ for over a half-century and a clear admission that Israel has been unnecessarily and unjustifiably intransigent for decades. Even if this is not CIS’s intention, there can be little doubt that this is how it will be eagerly interpreted by a hostile international community—and an affirmation that the anti-Israel campaigns against Israel were, in fact, justified.

Indeed, for all their 6000 years of accumulated security experience, CIS seem to have lost sight of a recurring lesson of history: Giving in—or at least pledging to give in—to the demands of despots will only whet their appetite, not satiate it.

It requires little imagination to envision the pernicious political predicament such an injudicious move would create for Israel, were it to heed the CIS counsel of an open-ended deployment of the military in territory over which any claims to sovereignty are eschewed.

A giant South-Lebanon

In a stroke, Judea-Samaria would, by Israel’s own admission, be converted from “disputed territories” to “occupied territories”, and the IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”.

This reality would replicate—only on a much larger scale and much closer to the urban center of the country—the realities that prevailed in pre-2000 South Lebanon when the IDF was deployed in the security zone, despite the fact that Israel made no claims to sovereignty over it.

The manner in which that episode ended—with the ignominious flight of the IDF—should provide a sobering reminder of what CIS measures are liable to lead to.

(As an aside, it might be edifying to note that both the situations in South Lebanon and Gaza, which CIS apparently wish to avoid, were the result of policy decisions made by men with “impeccable security credentials”… Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak.)

Of course, under the CIS plan, the time that IDF will be required to deploy in Judea-Samaria will be entirely determined by the Palestinian side, until they agree to “acceptable alternative … security arrangements”—something which is highly unlikely, since less pliant competing factions could plausibly point out that, if the Jews are confronted with sufficient resolve and violence, they will concede all for nothing.

Thus, the IDF will be ensnared in the “West-Bank mud” as it was in the “Lebanon -mud”, subject to increasing attack from a hostile alien population, and unsympathetic international opinion with increasing domestic pressure to “bring our boys home”.

And so the unilateral withdrawal in principle will inexorably become a unilateral withdrawal in practice—with no agreement with the Palestinian side and Israel exposed to all the dangers CIS hoped to avert.

Imbecility squared

As readers might sense – I have barely scratched the surface in my endeavor to expose the myriad of internal contradictions, non-sequiturs and grave errors in the CIS formula “to extricate Israel from the current dead end and to improve its security… and international standing”.

But from what I have written they may already understand why I chose to entitle this and coming columns – “Imbecility squared”.

Hit Back Twice As Hard

(This article was originally published on Israel Hayom)

There is really only one issue related to Wednesday night’s savage terrorist attack at Tel Aviv’s Sarona Market that you need to pay attention to, but it has been obscured by the following:

Mainstream media coverage

The mainstream media cannot bring itself to call the murderous attacks against Jews in Israel terrorism, nor the perpetrators terrorists, which is why the headline that kept repeating itself was “shooting attack in Tel Aviv.” Jews are “shot” by “militants” or “gunmen,” whereas Parisians and Belgians are murdered by jihadi terrorists. This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” — all people are equal, but some people are “more equal” than others — the “others” being, of course, the Jews. Jewish lives may be destroyed by terrorists and disrespected with misleading headlines.

This is not going to change, not now and not in the future, unless all journalists suddenly experience a moral epiphany of cosmic proportions. We can and should fight it, headline by headline, because good people should fight lies and distortions — but we are merely trying to ameliorate the symptoms of a diseased core, namely the mainstream media’s intense discomfort with the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. For the moment, there is no cure for that.

Responses from politicians and world leaders

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the terrorist attack, conveyed his condolences and said that “there is no justification for terrorism nor for the glorification of those who commit such heinous acts.” This is too little too late, given the fact that only six months ago Ban felt it necessary to express that “it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.” An army of pundits defended his statements following Israel’s outrage, claiming that he was merely “contextualizing.” Unfortunately, when “contextualizing” is premised on manipulation, it serves only one purpose: The legitimization of terrorism against Israelis.

French President Francois Hollande also paid lip service by condemning “with the greatest strength the odious attack.” He expressed France’s “support for Israel in the fight against terrorism.” That is, if you can call forcing “peace initiatives” (that amount to nothing more than backstabbing) down Israel’s throat “support for Israel.”

Social media

Perhaps inspired by Ban’s dissembling “contextualization,” the social media sphere was awash with pundits and opinion-makers insisting that the Tel Aviv attacks should be seen in a “broader context,” literally moments after the shots were fired. Not only does the timing betray obvious disrespect for the victims, but it also makes something very clear: When Jews are murdered, there is always a “broader context.” It is never simply a terrorist murder. The first response I got to a tweet I posted about the terrorist attack was, “What about Palestinians killed by Jews?”

None of the above — not the mainstream media, nor the reactions of world leaders nor the social media response — are worthy of attention. It is all a well-choreographed little dance. We fall for the routine, which plays out identically with every terrorist attack perpetrated in Israel, every single time, as if it were new to us.

The only issue we need pay attention to is this: Immediately after the terrorist attacks, Palestinian Arabs in Hebron took to the streets, celebrating the murders. In Tulkarem‎, they handed out candies in the streets because four Israelis were killed. An evening of good fun, a party brought on by the thought of dead Jews.

On Twitter, Fatah called the attacks the “Tel Aviv operation” and labelled it a “natural reaction.” (Let’s not forget Ban’s “broader context.”) Of course, Hamas celebrated, immediately praising the murderers and wishing them “glory and salutation.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was “praying for the soul” of the injured terrorist.

These reactions merely confirm what the most recent poll from the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed in April, which is that 60% of Palestinian Arabs support “armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel.”

Nevertheless — and presumably because the U.N. secretary-general does not read news reports that do not confirm his preconceived world views — Ban expressed that he was “shocked that the leaders of Hamas have chosen to welcome this attack and some have chosen to celebrate it.” Similarly, U.N. Secial Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nikolay Mladenov tweeted that he was “shocked to see” that Hamas “welcomes” the Tel Aviv terror attack. He added that “leaders must stand against violence and the incitement that fuels it, not condone it.” What planet are we on? Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are terrorists, not “leaders.” Who could possibly be shocked that terrorists commit terrorism? Only someone who works for the United Nations.

We, here in Israel, however, need to stop acting shocked. We need to stop covering our social media accounts in blue and white, expecting everyone else to follow suit. (They won’t.) And we need to stop ringing our hands at the cold-blooded cruelty of our enemies. (The terrorists ordered dessert and then opened fire on everyone — if that does not qualify as cold-blooded, I don’t know what does.)

We, here in Israel, need to make the terrorism stop. Israel is fully capable of putting an end to terrorist attacks, and that is what it should do. Since October, Israelis have had to put up with a near-constant wave of terrorism that will not go away on its own. One eternal truth has not changed, and it never will: If you are bullied and terrorized, giving in to the bullies and terrorists only yields one result — more bullying and more terrorism. Any child who has ever had to fight it out in the schoolyard knows this. Until you hit back, preferably twice as hard, you are never going to get the bully off your back.

Definition of Insanity: Slaughtering Jews Invokes Criticism of Israel

Last Wednesday a murderous terror attack took place in Tel Aviv, ripping four innocent lives away from their loved ones forever. One moment they were sitting in a café enjoying themselves, and a split second later they were gone, lifeless, leaving only precious memories behind.

When did Tel Aviv become “disputed territory?”

In the wake of this latest in a lengthy wave of despicable attacks we are left once again to wonder when will it end? When will those who support and perpetrate such acts realize there exists no moral equivalence between murder and justice? Do these murderers actually think the Jews are going to be intimidated into giving up their rightful homeland? It’s high time they accept this and find another cause to vent their hatred toward. Their goal will not be realized.

Israel is the one single nation whose people were dispersed throughout the world for two millennia, only to be reborn in its original location. That cannot be coincidence.

After the attack we’re witness to the typical reaction coming in from around the world voicing outrage and condemnation, while expressing solidarity with Israel and its need for security. Having been the victim of more terror attacks than they wish to admit, Israel is quite used to seeing such empathetic statements.

Frankly, while not attempting to speak on behalf of Israeli leadership, I’d be willing to bet they are sick and tired of hearing and reading such reactions. Why? Not because they aren’t appreciated. I’m sure they are. However, they’re sick and tired of having to endure such horrific tragedy which engenders said reactions. Frankly, I wouldn’t blame Israel one bit.

However, while sympathetic statements poured in condemning the terrorism, there exists another chorus of voices. These voices minimize the murderous attack on innocent civilians and use the tragedy as a platform for their own agenda. At a moment when grief and shock resounds throughout the country, especially with the bereaved families, they take the opportunity to launch criticism of Israel.

For example, French Foreign Ministry Jean-Marc Ayrault said this in reaction to Israel’s decision to revoke permits for thousands of Muslims planning to enter Israel during Ramadan- “the decision by the Israeli authorities today to revoke tens of thousands of entry permits could stoke tensions which could lead to a risk of escalation….we must be careful about anything that could stoke tensions.”

Moreover, while Palestinian Arabs danced in the streets celebrating the brutal murders MSNBC ran a report on the attack, which included the following comments- “the siege that continues in Gaza….there’s a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank…..further oppression in the occupied West Bank.” New Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman was referred to as an “extreme right winger…he’s a settler himself.”

Adding insult to injury is the ever friendly United Nations. During their 2015 session for example it passed 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism. The number of resolutions passed against the rest of the world- 3.

Plus, the office of the UNHRC High Commissioner (United Nations Human Rights Council) Zeed Ra’ad Al Hussein released this statement- “We are deeply concerned about the response from the Israeli authorities, which includes measures that may amount to prohibitive collective punishment and will only increase the sense of injustice felt by the Palestinians at the very tense time.”

If the issuers of these statements will permit me, I would like to offer what some might consider to be a much needed pragmatic reaction to their comments- Are these people living on planet earth? Ok, so this isn’t very pragmatic.

In all seriousness where is their collective conscience? They have the audacity to sit in judgement of the Israeli government’s policies and while simultaneously minimizing the murder of innocent civilians.

In the totality of their collective untimely salvos at Israel where were any comments regarding the responsibility of the Palestinian Arab leadership? For example, Hamas was eager to take responsibility for the attack, offering praise to the murderers.  Mahmoud Abbas provided a general statement which criticized violence, yet offered no specific condemnation of the attack.

Am I the only one who thinks that after such an event, it might be an appropriate time to suggest Mahmoud Abbas publically condemn the murderers and announce strict measures to prevent such attacks, since the terrorists came from territory he is responsible for? Is it unreasonable to expect that mainstream media such as MSNBC include comments about how little is done by the Palestinian leadership  to prevent ongoing terror? Moreover, would be reasonable to expect that MSNBC state that murdering innocent civilians is unacceptable, period, even if their network disagrees with Israeli policies.

Might one expect that the UNCHR urge the Palestinian leadership to act more like a genuine peace partner by cracking down on the extended intifada which has pushed the prospects for peace further away than ever.  Where are such voices?

Statements from the EU, Britain and even the US did not mention a word about the need for the Palestinian Arabs and their leadership to do a better job of policing their own.  General statements condemning the violence do nothing to prevent similar murders from reoccurring. This is inexcusable.

When the response to terrorism is viewed as less acceptable than terrorism itself, it’s a welcome mat for more.

Sometimes I wonder if two Israelis were sitting in a café in Ramallah or Gaza City and suddenly without warning started shooting indiscriminately at Palestinian Arabs, murdering them in cold blood, what might world reaction be to such horror?

On second thought maybe it’s not such a good idea to wonder such things.

Do We Spray the Ants or Eradicate the Nest?

(The views in this article are those of the author)

In light of the horrific attack in Tel Aviv where 4 Israeli civilians were murdered by Arab terrorists dressed in suits, we find ourselves in yet another quagmire. The issue is how to respond.

Prime Minister Netanyahu says “we will attack those who attacked us.” Exactly what does that mean Mr. Prime Minister? Is Israel going to launch a targeted strike on Hamas operatives in Gaza or Judea/Samaria?

What will that accomplish? Indeed, it may take out some Arab terrorists, but what will it accomplish in the end? Will it prevent future attacks from taking place? Will it deter leadership from promoting jihad against Israeli Jews? Will it foster a better environment for peace?

Killing Arab terrorists is the equivalent of spraying a trail of ants with pesticide. It only eliminates the ones you see. In order to stop more of them from coming, one must go all the way to the nest and root it out completely.

Other suggestions include halting the influx of Arabs for Ramadan. I find no problem with refusing to allow thousands more Muslims into Israel, which can only increase the chances of more violence.

Still others are suggesting clamping down on goods being shipped into Gaza. This has been an ongoing seesaw issue for years. Every time Israel relents and expands the array of allowable goods, Hamas ends up stealing much of it and using it to manufacture weapons, terror tunnels, or underground bunkers so their leadership remains protected during outbreaks of war with Israel.

What sense does it make to allow shipments of materials that everyone knows will be used for military purposes? Yet world pressure continuously and relentlessly mounts on Israel to “lift the siege of Gaza.”

Pressure also continues against Israel to end the “occupation,” and relax the checkpoints coming in from Judea/Samaria.

Do those who promote said suggestions actually believe such acquiescence would result in peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs? If they do, they are either more naïve then Neville Chamberlain, or they have little or no concern for the safety of Jewish lives. The other possibility is they are just plain anti-Semitic.

In actuality, counter attacks by Israel will not address the problem. Clamping down on Gaza will not address the problem. Even if nothing other than basic items, such as food, water and medicine is allowed in. Tightening checkpoints, temporarily revoking permits or razing homes of terrorists in Judea/Samaria won’t remedy the situation. These are all symptomatic remedies, which do nothing to address the core issues.

Turning the tide should be seen as a comprehensive plan that involves a combined effort across many fronts.

One place to start is the classroom. Arab Palestinian children do not receive an “education,” as normal school children do in most countries. They are taught to hate Jews, and to die as martyrs. Take a look at this recent clip below. This is a typical example of how children are “educated” in UNRWA run schools in Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

What kind of adults do you think these children become having been “educated” like this? UNRWA receives over $1 billion annually. The largest donors are the US – $400 million, followed by the EU, Saudi Arabia and the UK. Together they provide over 50% of UNRWA’s funding.

This is where a change must take place. The donor countries should demand their funds be used for proper education, rather than allowing these ‘schools’ to be nothing more than terror training facilities. Further, independent monitoring should take place on an ongoing basis to ensure appropriate education is being administered.  If the schools refuse to provide normal education and continue their terror training, the funding for them should be cut off, period.

Another systemic issue is religious ‘education.’ Religion plays a huge role in the upbringing and character building of people from all cultures and countries. When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict Arabs again are being ‘educated’ to hate and kill, rather than coexist with Israel. Take a look at this clip.

The imam is supposed to be a man of God. He is supposed to provide teachings which reflect how we are to treat our fellow man in a way which God honors. What kind of god would bless the words that come out of that imam’s mouth? Yet this another huge component in weaving together the fabric of Arab Palestinian society.

Once again, I believe independent monitors should be at every mosque, and when such messages are delivered said leader should be warned that this type of hate mongering will not be tolerated. If he refuses to comply he should face criminal charges.

Will these suggestions be easy? No. Will they immediately change the atmosphere in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlikely. However, something must be done, because we know what has been done until now has not produced fruit. What have we to lose?

I have only addressed two particular segments of society with this essay. There are more that need addressing to be sure. However, these two are of huge significance and influence.  If the fundamental institutions of their society are ignored and allowed to maintain the status quo, this is tantamount to declaring the future will continue to be one of symptomatic  remedies.

We can either keep spraying the ant trail and allow it to keep coming back, or we can pursue it to the nest and eradicate it. We have a choice.

 

Terrorism By Other Means

(Originally Published on Israel Hayom)

While it may not always seem that way, in the cognitive wars being fought against Israel, most notably the hysterically high-pitched calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions by the BDS movement, Israel’s opponents are losing.

Naturally, the BDS movement claims it is winning. Omar Barghouti, its founder, asserts that his crusade “is working far better and spreading into the mainstream much faster than we had anticipated.” Obviously, a movement whose primary weapons involve all the mendaciousness it can possibly muster from its members will not be truthful about its results any more than it will be honest about its true goals.

While the BDS movement claims that it is about “peace and justice” and “encouraging international economic and political pressure against Israel,” the movement’s real and indisputable aim is to destroy Israel and replace it with “Palestine.” The founder of the BDS has said so himself: In Barghouti’s own words, “a Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically. … Most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”

The chairman of the U.S. Congress House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, Ted Poe, has described the BDS movement as “a threat, which seeks [Israel’s] ultimate destruction.”

While this is clearly what BDS wants, it is failing impressively. Not only has the Israeli economy not been affected in the nearly 11 years since the BDS movement’s founding, foreign investment in Israeli assets has actually nearly tripled, the financial news network Bloomberg recently reported. In fact, according to Bloomberg, in 2015, foreign investments in Israel hit a record $285.12 billion.

What’s more, Israel’s economy is growing faster than those of the United States and European countries, with expectations of 2.8% growth this year compared to 1.8% growth in the U.S. and EU, according to Bloomberg. In addition, Israel’s unemployment reached a record low in April, when it fell to 4.9%.

In comparison, France, to name one country that is obsessed with Israel and meddles disproportionately in its affairs, has an unemployment rate over twice as high, at 10.2%, youth unemployment of almost 25% and a stagnating economy, which grew only 0.5% in the first quarter of 2016. One would assume that France has more pressing matters at home than the status of Judea and Samaria, but then again, obsessive-compulsive disorder is not an easy condition to cure.

While these hard and incontrovertible facts regarding Israel’s thriving economy are likely to leave BDS activists apoplectic — presuming, of course, that they ever acquaint themselves with actual facts — Israel should not draw the wrong conclusions. In other words, this is no time to lean back and relax.

On U.S. campuses, BDS campaigns are orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, through associations such as the Muslim Students’ Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The rallying cry of BDS activists, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is the rallying cry of Hamas. It is no secret that the Muslim Students’ Association is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood itself states so in its operational plan, which was recovered by the FBI when it raided Hamas charity Holy Land Foundation in 2001. According to Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the sponsor of SJP is an organization with seven key employees that used to work for, among others, the Holy Land Foundation. SJP is among the most active BDS organizations on U.S. campuses.

Given the fact that Hamas is designated a terror organization in the U.S., it is rather unfortunate that so many campuses allow the unhindered activities of these likely Hamas-linked organizations to continue on campus without even blinking an eye. The more logical course would be to thoroughly investigate these activities and possibly prosecute related actions as terrorism, instead of viewing their activities through the prism of diversity, justice and other cheap slogans that are too transparent to cover the real issues for anyone but the willfully blind. BDS is the continuation of terrorism by other means. For that reason, it must be defeated.

Like Manna From Heaven – For Israel’s Detractors

“Israel has been infected by the seeds of fascism …There are no serious leaders left in the world who believe the Israeli government.” – Former PM, Ehud Barak, Channel 10, May 20.

“Today we have a country afflicted with ultra-nationalistic extremism, infected with the seeds of fascism and chauvinism.” Head of opposition, Isaac Herzog, Knesset, May 23.

“Israel has truly become today the last bastion of fascism, colonialism and racial discrimination in the world.” Nabil al-Arabi Secretary-General of the Arab League, Cairo May 28.

“I fought with all my might against the phenomena of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society that are threatening our national resilience and are seeping into the Israel Defense Forces; in fact already harming it… But to my great regret, extremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud party.” – Former defense minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon, Resignation speech, May 20.

“Today Israel is suffering a process of ongoing radicalization and increasing extremism, which has brought criticism from senior Israelis against their government. They all say that Israel behaves in a fascist and racist manner. They say so. Like the deputy chief of staff of the IDF said ‘Our behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis prior to WW II.’”Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the Palestinian Authority, Cairo, May 28.

May was a very good month for the myriad of eager Israel-bashers across the globe.

Beyond wildest Judeophobic dreams

With no effort on their part, the recent rash of stupid, ill-considered — and gravely misleading — public proclamations provided them with more to bash Israel with than they could have wished in their wildest Judeophobic dreams.

What more could they have hoped for? Some of the most senior figures in the Israeli establishment have now publicly corroborated precisely what they have been trying to convey in their toxic tirades against the Jewish state for years. Now they have it on the best of authority — straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak:
The Jewish state is a fascist, racist entity — indeed, one of an evil kind in today’s world.

Who could argue with them now? Israel is descending inexorably in to the lowest depth of human depravity comparable to the darkest times humanity has known in modern history.

Indeed, they need not even make these horrific accusations themselves — and expose themselves to charges of antisemitism. All they need do is quote the vitriolic condemnation of Israel by its own political and military leadership. And if they embellish or distort them slightly — who would notice, or even care enough to wrangle over details. After all, when the principle has been made so indelibly clear, who has time for splitting fascist hairs?

Abominable analogy

The point of departure for this deplorable and distortive portrayal of Israel can be traced to the abominable analogy made by the IDF’s deputy chief of staff,  Maj-Gen. Yair Golan at a Holocaust commemoration ceremony on May 4. Golan suggested — or, at least, could plausibly have been interpreted by Israel’s fiercest detractors as suggesting — that Israel is undergoing  a process reminiscent of those that heralded the advent of fascism and the rise of Nazism in Europe in the 1930s. He proclaimed:  “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it’s the identification of the horrific processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then…and detecting signs of them here among us today in 2016.”

It matters not whether that such a parallel was his intention or not.  Once the anti-Israel cohorts could spin it that way, it took on a life of its own.

But Golan went on further, painting — or giving Israel-bashers the opportunity of painting — a grossly distorted picture of the emerging trends in Israeli society. He pontificated: “There is nothing easier than hating the “other”, nothing easier than fear-mongering and instilling panic. There is nothing easier than to adopt callous, thick-skinned bestiality and holier than thou self-righteousness.”

Irrelevant and unrepresentative rebuke

This apparent rebuke raises two issues.  Firstly, if Golan chose to articulate it, he clearly must believe that the objectionable features he mentions, comprise a significant trend in Israeli society. Otherwise why bring it up — especially in a Holocaust commemoration speech? But if they are not, it is a rebuke that is totally irrelevant.

Secondly, if Golan feels that these features do represent significant propensities he is hopelessly out of touch with the dominant characteristics of Israeli society — and his implied rebuke is wildly unrepresentative.

Perhaps he missed the wide coverage of Israeli humanitarian missions to disaster areas such a Haiti and Nepal among a host of other afflicted countries to which Israel extends aid. Hardly indicative of “callous thick-skinned bestiality.”

Other things might have slipped his mind, like the extensive medical treatment provided to casualties of the gruesome civil war in Syria.  Or the hospital services given to the family members of Israel’s sworn enemy, Hamas — including those of its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh. Indeed, Haniyeh’s  own mother-in-law, grand-daughter and daughter were all admitted to Israeli medical facilities in 2013-14, the latter “just weeks after a 50-day war [Protective Edge] between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist movement” (The Telegraph, October 20, 2014). OMG – just how much “hate for the ‘other’” can a country harbor!

“Providing weapons to Hamas propaganda…”

Perhaps one of the better gauges of  just how damaging Golan’s remarks — and those of others that followed them — were to Israel, is an interview with journalist, Ben-Dror Yemini, on Tel Aviv Radio (May 4). For the record, Yemini is a left-leaning publicist and self-confessed supporter of Herzog’s left of center Zionist Union in the last election.

At the outset of the interview, Yemini described Golan’s abhorrent allusion as an “appalling mistake” especially for anyone who has any idea of ongoing developments regarding Israel in the world.  He went on to remind listeners that Israel was fighting “on two fronts, and today the PR front is no less important than the military front”

He lamented: “To compare Israel to Nazi Germany reflects a kind of insanity that, regrettably, is beginning  to dominate us…If the deputy leader of the British Labor party…who we accuse of antisemiticsm …had have said that, he would have been thrown out of the party.”

With evident bitterness, Yemini claimed: We are providing weapons for the Hamas’s propaganda…I have been engaged in a world-wide effort to repudiate the false accusations against Israel, and suddenly someone like [Golan] comes along and ruins years of work.

Greatly agitated, Yemini continued: “Anyone who compares Israel to the Nazis is not someone who usually wants to criticize Israel. It is someone who does not want Israel at all!…Moreover it is all a lie! But when he [Golan] says it, it gives them a boost. The whole social network is abuzz. All the anti-Israel and antsemitic sites have made him a hero”.

“As damaging as a terror attack…”

With a touch of drama, Yemini informed the interviewer: “I was in Auschwitz, at a conference on the Nuremberg Trials, when I heard Golan’s remarks. I was there! Right there! I spoke with some of the participants, who were not right-wing people. The general perception was this [Golan’s speech] was equivalent to a terror attack. No less!…”

Still greatly troubled, Yemini penned an article five days later entitled “A PR terror attack” (Ynet, May 9). In it, he strongly refuted any slide toward large-scale fascism or racism in Israel, which despite the grave threats to its existence, still compares favorably, in terms of the liberalism and tolerance, to other European democracies. By way of comparison he cites Sweden, often a vehement critic of Israel, where “dozens of refugee centers were burnt” and “polls show up to 15% backing for a party representing neo-Nazi supporters.”

True, like any other society, Israel has its blemishes. There are instances of hooliganism, social intolerance and even ethnic bias.  But there are no politicized movements of any significance, and certainly none with any electoral prospects, that promote doctrines of racial superiority or promulgate the principles of fascism.

Accordingly to suggest that Israel is in anyway afflicted with the seeds of fascism is not criticism. It is indeed  as Yemini states, a blood libel.

Hollow ring to cries of dismay

Any allusion by any Israeli of prominence that any such phenomena exist, betrays not only a poor grasp of the socio-cultural realities in the country, but also raises grave questions as to his/her motivations and/or quality of judgement.

Of course the chorus for dismayed voices warning of the impending advent of fascism/racism/extremism was amplified in the wake of the Golan address by the replacement of Moshe Ya’alon as defense minister by Avigdor Lieberman.

Admittedly, I have serious reservations as to what to expect from Lieberman, and as to the rationale for appointing him to such a crucial post in the wake of what was a devastating electoral failure at the polls last year (with his faction diminished by over half and reduced even further by his most prominent MK — Orly Levy — quitting the party). However, that said, the distraught cries by many of his detractors as to the danger he poses to Israeli democracy, have a decidedly hollow ring to them.

Indeed, many of his current critics have, in fact,  served with him in governments in the past, without expressing undue alarm as to the grave threat he posed to Israeli democracy — even when his electoral success was far greater. Indeed, Lieberman has served, including as deputy prime minister, in every government since 2001, when Arik Sharon wrested power from Ehud Barak.

It is thus difficult to avoid the impression that the current deluge of opprobrium for him is motivated more by political and personal chagrin than any real genuine concern for the future of democratic governance in Israel.

Tolerating terror as anti-fascist litmus test

Take for example Ehud Barak, who served as deputy prime minister together with Lieberman both in Ehud Olmert’s government (2006-9) and in Netanyahu’s (2009-13), with nary a concern expressed for Israeli democracy.

In his Channel 10 diatribe (see opening except), Barak sought to illustrate his point  regarding the “seeds of fascism” taking hold in Israeli society by referring to legislation promoted by members of the current coalition. Among these allegedly “egregious” undemocratic initiatives was the law to lift the parliamentary immunity of Knesset members who support terrorism (Haaretz, May 20).

This of course leads one to wonder whether, according to Barak, the litmus test of democratic governance is giving elected legislators in the national parliament license to support terror organizations, dedicated to the destruction of the society that that parliament represents, secure in the knowledge that they will be  immune  from any punitive action.

Apparently in Barak’s eyes, for a country to avoid being afflicted by the “seeds of fascism”, it must give priority to the rights of legislators to support terror over the rights of intended victims of that terror to life.

This is, of course, an “interesting” perspective and one that might explain why in the past Barak proclaimed that, if he had been a Palestinian, he too would have engaged in terror.

Isaiah 49:17

The howls of dismay at the approaching demise of Israeli democracy are utterly unfounded and uncalled for.

When they come from highly-placed Israelis, who put short-term personal and political interest before the long term national one, they inflict incalculable, perhaps irrevocable harm on the country, inevitably compelling us to recall the words of Isaiah 49:17

“Thy destroyers and thy demolishers shall emerge from within thee. “

So it would seem.