Don’t give the fox the keys to the henhouse

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

The Oslo accords divided Judea and Samaria into areas A, B and C. Area C, where most settlements and few Arabs are, was placed under complete Israeli control. Area B, strategic areas with large Arab populations and the smallest of the three, was under Palestinian Authority civil governance but remained under Israeli security control. And Area A was supposed to be under full PA control.

The Oslo plan was that we and the US would help the PA build up their ‘security forces’, with which they would ‘fight terrorism’. One of the comments heard at the time was that this was like expecting Kellogg to fight cornflakes; but in any event, the idea resonated in the US and with the ‘peace’ establishment in Israel. Why should we risk our soldiers and be vilified for brutality when Yasser Arafat would do our dirty work for us?

Predictably, this didn’t work. When the Second Intifada began, terrorists found it convenient to base themselves in places like Jenin in Area A, to commit their atrocities against the Jewish population on both sides of the Green Line, and then run back to Area A where we were not permitted to pursue them. Sometimes the PA would arrest the terrorists, in which case they were usually released quickly, or ‘escaped’.

In March 2002, in one of a series of deadly attacks – there were fifteen suicide bombings and multiple shooting and other attacks that month – a Hamas bomber exploded at a Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya, killing 30 people and injuring 140. Two days later, the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield, a massive incursion into the territories to find and destroy the terror networks that had been established there.

The operation was costly for Israel with 30 soldiers killed, but also in other ways:

On April 2, the IDF reached Jenin, from which 23 of the 60 terror attacks in 2002 had emanated. There, the army waged a pitched battle, involving house-to-house fighting with Palestinian gunmen in the city’s refugee camp.

Booby-trapped houses were primed to collapse on the Israeli forces. By the time the fighting ended, 23 IDF soldiers and 52 Palestinians (of whom 14 were civilians) were dead. Ultimately the Palestinian Authority, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations corroborated these figures.

Ultimately. But before that happened, a media campaign was waged against the IDF by the PA, British reporters (especially Philip Reeves, now NPR’s Pakistan correspondent), and the “human rights” NGOs. Hundreds, even thousands, of Palestinian civilians were said to have been killed, buried by Israeli bulldozers with the “sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies” wafting from the ground, in the words of the execrable Reeves.

An Israeli-Arab filmmaker, Mohammad Bakri, made a film called “Jenin, Jenin” that repeats the libels. It continues to be shown around the world. Like the Mohammad Dura incident, the “Jenin massacre” has been placed into history despite the fact that it didn’t happen.

After the trauma of the Intifada, the IDF returned to carrying out hot pursuit of terrorists in Area A. But now we seem poised to repeat the mistake of Oslo, as the IDF prepares to concede security control of Area A to the PA:

The Palestinians are demanding that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw simultaneously from all the cities and rejected an initial Israeli offer to withdraw completely from Ramallah and Jericho first, and to restrict activities elsewhere in the West Bank to arrests of Palestinians suspected of intending to carry out imminent attacks.

The IDF and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon believe that the Palestinian security services are capable of undertaking a sizable chunk of the work that the army does today.

I have great respect for Moshe Ya’alon, who became Chief of Staff immediately after Defensive Shield, and carried on the work of suppressing the Second Intifada. But surely he must understand that the PA’s “security forces” cannot be depended upon to protect Israeli Jews, and his support for this is surprising. The Shabak [internal security service], several cabinet ministers and numerous MKs strongly oppose the idea.

Apparently the IDF favors it. I suppose that’s understandable. Everyone wants to avoid unpleasant situations or to put them off as long as possible. Most of the high-ranking officers in modern technocratic armies like the IDF are managers first and warriors second (well-known exceptions are Sharon, MacArthur and Patton). They see fighting as disruptive to their organizations. Minor conflicts detract from their long-term planning and use up stocks of equipment and budgets. Operations in Judea and Samaria are hard on soldiers who have to deal with demonstrations, harassment by women, children, and Israeli and international activists.

There is also a smell of international arm-twisting about this. Although I have no evidence at this point, there could very well be a connection with the upcoming attempt to pass a resolution in the Security Council declaring Jewish settlements illegal. There are also the ongoing negotiations with the Obama Administration over the memorandum of understanding on future military aid. Finally, there is Israeli concern over talks between the US and Russia on a solution to the Syrian civil war which could possibly include the Golan Heights. I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that the US is using these issues to pressure Israel to agree to the PA demands.

In view of the fact that both Hamas and Hezbollah have been beefing up their defensive and offensive capabilities – and despite repeated claims from Israeli officials that these organizations don’t want conflict with us – it seems to me that the wisest policy would be to prevent the build-up of what would be yet another front in the next war. But that is exactly what will happen if the IDF does not keep the pressure on the terrorists in Area A.

As happened in Judea and Samaria before 2003 and in southern Lebanon after 2000, when we allow our enemies to enhance their capabilities unmolested we find ourselves in a situation where we are deterred from taking action because of the expected cost. Ultimately we are forced to fight, and then we pay the price anyway. Like the withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza and the Oslo accord, turning over security control to the PA purchases temporary – perhaps very temporary – quiet, in return for longer term weakness.

There is another reason not to do this: If the IDF backs off today it will be a boost to the enemy’s morale. Any concession we make will be seen as a victory for the decentralized terrorism of the Intifada of Knives. No matter how much our officials say that the withdrawal has nothing to do with terrorism, they won’t convince the Palestinians, who will celebrate the success that their ‘martyrs’ have brought them.

Our enemies see the conflict as a long, historic struggle, and we should too. Every war, every battle, every terror attack, every inch of land gained or lost, every Jew or Arab that enters or leaves the Land of Israel moves the cursor of history. From 1948 to 1993 there is no question that we were in ascendance. Oslo was an inflection point. Since then, our trajectory has turned downward.

Are our leaders paying attention?

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Terrorism, War | 4 Comments

Strategic self-respect

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

Sometimes the task of defending Israel’s image in the world seems hopeless. Our traditional enemies, the Arabs, are in disarray, but the international Left, Europe, and the US administration continue to batter Israel in the information war. Every other day it seems that a new organization, publication or website pops up whose objective is to blacken Israel’s name. Almost unlimited funding seems to be available for these enterprises from the EU, European governments and sources linked to George Soros. Activist groups hijack religious, academic and labor associations and pass BDS resolutions or distribute anti-Israel material. Tendentious lessons creep into school syllabi.

At the same time, it has become harder for pro-Israel people to speak. The response on campuses to pro-Israel speakers – or anyone connected with Israel, regardless of his politics, is disruption and even violence; and this behavior is condoned by administrators, who, if they don’t agree with the disruptors, are afraid to challenge them.

Particularly in the US Jewish community, the anti-Zionist forces have been gathering strength, turning the traditional Jewish establishment organizations more and more in their direction. Battlegrounds include the campus Hillels, the Jewish Federations and Community Relations Councils, and even the religious movements. The Reform movement, never a bastion of Zionism, seems to be actively looking for reasons to criticize Israel and make demands, regardless of what Israelis think. Jewish Voice for Peace, which the ADL once called one of the top ten anti-Israel groups in the US, has expanded dramatically in the last few years from a tiny bunch of Bay Area wackos to a national force with its dirty fingers in every pro-BDS resolution and demonstration against Israel.

Code Pink – formerly a generalized leftist/feminist group, now specializing in attacking Israel – Black Lives Matter, and countless others have adopted opposition to the Jewish state as an essential piece of their ideology and justified it by appeals to the logically incoherent concept of ‘intersectionality’ (all oppression is the same, blacks, women and Palestinians are oppressed, ergo feminists and blacks must oppose Israel). Incoherent, perhaps, but practically it has been very effective in recruiting new blood to the anti-Zionist ranks.

I had lunch today with a pro-Israel Canadian today who wanted to know what he personally could do. Well, he could oppose all of the above, I suggested. But there are far more of them than there are of us, and they are very well-funded – much better than we are. And they are better at it than we are.

The Canadian said that it seemed to him that the anti-Israel forces were well-organized and even coordinated, and we were just flailing. Maybe he’s right, or maybe it just seems that way from our point of view. But there’s no doubt that we are losing the battle for Western public opinion (I suspect we are doing better among the Arabs, who are worried about Iran and scared by the explosion of chaos in their world).

Our cause is just, historical truth and international law are on our side. And yet we continue to lose the information war. Why?

There are at least two reasons. One is that people’s opinions are driven by emotions and only afterwards justified by reason, and we are not arguing on an emotional level. And the other is that we are not giving reasons that make sense, either rationally or emotionally.

I think there is a solution, or at least a strategy. We can call it “Strategic self-respect.”

We must present a unified message. It needs to be grounded in historical fact, and be internally consistent and complete. It needs to express the reason for being of today’s Jewish state, and our reason for supporting it. It must be a moral message, and emotionally powerful. It needs to make people get up and take action. And it must make them feel good about themselves for doing so.

The enemy has a story that is internally consistent and complete and couched in moral terms. It is also compelling; they are experts at appealing to emotions. Of course it is based on lies and told by terrorists, but once inside their conceptual scheme, it explains everything. Unfortunately, many Jews, even in Israel, accept the enemy’s narrative.

Individuals like my Canadian friend and unofficial groups can’t change this themselves. In today’s Jewish world, there is just one authoritative source, and that is the state of Israel. No matter what J Street, the Reform movement, the various Haredi sects, or the editorial board of Ha’aretz think, no one else can speak for the Jewish people. The state and its government must find its voice, amplify it, and transmit a consistent, powerful message in every language to every corner of the world (since everyone seems to think they know our business better than we do).

The message must include this:

The entire Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by historical, legal and moral right. Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem are not ‘occupied’, they are integral parts of the state. Palestinian Arab terrorists are insurgents trying to overthrow the legitimate sovereign.

The Jewish people has existed for thousands of years and is the original indigenous people of the land. The modern State of Israel was created to ensure the preservation of the Jewish people. The War of Independence and the struggle that led up to it were pursued to restore the self-determination of the Jewish people and prevent its domination or persecution by Western or Arab colonialists.

The borders of the Jewish state were inherited from the Mandate for Palestine, including Jerusalem, and the illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 did not diminish the legitimacy of these boundaries. The ‘Green Line’ has no political significance, as stated in the 1949 cease-fire agreements.

Israel may choose to cede some territory in return for reciprocal concessions, but the Palestinian Arabs have no inherent right to any part of the land of Israel.

This must be clearly articulated by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry and its employees. Our allies and enemies should understand that this is our position. It must be assumed as a starting point for any peace negotiations. Along with the historical facts that support it, it must be taught in schools and become common knowledge to Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel. The world needs to know: like it or not, this is where the Jews are coming from.

This position would have some diplomatic consequences. It implies that there is no legitimacy to an Arab right of return. It contradicts the “Arab initiative,” which blames Israel for the conflict and offers ‘normal relations’ in return for a complete reversal of the 1967 war and return or compensation for Arab refugees and their descendants. It implies that there is no rationale for ‘land swaps’, since there is no imputation of Arab ownership to land beyond the Green Line. It implies that settlements are legal.

It would also have important psychological and emotional impact. It represents a non-apologetic Zionist stance and presents the moral basis for the state. It does not accept guilt for the Arab nakba and does not ask us to compensate the Arabs for the consequences of their racism and aspirations to genocide. It makes it clear that our sacrifices are justified.

Those who are committed to the anti-Israel narrative won’t be converted to our position. But they can be challenged to try to refute it. And possibly our self-respect will favorably impress liberal Western Jews, many of whom who seem to have forgotten their identity.

Posted in Information war | 4 Comments

Obama’s going-away present

Posted on April 11, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

From time to time we hear that US President Obama hasn’t given up his plan to impose a solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now there is a hint of the way he may try to do it in his remaining months in office.

The Palestinian Authority has presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council which asserts that Israeli settlements in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” are “illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-state solution,” demands that Israel stop all “settlement activity” (including in eastern Jerusalem), and calls for the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians on “final status issues.” There is more, but these seem to be the important parts.

In 2011, a very similar resolution declaring settlements illegal was proposed to the security council. It garnered ‘yes’ votes from 14 out of 15 members, but was vetoed by the US. Ambassador Susan Rice said at the time that

…her country rejected in the strongest terms the legitimacy of settlement activity, which undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for a peace settlement.  There was an urgent need to resolve the situation through negotiations that would bring about a viable State of Palestine, she said, noting that her country had invested enormous efforts in that regard.  The only way to reach that goal was through sustained negotiations between the parties, with active international support, she continued.  The great impetus for democracy and reform in the Middle East made it all the more urgent to end “this bitter conflict.” [my emphasis]

Since 2011, Obama has become more and more frustrated that US efforts to get Israel and the Palestinians to sign an agreement have failed. But he has always maintained, as Rice’s statement implies, that the parties must reach an agreement between themselves.

That does not mean that the “active international support” can’t be coercive to some extent, and last month it was hinted that he might consider not vetoing a resolution declaring settlements illegal.

A typically anti-Israel Ha’aretz editorial called for Obama not to veto the new resolution:

The Palestinian resolution does not set out new conditions for the resumption of talks. It is supported by agreements and resolutions that the United Nations has already passed as well as remarks made by U.S. President Barack Obama over the years in favor of new talks and against continued building in the settlements. …

A veto of the latest resolution, which does not include a single clause that contradicts U.S. policy, would constitute a diplomatic and moral renunciation of the peace process. It would give Israel permission to continue its settlement policy and would heighten the Palestinians’ frustration and despair, which feed the terror attacks. [my emphasis]

I wonder if the wording of this editorial was inspired, suggested or even dictated by the Obama administration? Although it clearly does contradict US policy to have a UN resolution define the terms of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the administration might argue that, since it calls for negotiations, then the final agreement will ultimately be determined by the parties, not the UN.

In reality, the resolution forecloses options, such as “secure and recognized” (in the words of UNSCR  242) borders different from the Green Line, the establishment of some kind of autonomous region less than a sovereign state, or the continued presence of some settlements in Palestinian territory. It implies the forced relocation of some 500,000 Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem. It requires nothing from the Palestinians.

Most important, it enshrines the Arab narrative of the conflict.  It treats the 1967 war – a defensive war in which Israel recovered territory that was illegally taken and occupied for 19 years – as a war of aggression by Israel and punishes her for it! It is as if we are Germany in 1945.

The resolution would make it difficult for Israel to maintain – as she never has, but as historical fact, law and justice demand – that there is no occupation, and that Judea and Samaria are legitimate parts of Israel, which has inherited its borders from the original Palestine Mandate.

Nevertheless, Israel must take this position. She must argue her case that she has a legal right to the territories and Jerusalem, even if she intends to cede part of them to Palestinian control. Otherwise she is placed in the position of admitting that she is in possession of stolen property but begging to be allowed to keep it. Why would we expect anyone to support us if we call ourselves thieves?

Barack Obama has always insisted that he cares about Israel’s security, but it is also clear that he has always accepted the Arab view of the conflict. At this point, he has little to lose politically. Since 2011, his positions have hardened and his personal animus toward Benjamin Netanyahu has if anything gotten stronger.

What I expect is that he will present Israel with a choice: agree to some kind of framework that he dictates and begin negotiating on the basis of the framework, or have the parameters dictated by a UN resolution that this time he will not veto. There will probably also be pressure applied via the negotiations on the military aid memorandum that has been held up until now.

Israel will have a stark choice: knuckle under to the anti-Zionist president of the US and continue trying to delay the implementation of terms that will squeeze us bit by bit and ultimately destroy our state – or stand up and assert our historical, legal and moral title to the land of Israel, and face the consequences.

Posted in 'Peace' Process, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, US-Israel Relations | Comments Off on Obama’s going-away present

Why the excitement? Bahloul only represents his party.

Posted on April 10, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

Zouheir Bahloul is an Arab citizen of Israel, a member of the Knesset for the ‘Zionist Union’ (once called the Labor Party) and a former radio sportscaster.

A few days ago he ignited a furor by saying that the Palestinian Arab who stabbed a soldier and then was shot dead while lying wounded on the ground was “not a terrorist:”

I agree the stabber is a murderer, but he is not a terrorist. My problem is when this word becomes too inclusive and turns every Palestinian into a terrorist.

Well, of course every Palestinian isn’t a terrorist, but why wasn’t this one? Later Bahloul clarified his meaning, digging himself an even deeper hole:

Bahloul said Israeli soldiers were “a symbol of the occupation” for Palestinians and asked why Jewish groups fighting British soldiers during the Mandate area could be considered as fighting for their freedom while Palestinians could not.

“What can a Palestinian, suffocating under the yoke of occupation for 49 years, do in order regain his freedom? The soldiers are, for him, a symbol of the occupation. Before 1948 there was the British Mandate here. Etzel, Lehi and the other Jewish organizations went out to the street to fight British soldiers and build your state, which is an amazing state. Why are the Palestinians not allowed to do so?”

Bahloul was attacked for his remarks by the Right, the moderate Left and the Center, all of whom understand well that there is no way a Jewish Israel in which the soldiers are everyone’s sons and daughters will accept them being legitimate targets. PM Netanyahu said,

MK Bahloul’s comments are shameful. IDF soldiers protect us with their bodies from bloodthirsty murderers. I expect all Israeli citizens, and members of Knesset in particular, to give them their full support.

Bahloul’s own party criticized him aggressively as well. “His statement established that he is not part of the Zionist Union,” said MK Eitan Cabel.

I beg to differ, MK Cabel! Bahloul is just expressing the logical consequences of the position held by his party. As the psychotic extremist of Ha’aretz, Gideon Levy wrote, Bahloul is indeed an “honest Arab.” The real problem is not Bahloul’s logic and honesty, but rather the wholesale acceptance of the ‘occupation’ narrative, according to which Israeli Jews are ‘occupying’ a land which is not theirs, ruling over ‘another people’.

This is deeply embedded in the beliefs of both Arabs and left-of-center Israelis. Cabel and Bahloul’s Zionist Union fully embraces this narrative, even when their leader, Yitzhak Herzog, says that it is “unrealistic” to end the occupation today:

I don’t see a possibility at the moment of implementing the two-state solution. I want to yearn for it, I want to move toward it, I want negotiations, I sign on to it and I am obligated to it, but I don’t see the possibility of doing it right now.

The narrative does vary with regard to what is occupied. Bahloul’s mention of “49 years” marks him as a moderate occupationist, compared to most other Arabs who believe that the occupation goes back to 1948 and includes all of what the Jews call ‘Israel’.

The truth is that there is no occupation, except perhaps the ones operated by Hamas and the PLO in Gaza and Ramallah. The truth is that under international law, the borders of the state of Israel approximate those of the British Mandate, and its area was not reduced by the 19-year Jordanian occupation that ended in 1967. The truth is that the ‘Palestinian people’ is an artificial construct of very recent origin, developed in order to oppose Jewish self-determination in the land that was set aside for them in international law. Neither law nor justice is on the Arab side.

The ‘Palestinian’ who stabbed the soldier and was killed was therefore not a freedom fighter. He was an insurgent, a terrorist who is trying to overthrow a legitimate democratic sovereign in order to establish a racist apartheid state. Judging by Palestinian Arab propaganda in their official media and by their actions during the recent intifada, it would not be unreasonable to assume that their success would be accompanied by mass murder, if not genocide. This is hardly a just goal.

While it’s possible to understand why Arabs prefer the occupation narrative, it is hard for me to see why Jews – especially those who call themselves Zionists – would do so. Accepting it and, worse, negotiating with it as a basis, negates Zionism because it presupposes as a starting point that the Jews are here on land that belongs to the ‘Palestinians’, rather than the reverse.

A real solution to the problem of Jews and Arabs coexisting in close proximity can’t come from a historically incorrect narrative. In order to produce a just solution, we need to start with a correct description of the situation, including all of the historical, legal and demographic truths. And those are that Israel, a Jewish state of its indigenous inhabitants, holds the title to the land from the river to the sea; and that the Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous and not even a historic ‘people’.

I hope Bahloul will not be punished for his impudence in saying what Arabs think. Rather, this incident should serve as the starting point for a discussion about what Jews – particularly in a major ‘Zionist’ political party – think.

Posted in Israeli Arabs, Israeli Politics | 1 Comment

Can Jews and Arabs get along?

Posted on April 8, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

I never understood why the more radical Arab members of the Knesset behave so provocatively. Why did Haneen Zoabi take part in the 2010 Gaza flotilla? Why did she, along with her Balad colleagues Jamal Zahalka and Basel Ghattas visit the families of terrorists killed after murdering Jews and participate in a moment of silence for the ‘martyrs’? Why did her party and the Communist (mostly Arab) Hadash party condemn Arab states that declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization?

The simple answer is that they are anti-Zionist and these are anti-Zionist actions. But why so provocative? It has already made them a target of legislation designed to remove them from the Knesset, although it’s doubtful that such a law will pass in a form that would result in Arab MKs being banished, as they so richly deserve.

Gadi Taub, writing in Ha’aretz, argues that they are trying to provoke the Right to propose actions that are anti-democratic, which will cause a response from the Left that opposes the Jewish nature of the state. Thus, the result will be to negate both the democratic and Jewish aspects of the state. According to this view, both the Right and the Left are being manipulated.

I think the answer is more simple: they want to incite and infuriate both Jews and Arabs against each other, to destroy the possibility of coexistence between Israel’s Jews and the 20% of its population (not including Judea and Samaria) that are (mostly Muslim) Arabs. But this coexistence is necessary for the continued existence of the state.

20% is a large minority. France, with all of its troubles, has a Muslim minority of 7-9%; the UK hovers at about 5% and Germany at less than 4%. Given the hostility between ‘Palestinians’ and Israeli Jews, there is great potential for instability here. Politician Avigdor Lieberman has proposed transferring some of the most heavily-populated Arab areas of Israel to Palestinian Authority control in order to reduce the size of the minority (nobody would move; the proposal transfers the territory to the PA). The chances of this happening are infinitesimal, since the Arabs that live there strongly oppose it.

Meir Kahane thought that the present situation was unsustainable. He pointed to a higher birthrate among the Arab population. But since then, with increased education and development in the Arab sector, the Arab and Jewish birthrates have tended to converge.

A 2013 survey showed that 53% of Israel’s Arab citizens recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. That sounds encouraging until you think about the other 47%. Nevertheless, in the recent wave of terrorism (up to March 27) which includes 338 stabbings, shootings and vehicular attacks, only a few were perpetrated by Arab citizens of Israel. Most of the terrorists were residents of Judea/Samaria or eastern Jerusalem. While Arab citizens may pay lip service to anti-Zionism, they are far less militant than their cousins in the territories.

Although the narrative of Palestinian victimization is strongly established among Arab citizens of Israel, most appreciate the practical benefits of being a minority in a functioning state rather than a majority in a failed one. They have eyes and ears and are aware of the conditions in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

They do believe strongly that they are victims of discrimination in Israel. To a great extent this is exaggerated. Consumption levels for Arabs and Jews in Israel are quite similar, and large sums of government aid go to Arab municipalities. There is a great deal of corruption in the Arab towns and cities, which results in a lower level of service to their population. But this is not because the national government discriminates against Arabs. There is also a problem of crime and illegal weapons, and in this case the complaints are justified. The police have had a hands-off attitude, which has allowed crime to flourish. The new head of the Israel police has promised to take action.

Last year the Hamas-linked Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel was outlawed because of its incitement of violence on the false grounds that Israel was endangering the al-Aksa mosque, a perennial favorite of Muslim Israel-haters since at least 1920. Several terrorists attributed their actions to their concern for the mosque and the Temple Mount.

Much propaganda against Israel turns on the supposed discrimination against Arab citizens. Recently a right-wing member of the Knesset, Betzalel Smotrich,  was severely criticized for saying that maternity wards should separate Jewish and Arab mothers because his wife didn’t want to be disturbed by Arab haflot [parties] in the rooms, and that today’s Arab baby might become tomorrow’s terrorist. Naturally, this was picked up with glee by those who seek anything negative about Israel, but his statement was widely derided, including by the head of his party.

Foreign funders like the American New Israel Fund and the EU fund a number of organizations (e.g., Adalah, Mossawa Center) which allegedly defend the rights of Arabs in Israel, but actually are trying to create discord between Jews and Arabs, as well as to promulgate the usual propaganda which accuses Israel of racism and bias.

All of this represents another line of attack against the Jewish state, focusing on its internal behavior rather than its relations with ‘Palestinians’ living in Judea and Samaria, or its alleged ‘disproportionate’ response to Hamas rockets and tunnels.

The potential for chaos if there were a widespread Arab revolt is very great. But on the other hand, good relations between Jews and Arabs could be a powerful  tool for Israel in its effort to fight delegitimization. Not much can be done with the PLO, whose reason for being has always been to destroy Israel. But mutual understanding – or at least mutual acceptance – can be achieved with our Arab citizens.

The government was right in banning the Islamic movement, the flow of foreign money to hostile Arab NGOs should be stopped, the police should make serious anti-crime efforts in Arab towns, and Smotrich should shut up and keep his nastiness to himself. The calculated actions of Zoabi and company are nothing less than treason, and should be treated as such.

Jews and Arabs can get along. They must. Both groups would suffer from the alternative.

Posted in Israeli Arabs | 1 Comment

A geography lesson

Posted on April 3, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

There is a groundswell of support in Israel for the soldier that shot a ‘neutralized’ terrorist as he lay on the ground. Although he has been arrested and may be tried for manslaughter or at least violating rules of engagement, the spirit of the country is with him.

The usual suspects, like Gideon Levy, think that the soldier (and the country) are “monsters.” They are wrong. They are making a mistake in geography. They haven’t noticed that Israel is located in the Middle East; or, having noticed, they would prefer it to be elsewhere, like Europe. But you see how well that has worked out for Europe!

Liberal American Jews make a similar mistake. They would like Israel to be in California. I don’t think that would work out so well, either.

Israel is a Middle-Eastern country. An exceptional one, with highly advanced science and technology and a decent economy and a relatively free and democratic system of governance. But Middle-Eastern nevertheless.

I don’t know why Levy and his ilk are so surprised. Half of the population has recent roots in Arab countries. Our religion and ethical principles developed here, even though they took something from the years of Diaspora. Since before the founding of our state, our neighbors have been teaching us about life in the Middle East the hard way.

Herzl thought Altneuland would be a more tolerant version of Germany, but that isn’t what happened. Not surprising, actually.

Honor is important in the Middle East. Families and clans are important in the Middle East. The Jewish people is in a sense a large clan (the ‘Palestinians’ would like to be a people in that sense, but they don’t have the history. They are trying to make it up).

In the last 6 months or so 34 Israeli Jews (and several Arabs) have been murdered on our streets, in stores and homes, and at bus stops. The murders have been incited by official and social Palestinian media. The killers try especially hard to kill soldiers and police, particularly young women. Tacit (and sometimes overt) approval comes from the Palestinian Authority, as well as support and admiration for the murderers. To the disgust of Levy and friends, our human, Jewish and Middle Eastern response has been “when they rise up to kill you, kill them first.”

Levy and others have a vision of a secular, Western state, a state in which the protection of the rights of Arabs – even while they are trying to kill us – takes priority over the pain of their victims. This might work in a place like the US or Germany with their resources and power – although the signs of decay there are becoming more and more evident – but it does not fly in a tiny Middle Eastern country surrounded by enemies.

Levy writes: “The People of Israel lives, and will continue to do so, its country is strong and steadfast and it will apparently survive forever. But this place will become impossible and intolerable for anyone who thinks differently.”

He is correct.

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Society, Terrorism | 1 Comment

To defeat the jihad, our moral code must evolve

Posted on April 1, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

The case of the soldier who killed a wounded terrorist continues to create a political storm in Israel. In my last post, I noted that if in fact the soldier did not have good reason to believe that the terrorist had a suicide belt, then he violated IDF orders that a wounded terrorist who does not pose a risk should not be harmed. As more information becomes available, I am becoming more and more persuaded that the position taken by army officials and Minister of Defense Ya’alon is correct in a narrow sense: the soldier’s action was not legally justified.

But the problem is not the soldier, although he will probably be punished. How can you have an army where soldiers can violate orders and not be punished?

The problem is the orders. The problem is that we are at a point in time when the moral principles that are supposed to guide our behavior have come into conflict with the demands of the geopolitical environment in which we must survive.

Jonathan Haidt argues persuasively that moral principles seem to us to be intuitively true, and then we try to justify them. We do this sometimes with rational arguments and with appeals to authority, including, in the case of Jews, the Torah and writings of the Sages. But the ultimate source of the intuitive feeling of rightness attached to laws like “do not murder” develops from an evolutionary process. Humans are clever, and they find ways to show how reason and authority justify what they intuitively ‘know’. But this happens after the fact.

A human culture creates a consensus for those moral principles that promote the survival of the culture. These values become part of the way people perceive the actions of others. They become intuitive. Cultures that internalize the wrong principles die out.

Like any evolutionary process, moral evolution takes place in response to environmental pressures. When the environment changes, existing principles and the rules that are derived from them have to change too. This is similar to what happens in biological evolution. If a population of animals or plants living in a particular region experiences a severe change in climate, either it adapts, moves or dies out.

Today Western cultures are under attack by an Islamic jihad. The Jewish people, who share many characteristics with both the West and the Islamic world, are also a target of the jihad. Unlike the short, intense wars of the 20th century, the jihad is prosecuting a long, low-level conflict which occasionally bursts into flame along the extensive seam between the Islamic world and the West. Israel is right on this seam, and because of both its ties to the West and the Jewish people’s historical relationship to Islam, it is a flashpoint for violence.

This conflict, which has affected Jews in the Land of Israel almost since the birth of Islam, has become part of the environment in which the Jewish people lives. The importance of compulsory military service to Israeli culture is just one of the ways the conflict shapes the fabric of our lives.

In the West – Europe and North America – cultural evolution has moved in a different direction than in Israel. Since 1945, it has been touched little by war, and the greatest challenge (especially in North America) has been dealing with what has been called ‘affluenza’, the disease of having too much of everything.

The wars of the 20th century were blamed on nationalism and ethnic particularism, and the reaction elevated values of universalism, empathy, equality, and concern for all humans over concern for one’s own group. In America, the old hierarchies changed drastically after WWII, which led directly to the civil rights movement, spawning a whole new moral vocabulary.

Israel, being a mixture of the West with the Middle East, has absorbed a certain amount of the new Western morality. But both the influence of more traditional Jewish beliefs and the reality of the conflict have resulted in a sharp divergence of attitudes. This was thrown into sharp relief by the affair of the soldier, which has given rise to both extreme condemnations of his act, and demonstrations in his favor.

There is a contradiction between the official position of the Army and government, which wish to be aligned with the ‘enlightened’ West, and the reality of the conflict. In this case, enlightenment means that once a terrorist has been rendered harmless, a soldier must instantly stop seeing him as a target for possibly deadly force, and instead see an injured human being that should receive medical treatment.

Under the best of conditions, it’s a difficult for a person to make this transition, but a conflict in which terror attacks are a daily occurrence and in which the soldiers that must respond are also a target of them makes it harder. Since the soldiers are not an isolated segment of the population as in the West, but are conscripts who are everyone’s children, it’s easy to understand the fury in the streets and on social media.

This is exacerbated by the strategy of the jihadists to exploit Israel’s concern for fighting according to moral principles in order to inflict more damage. So they attack our civilian population and use their own as human shields. They take advantage of Israel’s humanitarian aid for the population of Gaza to divert materials to build attack tunnels. And they take advantage of the propensity of the West to empathize with them – at the same time that other jihadists kill westerners in their own countries – to get them to apply pressure to Israel to fight back less aggressively.

What is happening is that the moral principles of the West, developed in an age of relative peace and affluence, weaken the society that espouses them when they must confront the Islamic jihad. This is seen quite clearly not only in Israel, but in Europe where the fabric of society is currently being torn by an invasion of Muslim migrants, who are actually being welcomed by some of their governments and elites.

In order to survive, a culture must adapt to its changing environment. Israel, unlike Europe, still has a strong particularist strain. In Europe, healthy nationalism has been snuffed out, decried as ‘right-wing extremism’, leaving only the true extremists to carry the banner of the Right. In Israel, Zionism – Jewish nationalism – isn’t dead, although the Left would like to kill it.

Israel can defeat the jihad, but in order to do so it has to adopt what the Left would call a more ‘primitive’ code of ethics, but in fact one that is adapted to the life-and-death struggle we are in. It should place the protection of all of our people, including soldiers, above all other considerations.

It would be better if we didn’t have to do this. It would be wonderful if we could cooperate with the Palestinian Arabs – there could be an economic miracle that everyone could participate in. Palestinian children could become scientists, doctors, or teachers of something other than hate. But that isn’t the world we live in. We live in a place where it is either us or them. They are killing our soldiers, our mothers and fathers and grandmothers. Even the young ones are taught to kill. We have to stop them, whatever it takes.

If we don’t evolve, we will be erased from history like the dinosaurs.

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Terrorism | Comments Off on To defeat the jihad, our moral code must evolve

Western morality and Islamic jihad

Posted on March 27, 2016 by Victor Rosenthal

Two Palestinian terrorists stabbed and moderately injured a member of Israel’s Kfir brigade in Hevron Thursday. One was killed immediately; the other was lying wounded on the ground.

Some time later the wounded terrorist was killed by a shot to the head by another soldier. This was caught on video by several witnesses. The soldier has been arrested and may be charged with murder, on the grounds that the terrorist was already ‘neutralized’ and no danger to anyone. The soldier argues that the terrorist was moving (this is visible on the video) and that he believed that he was wearing a suicide belt which he could have detonated at any moment.

On a second video, recorded some time before the shooting, a voice is heard ordering that no one (medical personnel were present) should touch the terrorist until the demolition expert arrives, since he may be wearing a suicide belt. The terrorist is seen wearing a heavy jacket on a hot day, which supports the soldier’s defense.

Some Israeli politicians, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense have made statements sharply critical of the shooting. PM Netanyahu said that what occurred “didn’t represent the values of the IDF.”

Several officers who were present have been reprimanded for not ensuring that the terrorist received prompt medical attention.

Those are the facts in broad outline.

I want to look at this from several points of view. First, as it relates to the demonization of the IDF, which has been accused of ‘executing’ Palestinians and even planting knives on their bodies to justify killing them. Second, the moral aspect.

Now that the soldier has been arrested – and his supporters say, tried by politicians in the media – there are two possible outcomes, both bad. He can be convicted and punished severely, in which case those who claim that the IDF murders Palestinians will be vindicated, and the ‘fact’ that the IDF kills terrorists after they have ceased being a threat will become part of the conventional wisdom. Or, he could be exonerated or only lightly punished, in which case they will say that a corrupt system has whitewashed a clear case of murder.

Need I say that the officials who made public statements based on the initial video should have known better? It isn’t the first time: when 12 year old Muhammad al-Dura was allegedly shot by IDF soldiers in September 2000, the IDF was quick to apologize. Later it turned out that the incident was probably the most damaging case of a ‘Pallywood’ production ever; al-Dura was probably not shot at all by anyone, and could not possibly have been shot by the IDF.

It seems that some of our leadership is so concerned about Israel’s image in foreign media that they tend to jump at the chance to agree that we are as bad as they say we are and beg forgiveness. It should be obvious that this is a losing strategy.

It’s also necessary to blame the foreign-funded B’Tselem NGO which publicized the video and inflamed the Israeli and foreign media. Had they simply turned it over to the army the incident would have been investigated and the soldier punished (or not). B’Tselem insured that it would become an international scandal.

***

The moral aspects of the case are more interesting. If the soldier had good reason to believe that the wounded terrorist had a suicide belt or weapon under his heavy jacket and was capable of using it, then he would have been justified in shooting. I expect that this will be discussed and re-discussed in the near future. But what if he didn’t believe this? Is there any way in which his action could be justified? IDF rules of engagement say no. According to protocol, once a terrorist is neutralized, he should be given medical treatment, not killed.

I think rules of engagement like this are a mistake. I think that we (the West) have adopted an inappropriate set of moral standards. Let me explain.

Everyone knows that moral judgments are different from factual ones, which can be compared to reality as we experience it. Moral judgments are based on standards that a culture develops in an evolutionary way, and different cultures develop different standards. What is admirable for an ISIS fighter may not be acceptable for an American or an Israeli. This doesn’t mean that the various standards and cultures are equal – some of them produce happiness and reduce suffering, while others do the opposite.

Moral rules have some limitations. A moral system becomes incoherent when following it leads to the destruction of the culture that created it. A moral rule that forbade having children could not be maintained – either the rule would be disobeyed or the culture that promulgated it would disappear.

Western culture and its moral systems have changed greatly in the decades after WWII, in part as a result of the trauma of the two world wars. Suddenly nationalism or any kind of ethnic particularism are looked at as dangerous and evil. Tolerance and appreciation of other cultures, even when their mores and behavior place them in opposition to our moral principles, is good. ‘Racism’, defined as oppression of one culture by another (and there are specific rules about who can be an oppressor and who a victim) is the greatest sin.

Part of this revolution in thinking is a wholly new way of looking at conflict, which would have been incomprehensible in years past. The idea is that conflict is simply a result of imperfect communication and lack of empathy; and that therefore the best response to an attack is to prevent the attacker from hurting you while hurting him as little as possible. Meanwhile, a solution has to come from improving communication which will inevitably lead to understanding of each side’s point of view and thence to successful compromise.

While this might make sense (sometimes) within a Western culture, it often fails when we confront a different culture. For example, how can we ‘understand’ the radical Islamist’s belief that the only morally acceptable options for a Jew or Christian are to convert to Islam, accept dhimmitude, or die? How can we empathize or walk in his shoes, so to speak?

Nevertheless, we have developed a set of international institutions – the UN is a primary example – that are based on this concept, and a set of rules for behavior as well. Both the institutions and rules fail when they are applied to cultures that do not accept their basic premises.

In particular, rules of warfare based on the behavior of relatively civilized nations give an advantage to those who fight by violating them. Such groups deliberately attack civilian populations, use their own as human shields and seek to terrorize their enemies with an excess of brutality. Indeed, the various jihadist organizations have carefully studied the West and its moral principles and have developed a system of warfare that exploits them to negate the West’s technological, organizational and logistic superiority.

The Islamic jihad against the West has not been taken as seriously as it should because of the relative lack of technological sophistication of its weapons (at least, until Iran’s nuclear development bears fruit). Instead of total war in which the combatants enlist the greater part of their economies and build huge well-equipped armies, today’s conflict is of lower intensity. But unlike the great wars of the 20th century in which the sides were exhausted after a few years, it will go on for decades.

Some of the jihad’s best strategic offensives haven’t even been strictly military. The recent successful invasion of Europe is an important battle that the jihad has won, even if the West doesn’t realize it yet. A great part of the reason for its success is that it is taking advantage of a moral code in which migrants – invaders – are provided with benefits instead of being expelled.

Western moral principles in general, and the view of conflict that we have based our rules of engagement upon, have turned out to be what I called incoherent. If we follow them, they will lead to the destruction of our culture, just as surely as if we made it immoral to have children. They are therefore not acceptable guides for behavior.

In order to survive, we must adopt a different world-view, one that – just as a small example – embraces the Talmudic principle that “when they rise up to kill you, come and kill them first” and rejects the idea that “terrorists are people too.”

Survival will require a more particularistic world-view in which our culture is considered more worthy of continuing than theirs. In this view, enemies are enemies, people to fight, not empathize with. If they try to kill our civilian populations, we must kill theirs too. Deterrence comes from fear, and fear is created by disproportionate responses, not offers to surrender territory. Honor – a concept that has been all but forgotten by the West – is of supreme importance to the jihadists, and we must maintain ours. A man or a nation without honor becomes a target. Killing terrorists who have tried to murder our people, whether on the spot (preferable) or with a sure and speedy death penalty, is a way of preserving our honor.

This kind of moral system is not barbarism. It was commonly accepted several decades ago, and would have been recognized by Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Thatcher. The ‘evolution’ of what we call morality since their day, which has brought us multiculturalism, post-colonialism, the insane political correctness in our universities, the UN Human Rights Commission, B’Tselem and Peace Now, has failed to stand against the assault of the Islamic jihad. It will not protect our culture, but rather will lead to its destruction at the hands of the true barbarians at our gates.

It’s time for a massive rethinking. Is it even possible that the West can turn itself around, can re-embrace the values that defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? And can it change attitudes and behavior in time to save itself? I have no idea.

But I suggest we start here in Israel by dropping the charges against the soldier who simply did the job of every soldier from the beginning of warfare: he killed the enemy.

Posted in Terrorism, War | 3 Comments