French
German
Hebrew
Noruegan
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Polish
Portuguese
PART ONE: OVERVIEW
Throughout the years of the Obama administration and the Bush administration before it, Israel faced diplomatic and political pressures of growing intensity which reinforced long preexisting demands for concessions that would compromise its national security and even its ability to defend itself. These demands are stated as matters of “universal principle” and are accepted as such by a considerable section of the Israeli public and opinion-makers, even though no such demands are made of other nations in a similar position. Moreover, no account is taken of the history of hostility of Israel’s neighbors to its very existence.
The pressures from France and the UN Secretary-General
In January, 2016.France issued Israel an ultimatum threatening to recognize the State of Palestine if the peace talks France is trying to arrange fail to resolve the conflict.1 This is tantamount to a demand that Israel capitulate to all the demands of the Palestinians, unconditionally and unilaterally. It would give the Palestinians just the incentive they need to continue to reject any compromise and even to make new demands. What possible reason could there be to make Israel disgorge the fruits of its victories in the defensive wars in which it has had to engage in exchange for empty words about “Israel’s legitimate security interests”? Who will secure those interests? France? But seriously!
The United Nations Secretary-General of that time, Ban Ki-Moon, is of the same mind. In the same month, January of 2016, he, too, placed the entire onus of reaching a settlement on the Israelis, claiming, among other things, “ . . . as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”2
This presupposes that the “Occupation” is the cause of the violent hatred and extremism. The history of the conflict shows this to be untrue. The violent hatred goes back to the very beginnings of Jewish return to the Land of Israel in the mid-nineteenth century. The Arabs’ violent hatred and extremism is the cause of the Occupation, not the effect. The West Bank and Gaza could have been completely self-governing long ago, were it not for their constant attacks on Israel and frequently expressed desire to annihilate Israel. Indeed, “the occupation” would never have happened if the Arab states had not decided, in 1967, to destroy the state of Israel by waging a war of genocide.
Ban’s statement also assumes that the violent hatred and extremism would disappear if the occupation were to end. Yet every concession Israel has made in the “peace process,” every patch of ground relinquished has been used by the Palestinians to murder Jews and attack Israel. The periods of the greatest violence have coincided precisely with the most intense “political process,” accompanied by the most Israeli concessions.
The world’s ruling elite are perfectly aware that this is the case but they persist in this false concept. Israeli leaders persist in ineffectually whining about it instead of devising an active strategy to counter it. That is the goal of this effort.
Since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, in January, 2017, the USA has had an administration extraordinarily disposed toward Israel. That might be reality, but it too embraces the “peace process” which inevitably will call for additional permanent Israeli concessions to a party which has never negotiated in good faith and has never fulfilled a single treaty commitment, all for concessions which the other side can withdraw in a moment. Even if President Trump is really what he appears to be, the deeply entrenched Arabist foreign policy establishment at the State Department, Defense Department and the think tanks will resist the change powerfully and will most likely also outlast the Trump presidency. Indeed, the Europeans have warned Israel and the Democratic Party leaders have warned the Jews that “Trump will not be President forever” and, implicitly, the anti-Israel foreign policy establishment will still be there and will still set the policy imperative that Israel will have to accommodate. This is discussed below.
The threat from Iran
Israeli leaders habitually, even reflexively, look for support to the United States, whom they regard as Israel’s “indispensable ally.” The US currently has, in Donald Trump, a President extraordinarily sympathetic toward Israel but America has not been the ally Israelis believe it to be, as will be shown. It is not only the Obama administration but also others that have been singularly hostile toward Israel.
Under the leadership of the previous US President, Barack Obama, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the “P5+1”) capitulated to Iran and entered into a “deal” that paves the way to nuclear weapons capability while releasing approximately $150 billion of frozen assets to the ayatollahs plus hundreds of billions under other pretexts. This money is being used, as has so much of Iran’s wealth already, to arm Iran and its allies with the most advanced, destructive weapons systems and to finance terrorist organizations inimical to world peace and to Israel specifically. Furthermore, the P5+1 have also committed themselves to be the first line of defense of Iran’s nuclear program against attack or sabotage. Moreover, that commitment is not at all reciprocal. To put it another way, the United States of America, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany allied themselves with Iran against Israel. That is not an entirely new phenomenon,3 but it is out in the open. The election of Donald Trump as President changes this picture only temporarily.
Moreover, the policy of the Obama Administration was not aberrational. It is consistent with the historical policies of the State Department and the whole American foreign policy establishment, as will be shown in Part Four, below. Most American Presidents have put on a friendly face toward Israel but the State Department and the American foreign policy establishment have never been of such a mind.
The shower of wealth that Iran now enjoys also happens to be just as inimical to Western civilization, by the way. Iranian missiles threaten not only Israel, but also threaten Europe and America. For instance, immediately upon signing the deal, Iran arranged to purchase from China 150 Chengdu J-10 jet fighters, comparable to the US F-16. Iran also ordered 250 advanced Sukhoi-Su-30MK1 fighters from Russia, as well as 100 in-flight refueling planes.4 Those are not needed to attack Israel. They are needed to attack far larger, more distant enemies.
For more than a generation, Iran has operated a school curriculum that indoctrinates every school student to make war on the US, the UK, and the West, making Teheran’s intentions crystal clear.5 The school curriculum appears in a study of Iranian schools undertaken during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently the ruling elites and the opinion makers in America and Europe do not feel threatened. In fact, they appear to have decided to surrender to Islamic tyranny and they seem to want Iran to destroy Israel. The leaders of Europe and the Democratic Party are not wrong. Trump will not be President forever and Europe will still hate Israel and the Jews, long after Trump’s presidency ends.
Intelligence-sharing with the West must end
From the point of view of Israel’s security, it is irrational even to consider exchanging intelligence with any of the P5+1, including the U.S. America has already betrayed Israeli trust by trumpeting allegations of Israeli arrangements with Azerbaijan to fly missions against Iran’s nuclear facilities6 and by publicizing Israeli-American collaboration in the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran,7 to name just two instances. Israel must assume that any information disclosed to the U.S. will be passed on to the Iranians, if not during the Trump years, then sometime in the future. President Trump’s time in office is limited but that is not true of the State Department or the anti-Israel, pro-Arab officials embedded in the foreign policy, defense and intelligence agencies of the government. Hostile administrations have held office before and it can be expected that there will be others, especially seeing the strength of the resistance in the government to Trump’s policy changes.
Israel must also assume that anti-aircraft or anti-missile weaponry aboard American warships anchored off Israel’s coast are there to protect Iran from Israeli aircraft and missiles taking off rather than to protect Israel against Iranian missiles or aircraft coming in, if not presently, then sometime in the future.
Similarly, continuation of intelligence-sharing would be suicidal, not only because the United States entered into an alliance with Iran that obliges it to defend Iran’s nuclear project from attack or sabotage and Israel is now seen as the enemy. That can be remedied by President Trump cancelling the agreement. The foreign policy establishment, however, will continue to nurture its anti-Israel mold and will lie in wait for the day when Trump is gone and it can return to form.
Intelligence staring would be suicidal also because the Palestinian Authority, which is the PLO, has been accepted as a member of Interpol and will have access to everything reported. Nothing can be divulged to the U.S. because it will be shared with the Palestinian Authority and will be used to protect Israel’s enemies, especially Iran. And no information received from the American authorities can be trusted because, unless the source is a trusted individual in a friendly Administration, Israel must presume that the goal of its disclosure to protect Israel’s enemies, including Iran.
The same goes for the American military bases on Israeli territory. Immediately upon promulgation of the arrangement with Iran, they should have been deemed to be hostile and ordered removed. They are allegedly only weapons depots, but no Israeli contractor had any part in their construction and no Israelis are permitted on those bases. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been quite vocal about the dangers posed by Iran and the agreement but he never acted with respect to the American bases in a manner consistent with those warnings
PART TWO: U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS’ PROTECTION OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
That Western leadership is empowering the ayatollahs to destroy Israel should come as no surprise. The governments of the U.S. and the West in general have been empowering the enemies of Israel for years and have helped to preserve terrorist organizations operating against Israel. Those American administrations were not all considered to be unfriendly.
- The Reagan Administration saved the PLO from annihilation in 1982, when it pressured Israel to agree to allow Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Army to leave Lebanon for Tunisia. The American and French governments even provided the PLO with a military escort! It was the Reagan Administration that began to dialogue openly with the PLO and put pressure on Israel to bring the PLO into Israeli-held territory,8 a move later accomplished under the Clinton Administration.
- The administration of President George H. W. Bush (the elder) used Israel’s sudden need for funding to absorb the sudden rush of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union as leverage, holding up loan guarantees until Israel agreed to commence a “peace process” in Madrid. The goal of that “peace process” was to empower the PLO enormously by bringing the PLO and its Palestine Liberation Army from relatively harmless isolation in Tunisia into the heartland of Israel, where it has done unprecedented damage to Israel ever since.
- In 1999, the Clinton Administration interfered massively in the Israeli elections, financing Ehud Barak’s campaign and sending Clinton’s top campaign advisors to direct the Barak campaign against Netanyahu in order to “advance the peace process.” In practice, what that meant was to empower the PLO even further. In fairness, Netanyahu has also favored the Oslo Process, but with reluctance, whether real or feigned, and not with apparent alacrity.
- It was Ehud Barak’s alacrity for concessions to “advance the peace process” that led directly to the so-called the “Second Intifada”, in 2002, with buses full of innocent passengers being blown up, drive-by shootings in the cities, and finally a hotel in Netanya bombed on Passover seder night that finally led to Israel taking action against the PLO terrorists. The administration of George W. Bush (the younger) intervened to prevent the destruction of the PLO and preserve it as a fighting force.
- In the summer of 2014, during Israel’s war against Gaza’s Hamas terrorism, President Obama moved to preserve Hamas and its attack tunnels from destruction. Obama stopped “leading from behind” and moved resolutely to confront the danger that Israel might eliminate Hamas as a coherent fighting force able to regroup, rearm, and rebuild its terrorist forces to fight another day. The U.S. banned civilian flights to Israel when a single Hamas rocket landed about a mile from Ben-Gurion Airport. Professor EugeneKontrovich, an expert in international law, pointed out that far more dangerous and more imminent attacks have taken place at Pakistani airports and never resulted in a ban on aviation to those airports.9
- Obama also sold $11 billion worth of sophisticated armaments to Qatar10 (Hamas’ principal donor and sponsor).11 Qatar, a long-time promoter of the Muslim Brotherhood, along with its formidable media arm, Al-Jazeera, supports Hamas and other terrorist organizations, such as ISIS and various Al Qaeda affiliates. It is not even imaginable that none of those armaments will be supplied to Hamas.
The striving to preserve Arab terrorist organizations from destruction by Israel is consistent with American policy going back much further. What was new about Obama’s move to close Israel’s only international airport was that no spin was even offered to present it as being in the interest of peace and, therefore, even remotely in Israel’s best interest. It obviously had no connection to peace but was a move openly hostile to Israel for the purpose of imposing a ceasefire on Israel which would leave Hamas in a position in which it could close down Israel’s only international airport at any time in order to force Israel to accept its demands. Although the airport reopened the next day, the point had been made and the threat was clear: “I can shut down your economy with one phone call.” Danger to civil aviation was not the consideration, the proof being that flights were resumed although the “danger to civil aviation” remained unchanged. Caroline Glick writes, “During Operation Protective Edge in July 2014, [Senator Ted] Cruz used his authority as a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to force the Obama administration to end the Federal Aviation Commission’s ban on US flights to Ben-Gurion Airport. Cruz announced at the time that he would put a hold on all State Department appointments until the administration justified the flight ban.”12
PART THREE: THE TRUE GOAL OF THE “PEACE PROCESS” IS TO CONCEAL THE ROLE OF THE WEST IN ISRAEL’S DESTRUCTION
Israelis have seen, with a clarity burned into their minds, that the “two-state solution” is a deception and a delusion. To be truly a solution, a two-state solution has to be based on a mutual commitment to coexistence but most of the Arab countries, and in particular, the Palestinians, have categorically and consistently refused to coexist with Israel.
The ruling elites of the world have always been fully aware of this. One can only assume that they, too, like the Arab Muslim adversaries whom they constantly seek to empower, would like to see Israel’s destruction. They need someone else do it for them, though. After the Holocaust, it would be loathsome to appear to be picking up the Nazi flag of Jew-hatred. This is the character of the Allied Powers Holocaust. They cannot bear to do it with their own hands but they will cooperate fully and enthusiastically with the Arabs or anyone else who wants to do the job. And there is no shortage of Arabs and other Muslims who want nothing more than to be the willing executioners.
There is no point, therefore, in pointing out the hypocrisy of the world in condemning Israel for Arab civilian deaths and injuries that result from attacking Hamas military positions inside civilian installations in Gaza, even though placement of military positions among civilians is condemned as a war crime under international humanitarian law.13 It is legally absurd and morally repugnant to maintain that the commission of a war crime should confer immunity from return fire. International law does not do that.14 International law places the blame for civilian casualties squarely on the party using civilians as shields. The institutions which assume the mantle of “conscience of the world” nevertheless hold Israel responsible, willfully applying rules to Israel different from those applied to every other country.
This is the hypocrisy of a world that condemns Israel for lack of success of the “peace process” while overlooking Arab intransigence, the lack of any Palestinian counter-offer — ever, other than a demand for capitulation to Palestinian demands without any commitment to end hostilities, and continuous incitement to terrorism and murder by the leadership of the PLO/Fatah, in the guise of the Palestinian Authority. (Fatah is the dominant member of the PLO, which became the Palestinian Authority. They are one and the same.)
The world’s decision-makers do not care whether the Arabs live up to even a single commitment which they have ostensibly undertaken in their agreements with Israel, nor whether they will ever live at peace with Israel or even amend their organizations’ charters no longer to call for the destruction of the State of Israel and annihilation of the Jewish population.
There is a reason why they do not care. The ruling elites and the international media know that the Oslo Process is not about peace and it never was. That is just the deceptive packaging to make it compellingly desirable to the Jews. A simple reading of the PLO Charter15 and the founding documents of Hamas16 and Fatah17 makes the true intentions of the Arab side crystal clear.
The goal of the “peace process,” therefore, is plainly the dismemberment and demoralization of Israel and its reduction to indefensible borders, so that the Arabs can deliver the coup de grâce attempted in 1948 and continue the Holocaust by annihilating its Jewish population.
Regardless of what conditions prevail, the only solution that the world’s ruling elite tries to impose is Israeli withdrawal, Israeli concessions, Israeli humiliation. There is always a superficially plausible “reason” for this, of course.
- If the Arabs are waging a war of terrorism, ceding them territory and rights will assuage them and result in peaceful behavior. As has been seen by the forced Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, nothing could be further from the truth.
- If the Palestinians are calling for victory through diplomatic means instead of through military victory, then Israel has to reward this “peaceful” behavior by ceding territory, financing the Palestinians and even arming them, and allowing the Americans and the Europeans to train their so-called “security forces.”
One way or the other, as the ruling elite of the world sees it, Israel must accede to the Palestinians’ demands. In their view, “peace” requires an Arab victory and the deadlock can be broken only if Israel makes even more concessions than it already has, especially those that empower the Arab terrorists, enabling them to acquire more strategic positions and more advanced weaponry. If this is not the case, why did President Obama demand that Israel release convicted terrorists, in exchange for nothing but the grudging agreement of Mahmoud Abbas to grace a negotiating table with his presence? What American interest is served unless the very humiliation and degradation of Israel are in America’s interest?
The fact that the destruction of Israel is the ultimate goal of Western diplomacy is illustrated even more clearly by the Iran deal, which obligates the United States and the rest of the P5+1 to serve Iran as its first line of defense against attack or sabotage of its nuclear project.18 This proviso, contained in Annex III to the agreement, reveals the true intent of the United States and the rest of the P5+1. By accepting this proviso, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany allied themselves with Israel’s most implacable enemy, despite the fact that it vows daily to destroy not just Israel (including its Arab inhabitants, both Muslim and Christian) but the United States as well in a nuclear conflagration. The clear obligation to defend Iran makes hostility to Israel’s very existence undeniable. Donald Trump’s presidency is limited to eight years. The anti-Israel foreign policy establishment will be in place long after Donald Trump is out of office.
PART FOUR: THE HISTORY OF WESTERN HOSTILITY TO ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE
In fact, Western hostility to Israel has a long history.
The Nazis passed a death sentence on the Jews in 1942, and the ruling elites of the world willingly accepted it. Every country in the world was fully complicit in the Holocaust, either by actively aiding it or by refusing to do the slightest thing to mitigate or avert it.
- Bomb the gas chambers in the extermination camps or the rail lines leading to them? Even though targets only a few kilometers away from Auschwitz were bombed, Britain and the U.S. could not spare a single bomb to impede the mass murder of Jews.
- Doors of refuge? All were closed. The democracies slammed the gates shut. Ships filled with refugees were left to sink. A Canadian government minister, when asked how many Jewish refugees Canada could take into the empty vastness of its territory, replied “None is too many.”19
The Nazi death sentence was never rescinded, not even after Germany’s defeat, and the world’s rulers do not care who tries to carry it out. The Western powers are only outraged when Israel defends itself. After all, someone under sentence of death has no right of self-defense. Just as the Allied Powers were complicit in the Holocaust, so too were they complicit in what was intended to be its continuation in the guise of approval of Israeli independence.
The unstated purpose of United Nations’ approval of the creation of the State of Israel was to enable the slaughter of the 600,000 Jews who had “cheated” the gas chambers by living in the Land of Israel. If this is a shocking idea, the evidence is nevertheless clear.
I do not mean all of the countries which voted for partition but certainly Britain intended that outcome and certainly the US State Department, Defense Department and the American “foreign policy establishment” espoused that result, although they opposed partition. I have no evidence that Britain or the American State Department engineered the resolution behind the scenes but it would be consistent with their behavior following its acceptance.
When the surrounding Arab countries and most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine attacked the Jewish population, even before the British withdrawal, it was fully expected that the Jews living in the Mandate of Palestine would be quickly annihilated,20 as the Arab leaders had openly promised. The British government did everything it could to make sure that happened, short of sending its own army in under its own flag to do the job.
- Before the British left, they handed over their armaments and every base and strategic position to the Arabs while they embargoed arms sales to the Jews.21 The other Allied Powers likewise embargoed arms sales. Some, including the United States,22 embargoed all the warring parties but it affected only the Jews because the Arabs already had established armies and the British would sell them all the additional armaments they wanted.
- If that were not enough, the British released Nazi German officers from POW camps to command the Egyptian army while British officers commanded the Jordanian army under Sir John Glubb (“Glubb Pasha”).23
- In 1946, the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem and Grand Mufti of Palestine, the Haj Amin el Husseini, who proposed the Holocaust to Hitler and urged it upon him and was more than co-equal with Eichmann in planning and carrying out the Holocaust,24 “escaped” from house arrest in France. He fled to Egypt, where he could inspire and lead the Arab masses to wage war ferociously against the Jews and annihilate them. (Adolf Eichmann, by contrast, was imprisoned under maximum security, although he too escaped. Quite a coincidence.) Today’s Arab terrorist organizations are all descended directly from the organizations founded by the Mufti, who “managed” to “escape” from Allied custody to lay the foundations for endless war against the Jewish state. He worked in conjunction with the Nazi-allied Muslim Brotherhood, with whom he had teamed up in the early 1930’s.25
The Allied Powers’ Holocaust failed. Miraculously, Israel won. Ever since, the aim of Western diplomacy has been to deny Israel the fruits of its victory and set it up for another attempt to destroy it. The “peace process” is just the latest version of this strategy.
Is that idea jarring? Get used to it. Only by realizing that this is the real mindset, can you understand the BDS movement. There are other occupations in the world which are far more egregious and clearly illegal but none is actively opposed by the whole world, save for Israeli rule in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, which the world recognized in 1922 as Jewish by right.26 By understanding the situation in this context, you will come to understand why Israeli self-defense elicits anguished howls of “war crimes,” even though the real war crimes are being committed by the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah. You will begin to understand why any accusation, any calumny against Israel is automatically believed, no matter how vile, no matter how many times the accusers are proved to have been lying. You will also understand why the ruling elites of the West are so keen to preserve the terrorist organizations from being destroyed and to enhance their power.
Suppose that in the 1990s (before Erdogan and Islamification), a credible source had reported that Israel and Turkey had signed a military pact aimed at the destruction of Syria, complete with joint command structure, massive joint military exercises, and a strategy of invasion by a joint force accompanied by the use of poison gas against Syrian cities, backed up by nuclear weapons to deter Syrian retaliation? Would this not be considered newsworthy? Would it pass without comment by the media, governments and international agencies? That is not plausible. Not even thinkable.
Yet the exact counterpart did indeed happen and it has been in the public domain since January 1997 without comment by the media, governments or international agencies.
Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority entered into just such a military alliance aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel. The source is a report by a Congressional task force, headed by Rep. Jim Saxton of New Jersey, which provided details. The full text of the report was on the internet from early January 1997.
According to this report, in May, 1996, Syria and Iran entered into just such a pact as described above. Iraq was added to the pact in August of that year and the Palestinian Authority joined in September. The role of the Palestinians in the pact was to stage a popular uprising, backed by the Palestinian “police,” to prevent or delay the mobilization of Israeli reserves to the northern border.
It is popular “knowledge” that if Israel cannot deploy the reserves to the border, the entire North of the country will fall within 48 hours. If Iran and Iraq were to send large expeditionary forces, the time would be shortened accordingly. Under optimum circumstances, mobilization takes 24 hours but Israel can no longer move troops to the North along the Jordan Valley because part of the area is in Palestinian hands. The IDF has to move through the coastal plain, on a route which is within easy shelling reach of Palestinian-controlled territory. Three of the four main mobilization points are also under the PLO guns. If the North falls, there is nothing to prevent the Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian axis from linking up with the Palestinian-controlled areas in the central highlands. That would mean that the entire coastal area, containing eighty percent (80%) of Israel’s population, industry, and commerce, would be defenseless. The South of Israel gets all its water from the North.
There is more in the Congressional report, much more. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency put the story on the news wires in February 1997. Congressman Saxton’s office confirmed it all at the time. Journalists knew about it. Editors knew about it. Governments and international organizations knew about it. Why has none of this been reported by the media? Why has it never been a subject of discussion in the international organizations?
PART FIVE: THE NATURE OF PEACE ENVISIONED BY THE “PEACE PROCESS”
The ruling elite of the world and the opinion-makers in the establishment media constantly and consistently reinforce the perception that the Israel-Palestine impasse, with its periodic descent into violent confrontation, is the result of the “hardline” Israeli policy and what is portrayed as Israel’s lack of commitment to the diplomatic process.
In fact, not for a single day have the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, from Arafat or Abbas down, shown by their actions any real desire for peace. Not for a day have they desisted from anti-Israel and anti-Jewish fulminations and incitements to violence and murder. There is little about this in the media, however, and it is not a subject for discussion by international organizations. Making the PLO/Fatah/Palestinian Authority look bad would be contrary to the “peace process.”
What, then, is the nature of this “peace process”? It seems that the entire goal is to return Israel to the 1949 Armistice Line, which the world’s ruling elite persist in calling the “June 4, 1967 borders.” Those “borders” are utterly indefensible. The Center of Israel, where eighty percent (80%) of Israel’s population, industry and commerce is located, is only fourteen kilometers (nine miles) wide, meaning within easy range of Palestinian artillery and old fashioned Katyushas. Whatever tends to accomplish that is called “peace process”. Whatever impedes it is called an “obstacle to peace.” So clearly, peace has nothing to do with it. The goal is the destruction of Israel.
Step by inexorable step, Israel is being forced down the road toward an unspecified destination. Withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Line is the current demand. And then what? Will that bring about the end of hostilities? Will that be the last claim on Israel?
Of course not. We will drink a toast to the “courage” of the leaders of Israel and “Palestine” and then we can discuss the territories beyond the Partition line annexed by Israel in 1949, following the war launched by the Arabs to crush the State of Israel at its birth. “Acquisition of territory by war” is a big no-no, remember. “Back you go, to the Partition Lines proposed by the UN General Assembly.” That was the non-binding proposal which the Arab countries rejected and launched a war of genocide instead. But the decision makers of the world nevertheless consider Israel bound to it.
After Israel goes back to the 1947 Partition lines, the next demand will be the “right” of return of the descendants of the “refugees”. The numbers bandied about today vary from 7 to 9 million. Don’t worry, they will find 9 million. It could be fully expected that they would include radicalized Arabs from all over the Arab and Muslim world. After all, who are you to tell the “Palestinians” who is a “Palestinian”?
The “Roadmap” does not show the end of the road. The road ends at New Auschwitz and the term “peace process” and its corollary, the “two-state solution,” are this generation’s counterpart of “Arbeit macht frei.” The world leaders all know it but the Jews have been kept in the dark quite successfully.
Israel can have relative peace and security or it can have the approval of the world, which will last only until the next demand for strategic concessions to the terrorists. The world’s approval lasts only for as long as Israel accepts the next step toward “New Auschwitz.
PART SIX: DEALING WITH THE IRANIAN THREAT
How can Israel protect itself from Iranian nuclear attack and Iranian proxy terrorist organizations? There are Israelis, including high officials in the field of defense and security, who advocate that Israel respond to the new danger from Iran by intensifying its intelligence-sharing with the United States. That would be utterly irrational, given that the foreign policy establishment of the United States seems to be fully at ease with the alliance with Iran that requires the U.S. to help defend Iran’s nuclear project from attack or sabotage. They are fully comfortable with Israel as the enemy. Consequently, as mentioned above, Israel can divulge nothing to the U.S. because it will be used to protect Iran. Nor can any information received from the U.S. authorities be trusted because its disclosure is for the purpose of protecting Iran. Even in view of the attitude of President Trump, and even assuming he controls the bureaucracy 100%, the intelligence shared will still have strategic importance when Trump is no longer in office. Israel-as-the-enemy comports fully with American policy going back for decades, as shown in Part Four. It is truly unlikely in the extreme that President Trump will be able to transform American policy permanently in four years or even eight years.
The U.S. has offered to provide Israel with advanced weaponry to enable her to defend against the Iranian threat. Israel has to assume that the weaponry supplied will be matched by countermeasures furnished to Iran, since the United States is obligated to assist Iran against attack or sabotage. In any case, the sale of such munitions would no doubt entail a quid pro quo in the form of far-reaching and irreversible concessions to the Palestinians and their Iranian allies. What the U.S. offer amounts to is to enable Israel to defang the Iranian nuclear threat on condition that it render itself defenseless against legions of terrorists who would be able to destroy the State of Israel and slaughter the Jewish population up close and personal.
Israel’s policy-makers do not seem able to rid themselves of the notion that the United States is Israel’s “indispensable ally.” This was never the case, and anyway, the Obama administration was openly hostile to Israel, notwithstanding Obama’s willingness to pander to Israel’s sympathizers. Understand, however. Obama’s policies were not unlike previous administrations. He was only more openly hateful about it.
Part of the explanation for the hesitation of Israel’s rulers to take out the Iranian nuclear threat seems to be the fear that Israel will not be able to survive the resulting diplomatic fallout, including diplomatic and economic sanctions. A universal boycott might be imposed and even collective military action such as was turned against Serbia cannot be ruled out.
The alternative, however, as Caroline Glick has correctly stated,26 is a slow death imposed incrementally by means of the so-called “peace process.” The idea of reliance on the “enlightened nations of the world” to extricate Israel, and indeed the world, from another descent into barbarism and brutality is an utterly vain hope. Europe’s elites have decided to surrender to Islamic tyranny and, in any case, European decision-makers and European society are quite comfortable with the notion that the world would be better off without Israel and the Jews. Obama led America in the same direction and, as noted, the foreign policy establishment is fully of the same mind.
The seriousness of Israel’s present situation must not be underestimated. The details of the threat have changed but the threat is not new. The Iranian threat was already moving toward being operational twenty years ago, as revealed in the Saxton Committee report. Iran is now stronger and richer than it was then. As a result of U.S. intervention in Iraq and its withdrawal, Iran has gained control of Iraq and shares control of Syria and Lebanon with Russia. Since hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets were released and the trade embargo on Iran lifted, its proxy army, Hezbollah, is far better armed and trained, is battle-hardened through its participation in the Syrian civil war, will enjoy the protection of both Iran and Russia and is building permanent bases not far from Israel’s border.
Russia is taking over the decisive influence that America used to have in the Middle East. That region dominates the petroleum supply to the world and has always been considered vital to American interests. Obama did nothing to prevent Russia and Iran from taking over the U.S. position in the region, and even if Trump wants to, America might not have that capability. Obama drastically reduced the numbers of the U.S. military, compromised its fighting ability, and purged more than 200 top commanders.28 What is left of the US military is commanded by Obama sycophants. Unless it has a viable military posture, American diplomacy has far too little credibility to push back against Russian expansion.
Israel has no alternative to the U.S. for diplomatic support, logistical support, and intelligence cooperation. Yet U.S. intelligence-sharing has been sporadic and even treacherous from time to time. Trumpeting allegations of an Israeli option of flying from bases in Azerbaijan and the Israeli-American collaboration on Stuxnet have been mentioned. Even more grave, however, is the fact that Jonathan Pollard has spent more than thirty years in prison for having revealed to Israel information that the US was treaty-bound to give Israel but withheld.29 That information reportedly concerned Iraqi WMD projects that impacted vitally on Israeli security. The whole Pollard episode fairly reeks of hostility toward Israel and Jews and that all happened under the Reagan Administration.
Nothing lessens Israel’s need for the benefits that Israel has received from the US but that does not at all mean that she will get what she needs from America. Apart from that, whatever Israel gets has always come at a price, sometimes payable in the coin of access to Israeli hi-tech weapons, sometimes in political coin, namely to spare Israel’s terrorist enemies from destruction. (It is called the “peace process.”) In this case, it would likely include cutting a deal with the “Palestinians,” immensely empowering the Palestinian Authority. That would very likely mean a Fatah-Hamas “partnership” along the Lebanese model, meaning Hamas control behind a “moderate” Fatah facade. It is revealing to consider what Russia’s demands would be if similarly situated. They would not be very different.
Israel’s military, its intelligence community and the Israeli people have very deep and precious relationships with many centers of the American system and many segments of the American people. The Israeli government must be careful to preserve and nurture them. Obama’s ideological protégés, however, have been extensively and deeply embedded in the American government apparatus and media. His influence will not dissipate quickly.
PART SEVEN: SAYING “NO” TO AMERICA
European and Democratic Party leaders are right: Trump will not be President forever. But Europe will hate the Jews forever, especially if the European globalist elite succeeds in turning Europe over to the Islamic fundamentalists. And the Hate-America Wing of the Democratic Party might eventually ride the party label to victory.
Inevitably, there will come a time when Israel has to say “no” to the U.S. government. The more concessions that are made before Israel says “no,” the less capable Israel will be to withstand the pressure. Israel’s leaders will be constrained to deal with the U.S. in a way similar to the way they deal with Russia or China. Whatever the American government wants comes only at a price. The coin in which it is payable is political and military as well as monetary. For one thing, the deal has to be public. The American people have to see what America gets from Israel.
Israeli governments seem chronic in their underestimation of the value to the world of Israeli military technology. To the shock of the Soviets in 1973, it took Israel only about two weeks to defeat the Soviets’ best anti-aircraft defense system, which had grounded the Israel Air Force. Many of the technologies developed by Israel since then have been acquired in secret by the United States, in some cases by means of threats and intimidation.
Likewise, intelligence supplied to the United States by Israel has been invaluable. Yet, Americans, seeing only billions of dollars of “aid” being given to Israel and not seeing that, in fact, the US gets more than its money’s worth, Israel looks like a beggar at the gate.
For their part, Israel’s decision-makers have come to see Israel as a welfare state dependent on the American dole. The Israeli government has to insist that acquisition by foreign governments of Israeli arms technology, training, intelligence and other strategic cooperation be done only in public and not secretly. Insisting on legitimacy means refusing to be treated like the “other woman” in order not to offend Muslim rulers.
Israel can fight back
Israel has not only carrots to offer but also sticks. Israel could cancel the order for the F-35 and buy the Sukhoy stealth fighter or the Chinese equivalent instead. On the down side, that would mean losing participation in the project and loss of both the revenues and the technical experience it would gain.
Israel could also threaten to pan the F-35 on technical grounds. Such a condemnation by Israel would badly damage the marketability of the F-35. That is not how you treat a friend, of course, but U.S. leaders have never had any compunction about threatening Israel with harmful actions. Closing air traffic to Israel and holding up resupply of military hardware critical to Israel during the fighting in 2014 were a couple of instances, and this is not the first time that the U.S. government has betrayed its alleged alliance with Israel as has been pointed out.
Israel has another alternative. Long ago, under pressure from the U.S., Israel’s government scrapped the jet fighter project, the Lavi. The Lavi was intended to use American-made Pratt and Whitney engines, which gave the U.S. government the ability to prohibit export, which induced the Israeli government to discontinue the project. But Israel makes its own rocket engines, which function under more extreme conditions than jet aircraft engines. India’s leaders are eager for closer cooperation with Israel. Making military aircraft in partnership with India would make both countries prime movers in military aviation and create a market large enough to enjoy economies of scale even without exports.
Israel does not have to accede to America’s demands for step-by-step surrender. Israel is not without alternatives or without recourse. Israel could persevere and even thrive without the support, such as it is, of the USA and the “Quartet.” It could even best the UN and the Arab League. There are several powerful tools in Israel’s hands.
Israeli military technology
There are people who realize that Israel is the country of innovation in hi-tech munitions and in asymmetrical warfare. Israel is practically in a position to embargo hi-tech weapons’ technology from any country in the world, including the U.S.A.
As the worldwide jihad expands, Israel’s expertise and experience in combating Islamic terror will become an increasingly marketable commodity. The non-Islamic world has reason to realize that Israel’s war against Islamic terror is also their own war, not colonialist oppression, as it is portrayed.
Withstanding international pressure
Israeli leaders need not succumb to fear of international pressure, or even boycotts and sanctions. Too many other countries are in positions similar to Israel’s with regard to Muslim minorities and external defense to isolate Israel for long. India, for one, has growing and developing ties with Israel owing in part to the fact that its history of appeasement of its Muslim minority has not bought it peace and security. India’s leaders see the need for technology-sharing and joint projects with Israel and these will also most certainly continue in the face of possible international sanctions. China, South Korea, and Japan have found collaboration with Israel very productive for other reasons and they are not likely to cut them off because of sanctions.
PART EIGHT: AN ISRAEL-INDIA STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
As President, Obama hectored not only Israel to surrender to Islamic demands, but even the government of India. He claimed to the Indian government that the reason India does not have peace with Pakistan is because India has not surrendered Kashmir. He made this assertion in full knowledge that Pakistan is in grave danger of becoming a failed state and is in the process of being taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
In fact, Israel and India are natural allies in many ways. Their combined resources, brainpower, technology, and manufacturing capacity would be a formidable combination. Relations between Israel and India have not yet ripened to this point, however, and India’s foreign policy has always been outwardly pro-Palestinian. If ties with India continue to be pursued and Israeli foreign policy reoriented to make India the focal point, India could come to replace both the U.S. and Europe in Israel’s foreign and defense policy. India does not have the power of veto in the UN Security Council, however, and certainly is not the equivalent of the United States in military or diplomatic terms but it could nevertheless do much, maybe enough even by itself, to sustain Israel through a difficult period.
While it is true that the European Union is Israel’s largest trading partner, Europe stands today on the brink of economic and political collapse and that was the case even before “Brexit.” German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, opened Germany’s doors to 1,100,000 “refugees” in 2015 and half a million per year indefinitely. The immediate result is that millions of Islamic migrants from Morocco to Bangladesh and from central Asia to central Africa, have already embarked for Germany or are about to do so.
In reality, this is not a refugee crisis but an invasion of Europe by Islamic irregulars concealed behind real refugees. More than two thirds of the migrants transiting into Europe are unattached men of military age and another twenty percent of all migrants are under the age of eighteen of whom 90% are male.31 That is not a refugee demographic but rather, the demographic of an invading army with a civilian facade.
That is an established tactic in the Arab world. Morocco threatened to overrun the border of Spanish Western Sahara with women and children swarming the border crossings in the van of the Moroccan Army.31 They did not do so because Spain and the UN capitulated and did not demand a plebiscite. Hamas recently employed the same tactic, sending massive numbers of civilians rushing the border to provide cover to the armed Hamas terrorists attempting to breach the security fence and enter Israeli settlements to commit murder and carnage. ISIS has openly announced its intention to infiltrate many thousands of jihadi terrorists into Europe under cover of refugee women, children and elderly. At least one shipment of thousands of assault rifles and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition was discovered by Greek customs authorities in a container marked “humanitarian supplies.”32 It was probably not the first and will certainly not be the last.
Additional states for such an alignment
There are other states which could be brought into such a grouping. Colombia, for instance, with the assistance of Israeli military advisors, achieved victory against Marxist insurgents. In 2008, even before President-elect Obama was sworn into office, the Colombian authorities discovered that his emissaries had been in contact with the rebels, with a view to taking their side.33 A similar story took place in Sri Lanka, which also defeated a lengthy insurrection with the help of Israeli military advisors.
Can Israel survive as both Jewish and democratic?
If the Oslo process and the two-state solution ever made sense it was as the outcome of the realization brought on by the original “intifada” that the Arabs were simply unwilling under any circumstances to share the land with the Jews in a single political entity. Failure to separate the two peoples would mean ruling over another people which, to the simplistic liberal Western formula, means “apartheid.”
Immediately following the Oslo Agreements, however, the Arabs proved that they were not willing to share the land with Israel as two separate political entities either. They have used every concession that has been made to them and every goodwill gesture by Israel, to improve their ability to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
Three additional times since the signing of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have proven they will not share the land in two states.
- This happened in 2000 when Ehud Barak, as Israel’s prime minister offered a state in more than 90% of the land of the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem, with compensating land swaps. Arafat rejected it out of hand and started the “Al Aksa Intifada.”
- A similar deal was offered by Ehud Olmert in 2007. The negotiations ended with no response and no counter offer.
- Immense international pressure was put on Israel to withdraw, unilaterally and unconditionally, from the Gaza Strip and Israel did, but the Palestinians in Gaza did not build a state there. Rather, they built a base from which to conduct an endless war of terror and attrition against Israel. Instead of working toward peace and prosperity, Gaza is one huge arms factory and garrison, single-mindedly directed at destroying Israel.
Twice the Palestinians, incited by the official government of the Palestinian Authority, have proven they will not share the land with Israel in one state, once with the original “intifada” and again with the wave of popular terrorist murder with knives, hatchets, and automobiles used as weapons.
Moreover, Hamas openly refuses to share the planet with Jews.34 Coexistence is therefore impossible, whether in one state or two. The Oslo Process is dead and no other consensual arrangement is possible. In the present circumstances, the apparent choice for Israel is between ruling over the hostile Arab population, which simplistic liberal Westerners call “apartheid,” and annihilation. In fact, however, there is a third option, the one the Arabs intend to select, if they ever get the chance. It has come to be called “ethnic cleansing.”
PART NINE: IN CHARGE OF ITS DESTINY, WHAT SHOULD BE ISRAELI POLICY?
There are certain fixed parameters:
- The Arabs are fighting for total victory. If the Arabs win just once, there will be no Israel and no Jews in Palestine. Israel will have to win every war forever.
- The present circumstances cannot ever be considered to be normal. Israel’s goal cannot continue to be stalemate followed by negotiations toward conflict resolution. The Palestinians have shown no interest in any resolution other than the annihilation of Israel.
- Israelis overwhelmingly are in favor of separation from the Palestinians but separation of Israel from the Arabs can happen only if one or the other leaves the country.
The Alternative, in Sum:
The alternative policy for Israel boils down to the following:
- Take down the Palestinian Authority. Its leaders do not intend ever to make any form of peace. Furthermore, the PLO merger with Hamas negated the entire “peace process.” As if that were not enough, the “peace process” was abandoned when Mahmoud Abbas announced at the UN that “Palestine” is no longer bound by any obligations under that process, unless Israel capitulates to ALL of its demands. If any doubt remains, it should be dispelled by the announcement that the Palestinian Authority intends to sue Britain for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, committing Britain to “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This is tantamount to declaring the very intention to establish such a “national home” (whatever that meant specifically in 1917) to have been an international crime. Rejection of any notion of peace with Israel could hardly be more demonstrative. There is no peace process.
- Destroy all the terrorist organizations, including the PLO together with all its constituent groups and bring all known terrorists to justice, including individual terrorists unaffiliated with a terrorist group, imposing the death penalty in cases where this is warranted by law. If that seems too “extreme,” one prominent blogger has suggested deporting them, perhaps to Syria;35
- Apply Israeli law to Judea, Samaria and Gaza and make it clear that there will never again be any authority in the country other than the State of Israel and that the hostile Arab population will never become citizens;
- Provide financial incentives for Arab emigration. Arabs who want a chance to live a normal, wholesome life will not stay, even if Iran, the oil sheikhs, European NGO’s, European governments and the European Union outbid Israel to induce them to remain. No amount of money can buy them a life free from the madness that they have created by their obsession to destroy Israel.
- Redefine citizenship with full Israeli citizenship for those who serve in the IDF or an authorized alternative service, and “residence” for those who do not.
- Enforce the law banning parties that deny the nature of Israel as a Jewish state;
- Establish the centrality of Torah to Israeli education, law, policy and strategic planning. Being a Jewish state means embracing Jewish destiny. There is no other source by which to define such a destiny for the Jewish people that cannot be satisfied in the USA, Canada, Australia, Italy, Costa Rica or many other places. In brief, instill Torah and Jewish self-respect into Israeli education, foreign relations and defense policy.
Israel can expect to meet concerted opposition to these measures from the leaders of the world. Israel can expect to be condemned and vilified. Israel can even expect the imposition of sanctions. On the other hand, submission, “goodwill gestures,” “confidence-building measures,” territorial concessions, restraint and unilateral, unconditional withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Gaza and northern Samaria have rewarded Israel with nothing but condemnation, vilification and loathing, delegitimation and even calls for Israel’s destruction, as well as a new wave of classic, visceral anti-Semitism. As long as Israel still lives, more concessions will be demanded. In contrast, Israeli and Jewish prestige and acceptance were never higher than following the Six-Day War when people the world over stood positively in awe of Israel and respected Israel.
Israeli leaders cling desperately to the notion that the United States is Israel’s “indispensable ally” and that Israel has no choice but to accede to any conditions America imposes. This is a delusion of long standing. Moshe Dayan defended the lifting of the siege of the Egyptian Third Army during the last days of the Yom Kippur War, acceding to American demands, explaining that “the shells we are firing today we did not have a week ago.” Instances when Israel defied U.S. demands have been rare, especially since American resupply saved Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor was one significant exception. Effective annexation of the Golan Heights was another.
That mindset is now blatantly at odds with reality. Given that the United States once elected and re-elected a government that led the G5+1 to openly ally with Iran against Israel, almost explicitly, it would be plainly suicidal to accede to demands of the American government for concessions that cannot be easily retracted.
Israel has only one Indispensable Ally and that is the “Guardian of Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps.”36 It would seem only logical to accede to His Instructions. The government of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu first and foremost, must use all of its powers of persuasion to marshal the decisive backing of its people to face down the world’s leaders and do whatever needs to be done to survive. The only alternative is for Israel to surrender, step by step, to annihilation.
Recommended further readings:
Francisco Gil-White , The mufti, the nazis, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’, Historical and Investigative Research – 11 Dec 2015, http://www.hirhome.com/israel/talon-de-aquiles_eng.htm
Tuvia Tenenbom, Catch the Jew, Jerusalem, Israel, Gefen Publishing House, January, 2015, 467 pp.
Eli Hertz, A Genuine Nightmare, Myths and Facts, November 15, 2016, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15870300f76b826a
Prof. J.P. Golbert has practiced law in New York, California and Israel for a multi-national clientele, including Israeli NGOs, and he was also a law professor in Los Angeles. He has practiced law in Israel since 1986 and has contributed numerous opinion pieces to various media outlets.
————————————————————————————————————
ENDNOTES
1. “France to recognize Palestinian state if peace talks fail” http://www.lelamobile.com/content/59941/France-to-recognize-Palestinian-state-if-peace-talks-fail/
- Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East [as delivered], un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=9417
- Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “Report: US Spied on Israel, Prepared to Destroy Israeli Bombers to Protect Iran,” http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/report-us-spied-on-israel-prepared-to-destroy-israeli-bombers-to-protect-iran/2015/10/23/ Published:October 23rd, 2015, Latest update: October 25th, 2015, citing “Spy vs. Spy: Inside the Fraying U.S.-Israel Ties,” http://www.wsj.com/articles/spy-vs-spy-inside-the-fraying-u-s-israel-ties-1445562074?cb=logged0.6280757295899093&cb=logged0.6455627898685634&cb=logged0.2419660030864179; And see “Bush Jr.’s War on Iraq,” Historical and Investigative Research – 1 Dec 2005, by Francisco Gil-White, http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm; and “Will the US attack Iran? An alternative hypothesis,” Historical and Investigative Research – 23 Feb 2006, by Francisco Gil-White,
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/attack_iran.htm. See especially the section “The true relationship between the US and Iran”;
