Editor: Arieh Stav
■
Associate Editor: Michael Or ■
Managing Editor: Itta Horol ■
Publishing Director: Leah Kochanowitz ■ Subscription Manager: Eli
Maislish ■
Production: E. Oren, Ltd.
NATIV - bi-monthly
■ Published by the
Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) ■
ISSN 7092 1187 ■ P.O.B.
830, Shaarei Tikva 44810 Israel ■ Tel: 972-3-906-3920,
Fax: 972-3-906-3905 ■
Subscriptions: Tel/Fax: 972-3-533-9822 ■ Email:
ariel.center@gmail.com
Annual subscription rates: 180
NIS ■ Overseas $60
The views expressed in the
articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors.
Nativ cannot return unsolicited manuscripts.
ACPR
■
Contact us
■ Nativ Index
■ Nativ in Hebrew
NATIV
Celebrates 100 Issues
Editorial
Dear
Reader
The 100th edition of Nativ
is before you. Seventeen years have passed since we began the
long expedition to confront the fundamental problems on the national
agenda in an attempt to consolidate rational thinking for the Jewish
state (the undersigned is aware of the note of arrogance implicit in
that statement). Unfortunately, we have not been successful. It was
Binyamin Netanyahu who commented to the undersigned: “You sit behind
a desk and write whatever comes to mind. Let’s see you do it with
David Levy and Arik Sharon on your back.”
Did he hope in that way to explain the
ideological transformation, which the standard politician undergoes
at the moment that his foot crosses the threshold of the Prime
Minister’s office?
Israel is a society subject to an existential
threat. A midget state extending on a stretch of sand along the
Mediterranean coast surrounded by a sea of Arab and Moslem hatred on
the one side and by Europe, in which the head of the monster of
anti-Semitism is rearing its head as in days of old, on the other.
In a situation of that sort, it is only natural that a critical mass
is formed, beneath which the individual and the collective collapse
and defense mechanisms, which repress reality and raise virtual
worlds designed to grant wishes, rise to the surface and develop.
The willingness to confront the enemy, who openly announces his
intention to destroy the Jewish state is replaced by defeatism,
which first and foremost afflicts the leadership echelon in
accordance with the adage that a fish begins to stink at the head.
Thus an Orwellian language begins to develop in the mouth of a prime
minister who characterizes a terrorism campaign unprecedented in the
history of Israel as: A “peace process”; a prime minister who grants
legitimacy to the most prolific murderer of Jews since Hitler and
who is responsible for the massacre of 1,500 of his countrymen, is
the object of hero worship and idolatry, and a central square in the
first Hebrew city is named after him; his successor, who just now
submitted to the public his Weltanschauung in an articulate
book in which he vowed to battle to the end against the gang of
murderers rising up against his people and his land, and he just
took office and he betrayed everything in which he believed, without
batting an eyelid. It goes on and on: one seeks to relinquish the
Golan, and the other comes and turns over the holy places in
Jerusalem and yet another seeks to abandon Judea and Samaria – the
cradle of the Hebrew nation and the very essence of Zionism. So it
has been until now, until the days of the current “Rais”, an
unprecedented combination of corruption, nepotism and defeatism.
After stealing the votes of his voters, shattering the very
foundation of his party and introducing a proto-fascist regime, he
now vows to evict Jews from their homes by force and establish an
Arab terrorist state on the outskirts of Greater Tel Aviv. And so on
and so forth. The depressing list is long and the patient reader who
leafs through the pages of Nativ is well aware of
this.
It is well known that a prophet is not without
honor save in his own country, and that the role of preacher at the
gate is thankless. So it was always and so it will continue to be.
There is nothing easier (or more seductive...) than to sail on the
pages of Nativ to the sublime worlds of abstract ideas
or to sell your soul to political correctness in exchange for a
fistful of shekels and to trudge through the swamp of mediocrity and
routine. This we shall not do, because we cannot.
We will, therefore, continue in the spirit of
Ezekiel the Prophet and the “watchman unto the house of Israel”.
|
...Son of man, speak to the children of
thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land,
if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him
for their watchman. If when he seeth the sword come upon the land,
he blow the trumpet, and warn the people.
But if the watchman see the sword come,
and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the
sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away
in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's
hand.
(Ezekiel 33: 2,3,6) |
In honor of this occasion, some
friends shared their thoughts, click
here to read their comments.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
Israel’s Strategic Future:
Project Daniel
Louis René
Beres,
Chair,
Naaman Belkind,
Isaac Ben-Israel,
Rand H. Fishbein,
Adir Pridor and
Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto
Israel’s Strategic Future: The Final Report of Project Daniel
was completed in mid-January 2003 – several months befoe the start
of the current Iraq War – and transmitted directly to Prime Minister
Sharon. The rationale of this unique Project was the incontestable
presumption that Israel urgently needs a carefully constructed and
coherent plan for dealing with authentically existential threats,
and that we (“The Group”) were well-positioned intellectually and
professionally to help design such a plan. Although we began with an
overriding concern for the possible fusion of WMD-capacity with
irrational adversaries, Project Daniel concluded that the primary
threats to Israel’s physical survival were more likely to arise
among enemies that were not irrational. With this in mind, we
proceeded to consider a broad variety of issues concerning
deterrence, defense, preemption and warfighting.
Combining
jurisprudential with strategic analyses, The Group linked the legal
concept of “anticipatory self-defense” to various preemption
scenarios and to The National Security Strategy of the United States
of America (September 20, 2002). We also examined closely the
prospects for expanded strategic cooperation between Washington and
Jerusalem, with particular reference to maintaining Israel’s
“qualitative edge” and to associated issues of necessary funding.
Project Daniel looked very closely at a recommended “paradigm
shift” to deal with various “low intensity” and long-range WMD
threats to Israel, and also considered the circumstances under which
Israel should purposefully end its current posture of “nuclear
ambiguity”. Overall, The Group urged continuing constructive support
to the United States-led War Against Terror (WAT) and stipulated
that Israel combine a strengthening of multilayered active defenses
with a credible, secure and decisive nuclear deterrent. This
recognizable retaliatory (second-strike) force should be fashioned
with the capacity to destroy some 10-20 high-value targets scattered
widely over pertinent enemy states in the Middle East – an objective
entirely consistent with our explicit assumption that the main goal
of Israel’s nuclear forces must always be deterrence ex ante, not
revenge ex post.
The Group
recognized a very basic asymmetry between Israel and the
Arab/Iranian world concerning, inter alia, the desirability of
peace; the absence of democracy; the acceptability of terror as a
legitimate weapon and the overwhelming demogic advantage of the
Arab/Iranian world. With this in mind, Israel’s Strategic Future
concluded that non-conventional exchanges between Israel and
adversary states must always be scrupulously avoided and that Israel
do whatever is needed to maintain its conventional supremacy in the
region. Facing a growing anarchy in world affairs and an increasing
isolation in the world community, Israel is strongly encouraged by
Project Daniel to incorporate The Group’s considered
recommendations into codified IDF doctrine, and to systematically
expand Israeli strategic studies into a more disciplined field of
inquiry. In the end, Israel’s survival will depend largely upon
policies of its own making, and these policies will be best-informed
by The Group’s proposed steps regarding deterrence; defense;
warfighting and preemption options.
The complete text of this paper is
available in English in print form (and can be ordered through the
ACPR)
or online in Issue No. 3 of NATIV Online, click
here.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
The Mideast Following
the War in Iraq
Raphael Israeli
One is
tempted to judge the Iraq war in the light (or rather obscurity) of
its aftermath, and many question marks are put on its worth in view
of what seems to be a total failure of the US to achieve its goals.
However, if assessed in terms of its hidden agendas, one is amazed
to realize how much it has accomplished: first of all in terms of
creating a viable alternative to the Saudi oil in the long run.
True, for now the oil prices have been driven up and Iraq has not
raised its production as yet to such levels as to provide a
substitute to the Saudi oil, but the base is being laid to achieve
just that. Secondly, in terms of weapons of mass destruction, there
is no doubt that the smoking gun is there, it was just hidden or
destroyed, but the evidence for its existence is being pieced
together and the realization is there that absence of evidence for
now is not evidence of absence for ever. Thirdly, though a definite
link was not found between Iraq and September 11, much proof is
there for the operations of al Qai`dah from Iraqi territory, before
and after the War, and for Saddam's assistance to Palestinian
terrorism.
Above
all, one should not forget the crucial geo-strategic achievements of
the US in not only removing the tyrant, but in also altering
permanently the balance of power, by placing its forces in the heart
of the Middle East, adjoining Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey and
Syria. All those, some of whom were singled out as terroristic
countries, are served notice that they might be next unless they
mend their ways.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
Ultralight as an
Anti-Terror Platform
Ran Ichay
With the anticipated change, some of which has
already begun to materialize, in the threats of Palestinian
terrorism against Israel – chief among them the inevitable passage
from perpetrating “contact attacks” to perpetrating “long distance
attacks”, due to construction of the fence and preparations for the
evacuation of IDF forces from various areas and reduction of the
direct friction – the security system must adopt new, different and
more appropriate methods in executing the war on terrorism. The
anticipated nature of the struggle in the next stage will require
extended, continuous aerial patrols, supervision and control over
broad areas – for example, in order to prevent launching of Qasam
rockets, or, at least, locating and liquidating the squads, which
launched them before they manage to assimilate into the population,
which provides them with cover – and will demand the availability of
aerial platforms, which will be capable of carrying out these ever
increasing tasks while keeping up the tempo, the ability to execute
the mission, with minimal risk and no less important – at a
reasonable cost, which will facilitate optimal implementation.
Today, some of these missions are executed, in
accordance with the current IDF combat theory, by helicopters,
pilotless drones or light planes whose operating costs range from
hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour of flight time, not to
mention the planes themselves, which cost a minimum of $100,000 for
a light plane, through several million for a helicopter and not much
less for the pilotless drones.
On the other hand, in Israel there is an
entire system, civilian at this stage, of planes and pilots (most of
them former Air Force personnel and therefore with operational
experience and great skill), capable of executing those missions at
a level no lower – and perhaps even higher – than the present
system. The light planes (or as they are more commonly known –
Ultralights) offer a non-expensive, appropriate and available
solution to the security problems arising from the present situation
in which, for example, the threat from the Gaza Strip is being
transformed more and more into a threat of long distance launching
than explosive devices, and this trend is even likely to intensify.
The cost of an Ultralight is $25,000 per
plane, upon which the photography and surveillance equipment must be
installed (today they are installed in the more expensive planes),
and an hour of flight time costs no more than $500 and in many cases
even much less. There are hundreds of available pilots and it will
be possible to organize them in a volunteer police type of
framework, in the form of the Civilian Guard or similar to it, and
thereby minimize cost even further. The impressive flight package of
the “standard” Ultralight model P-92, for example (seven consecutive
hours in the air, potential altitude of 20,000 feet, speed of 120
knots), in addition to its uncommon flexibility, makes its
capability closer to that of a helicopter than a light plane, as far
as take-offs and landings in the field and landing-fields and
storage in terms of the logistics – make this simple and effective
platform the unmatched contender to execute aerial missions in the
war on terrorism. This would also free the more complex, designated
instruments, like the storm and attack helicopters and like the
pilotless drones, for their primary missions in the area of
preparation for a comprehensive conventional war on the borders,
rather than dealing in an almost exclusive manner with internal
security.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
How Solid is “Defensive
Shield”?
Eviathar Ben-Zedeff
Since the War of Independence, Israel has been
combating, not altogether successfully, infiltrators and
perpetrators of terrorist attacks, but it has been able to provide
periods of relative calm to the civilian rear – especially, when it
is removed from the areas of conflict. In the War of Attrition,
after the Six-Day War, combating terrorism became the central sphere
of IDF activity. Nevertheless, there has been virtually no progress
in terms of Israeli combat theory in that area.
Intensification of the focused interception of
terrorists during the riots, which erupted in September 2000,
significantly altered the nature of the Israeli reaction, especially
after the change in government in February 2001, climaxing in the
hesitant entry of army units into Areas A and B, which eroded the
PA’s authority – until Operation Defensive Shield.
The operation consisted of a series of
incursions into a built-up area, which were conducted in densely
populated built-up areas, under the watchful eye of world opinion.
As was the case in previous IDF incursions into PA territories,
stories of atrocities began circulating with the onset of battle,
with which the alignment of the Israeli media and the IDF
spokesperson were unable to deal.
Retaliatory raids have limited influence and
do not act as deterrents for very long. Operation Defensive shield
succeeded not only on the operational plane but also in its
projection on Israel’s deterrent capability. However, in order to
maintain that deterrent, one isolated operation is insufficient.
Constant pressure must be brought to bear on the enemy. The success
of Operation Defensive Shield will also not provide deterrence
forever, and similar operations, regional and local, should be
repeated in order to maintain the pressure on the terrorist
organizations and in order to thwart their reorganization and their
renewed activity.
Defensive Shield was just a stage in the
liquidation of the PA, climaxing in the partial quarantine of the
terrorist leader in the Mukata building in Ramallah. This diplomatic
accomplishment was thwarted due to international pressure and
internal Israeli politics. The operation created a new dimension in
Israeli deterrence as it was conducted despite intense international
pressure - including from the White House – contrary to the
expectations of the world and the PA. At the same time it was clear
once again that its implementation disregarded the political clock.
Defensive Shield was not a war, but rather a
detail in a comprehensive battle against Palestinian terrorism, and
it was incapable of totally stopping terrorism or overcoming it. The
military history of the State of Israel proves that an isolated
operation can establish a deterrent for just a brief time, and it
should be repeated – until the power of retaliatory operations is
crushed – if that is the sole means being implemented. Israel must
not fail in its war on terrorism, and must not be perceived as
failing either – just as it must not fail in a comprehensive war –
and in order to enhance the accomplishments in the operations
against terrorism, psychological operations should be frequently
undertaken.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
A Machiavellian
Analysis of Ariel Sharon
Paul Eidelberg
The late professor Y. Harkabi, former head of
Israel Military Intelligence and the reputed mentor of Shimon Peres,
referred to himself as a “Machiavellian dove”. Whatever Harkabi’s
intention, a Machiavellian dove is one who pursues peace to attain
power. Therein is the key to understanding the policy of “territory
for peace” as well as the political reversals of Ariel Sharon.
To be a true Machiavellian, one’s mind must be
so “constructed” as to be virtually devoid of all emotion, save the
desire for power. To harbor emotions is to be susceptible to habits,
and it is precisely habits that prevent a ruler from being a
Machiavellian, meaning a perfect opportunist (who knows when and how
to zig-zag). To be a perfect opportunist, a ruler must change his
“nature” with the times and circumstances, which means he must have
no emotional predispositions (other than the desire to maintain and
increase his power). Under yesterday’s circumstances it was
expedient for Sharon to be a Zionist, to build up settlements, and
to oppose a Palestinian state. Under today’s circumstances, it is
expedient for Sharon to be a post-Zionist, to uproot settlements,
and to favor a Palestinian state.
Which means he must not think in terms of
“black and white.” He must not have any binding emotional attachment
to Judea and Samaria. He must think of this land not as Jewish land
but as “occupied territory”. The quest for power trumps truth.
Accordingly, Machiavelli teaches would-be
rulers to practice deceit and dissimulation constantly. May not
deceit and dissimulation underlie Sharon’s political reversals? Is
it not evident that prior to any political reversal, Sharon must
have appeared to believe what his position at the time necessitated
if he was to obtain or maintain power? Did he not campaign in the
January 2003 election against Labor’s left-wing policy of unilateral
withdrawal from Gaza only to reverse himself the following year?
Must we not regard his violating his pledge to abide by the outcome
of the Likud referendum as indicative of a Machiavellian contempt
for truthfulness and faithfulness?
To be sure, it is not uncommon for politicians
not to mean what they say. But here we are discussing not a health
bill or a proposal to lower taxes, but issues affecting the lives of
an untold number of Jews and even the survival of the Jewish state.
One must not confuse diluted and undiluted Machiavellians. We are
speaking of a man who now wants to be the co-author of a Palestinian
state, which logically necessitates the truncation not only of the
Jewish state, but also the historical consciousness of the Jewish
people.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
Israel’s
Supreme Court Court: Judicial Oligarchy
Haim Misgav
The
judicial imperialism practiced in the State of Israel, is
unparalleled anywhere in the world. The principle of checks and
balances between the various branches of government is a significant
component in the configuration of rights of every civilian, and
therefore when the Supreme Court unilaterally pronounced itself as
the one authorized to abrogate laws of the legislative authority, or
as the one permitted to review any action taken by elected
governmental authorities, it, first and foremost, undermined the
democratic fundamentals customary in every liberal regime.
In the
absence of a constitution, which only the Knesset is authorized to
adopt in its role as founding assembly, as established in the
Proclamation of Independence, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
decided, about 10 years ago, that, in actuality, there is only one
sovereign in the State of Israel, the Supreme Court, and everyone is
supposed to be subordinate to its caprices.
However,
in order to guarantee the oligarchic rule of the ruling group, its
members gained control of the Committee for the Selection of Judges,
through which they determine, who will join their ranks – and in
actuality, who will succeed them. This system of “friend brings a
friend”, which takes care of cronies, family members or friends in a
perverse, inappropriate and loathsome manner, for all intents and
purposes cause many to view the systems charged with the rule of law
in the State of Israel with contempt.
The state
attorney has conducted itself in a similar fashion over the course
of many years. Dorit Beinish was elected/appointed to the Supreme
Court as the heir apparent to Aharon Barak as Chief Justice, after
introducing into the State Attorney’s office offensive operational
methods, which they approved, for example, the deployment of the
inciting agent, Avishai Raviv. Her successor in that position, Edna
Arbel, refined her predecessor’s methods and produced a series of
baseless indictments in an almost immoral manner. Anywhere else in
the world, her “recommendations” would have distanced her from
public action forever, however, only here could she receive as
“reward” a promotion to the Supreme Court. Only here could they
forgive, with Edna Arbel’s blessing, the head of the Interrogations
Branch, for illegal wiretaps over the course of several years, or
initiate investigations against public figures with the objective of
disqualifying them from positions in government or as a means of
silencing them.
Only here
could the Supreme Court intervene in every action taken by the
executive or legislative branches, to substitute its discretion for
that of elected authorities and to act, for all intents and
purposes, with imperial methods, interwoven with objectionable
components.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
For the Sake
of Education, I Will Not Be Silent
Dov Landau
The letter of appointment for the National
Task Force for the Advancement of Education should be rejected a
priori, because like previous reforms in education, it focuses on
buildings and frameworks, and considers their replacement a cure for
all of the maladies of education. Therefore, the committee fails to
deal with the substantive shortcomings of education: Values,
curriculum, education for thinking, teaching methods and discipline
problems. In accordance with that objective, the members of the
committee consist of people from the field of hi-tech, economists,
lawyers and businessmen, but not writers, artists, philosophers and
only a small measure of people associated with education and not
even one active teacher. Thus, it is no wonder that the committee’s
recommendations focus on the areas of buildings and frameworks.
Most of the committee’s recommendations are
faulty. Transfer of authority to principals will destroy their
pedagogical relationship with the teachers, will undermine the
motivation to teach and will not correct deficiencies like lack of
discipline, lack of values and lack of a didactic approach. Teacher
training in the universities is known to be a failure both in terms
of information and in terms of didactics, and the closing of
teachers’ colleges will prevent the periphery from studying. The
knowledge of yeshiva alumni in the area of Judaic studies is far
superior to the knowledge of the university graduates. Thus, the
universities are incapable of providing for the needs of the
religious education system, regardless of whether the reason is due
to lack of knowledge, lack of desire or ideological opposition.
A separate Testing Authority will create
uniformity in teaching, and constant pressure due to tests will
prevent creative learning. Extending the hours in which school is
functioning will prevent the teacher from grading tests and
preparing lessons. School is a beehive, and the students generate
intolerable noise, which penetrates everywhere and the teacher has
no possibility of concentrating on his work. There is never a quiet,
comfortable work area (the work spaces are but an illusion) and a
library for the teacher’s needs is non-existent. Shortening the
workweek at the expense of extending the work day will prevent the
teacher from taking courses at the university and advance, and the
children will be left with much time for loitering.
Establishing clear responsibilities for the
students in addition to his rights can solve the discipline
problems. These responsibilities should be anchored in a powerful
law, directed against both violent students and parents. Schools for
reeducation should also be established for the students who run wild
in the schools. The law will determine in what matters the teacher
has the right to intervene and in what matters he may not
intervene. In addition, the intervention of bureaucrats,
reporters and other non-educators should be prevented.
Emphasis on the arts, humanism and Judaism
should counterbalance technology’s domination of education. School
is not a factory and students are not raw materials. Education is
not merely the development of skills, but also the transmission of
the values of culture, nation, religion, respect for parents,
teachers and elders, and the student must accept them without
compromise. Teaching the student how to think is especially
important, teaching them the patterns of logical thought like
induction, deduction, definition, analysis and inference, etc. The
student should learn how to answer questions, which force him to
think and to seek full, complete and profound answers by himself.
This should be transmitted by means of questions pointing to the
hidden meaning of the text and encourage thinking, which will lead
to the solution in the hidden meaning of the text and thereby to the
hidden meaning of the world.
Back
to top *
ACPR Homepage *
NATIV Index
|
|