|
The Decline of
Israeli Deterrence
Aharon Levran
In recent years, a worrisome phenomenon has been
effecting Israel’s national security and specifically its deterrence
capability. The diminishing success of Israel and the IDF in wars and “low
intensity conflicts”, climaxing in the recent troubling events
– the IDF’s dishonorable withdrawal
from Lebanon and the halfhearted effort to quell the bloody confrontations
with the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – indicate that there is
a very serious decline in Israel’s deterrence.
Although Israel’s deterrence is still valid with
regard to all-out comprehensive wars, as the Arabs haven’t initiated such
a war since 1973, its deterrent vis-à-vis “low intensity conflicts” as
mentioned above, is almost non-existent. But an effective deterrence
capability has always been a central, even pre-eminent cornerstone of
Israel’s defense doctrine, given its special circumstances. This stems
first and foremost from the quantitative and ethical-conceptual asymmetry,
which places Israel in the difficult strategic situation of “the Few
versus the hostile Many, as well as from its rough strategic environment
in which “might makes right” rules and weakness invites aggression.
Israel needs its deterrent even after the start of
the “peace process”, which is hardly worth its name. Without this
capability there is no chance in the world that Israel’s enemies will be
willing to coexist with it.
The causes of the decline of the deterrence
capability are attributed to three factors: the IDF, Israeli leadership
and society and Arab perspective. The IDF, due to its diminishing victory
curve, is no longer perceived as an invincible army. But more than that,
the aversion of Israeli leadership and society to wield its power for a
long while now, contribute to the decline of deterrence. When this is
combined with Israel’s absences of suitable “staying power”, the miserable
shape of its deterrent is evident. No wonder that in such a situation,
Sheikh Nasrallah well diagnosed in May 2000 that Israel is as “weak as
cobwebs”, with this sentiment being followed by other Arab leaders.
If Israel wants to exist safely and honorably, it
must soon rehabilitate its deterrence, and paraphrasing from an
outstanding article (which appeared a decade ago and in a different crisis
– the Gulf War) – “if there is an IDF – let it appear immediately.”
back to
top
Textbook for the Ninth Grade: “The Twentieth Century” –
A Substantial Contribution to the Distortion of History
Shmuel Katz
The essay, “The Twentieth Century”, in a history book
of that name, analyzes what is perhaps the most outrageous example of the
“New History”. The book has been introduced into the Ninth grade in
Israeli schools. The very title is a deception. The Twentieth Century
ignores the first two decades of the century. It’s narrative begins
after the first World War. The pupils are kept ignorant of the
historic Zionist revolution in Jewish life which was at its height in
precisely those decades. In this book, there is no Herzl, no Nordau, no
Dreyfus, no Ben-Yehuda, no Bialik. No key figures in the Jewish cause
during the war, neither Weizman nor Jabotinsky exist, nor does Arthur
Balfour of the Balfour Declaration.
The book’s narrative opens with a major
falsification. The League of Nation’s Mandate for Palestine (1922) is
dismissed in one paragraph and that one paragraph is mendacious to the
ultimate degree. Hence, no mention of recognized Jewish rights or of
solemn British obligations to the Jewish people for the “reconstruction of
the Jewish National Home”. The beginning of the upbuilding is implicitly
ascribed to British benevolents, and so there is no mention of the
worldwide intensive operation of the Jewish National Fund.
Relations with the Arabs are falsified – to the
disadvantage of the Jews. Like the Mandate, the text of the Weizman-Feisal
agreement is not quoted, but described tendentiously. The outbreaks of
Arab violence in the 1920s and 1930s are misdescribed, minimized or
ignored. British intervention favoring the Arabs is glossed over or left
unmentioned.
The book does not contain the story of gradually
intensifying British policy, nor of Britain’s contribution to Jewish
distress in Europe by the virtual closing of the gates of Eretz Israel
– a policy maintained religiously throughout the Holocaust.
The book conjures up, in grotesque untruths, a tale
of Israeli superiority in armament during the War of Independence; and it
manipulates dates crucial to the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The
PLO, created in 1964 – three years before the Six Day War – is
described as having been born in 1968.
As a valedictory message to the 14 year old
pupils, the book asks a question: “Will the Jewish People continue to
exist?”
back to
top
Muslim
Immigration and the West
David Pryce-Jones
Muslim
immigration in the West is a recent phenomenon. Like other immigrants
before them, Muslims bring a culture and identity with them, which find
expression in many organizations. The attractions of capitalism and
democracy, and the chance for a better life, encourage the majority to
assimilate, again like other immigrants historically. Nonetheless the
sustained attack on the nation-state now carried out by the emerging
European Union is feeding a backlash of nationalism throughout the
continent. This in turn offers an opening to self-proclaimed local leaders
who declare that assimilation is a threat to Islam, and Muslims instead
should impose their beliefs on the majority in what amounts to reverse
imperialism. If allowed to pass unchallenged, these rival extremisms have
the capacity to undermine democracy in host countries.
back to
top
Bill
Clinton: "Israel's Greatest Friend in the White House"
Ezra Sohar
No mention of a Palestinian state was made in the
Oslo Accords of 1993. Though Peres spoke of it after Rabin’s death,
Netanyahu informed Clinton of his unequivocal opposition. In 1998, the
President’s wife said that she supported the establishment of a
Palestinian state. In September of that year, Clinton visited Gaza. His
statements there constituted de-facto recognition of the Palestinian
state. The gathering in Gaza was not a formal meeting of the Palestinian
National Council and therefore lacked the authority to repeal the
Palestinian Covenant. Nevertheless, Clinton declared that it was abrogated
and the Israeli government was compelled to acquiesce. In fact, he and his
assistants supported the PLO from the beginning of his term. He at no
point insisted that Arafat implement the commitments which he assumed: to
halt the incitement in the schools, to reduce the number of “police”, to
put a stop to the smuggling of arms into the Authority territories, etc.
In July 1999, Clinton asserted that Palestinians “could live anywhere in
Israel”, and in doing so, disclosed his support for the Palestinian right
of return. He even reported to the Congress that Arafat stood in
compliance with all of his commitments.
He allowed Sadaam Hussein to develop weapons of mass
destruction and, for all intents and purposes, appointed Mubarak the local
sheriff and forced Israel to “consult with him as if he were an unbiased
bystander”. He also established an army of 650,000 soldiers equipped with
the most sophisticated American weapons in Egypt.
He appointed a long line of Jews to assist him led by
Sandy (Samuel) Berger – a member of “Breira” and “Peace Now” – widely
considered to be the brains behind the government during Clinton’s second
term.
Clinton hinted at his attitude towards Jerusalem when
his ambassador, Martin Indyk, refused to participate in the celebration of
Jerusalem’s 3000th anniversary. Eventually, at the Taba
meetings, he suggested the division of the city.
He
significantly deepened US involvement in Israel, which led to an increase
in Israel’s dependence on America. He bolstered the status of the CIA – in
addition to all of its previous activities including providing PLO members
with weapons training. And finally, he made promises to Netanyahu and
Barak which he ultimately failed to keep.
back to
top
Daniel Barenboim: The Failure of Sycophancy
Aharon Dolev
“A court-Jew through whom Germany buries it
guilt via esthetics”, wrote a music-critic about Daniel Barenboim upon his
arrival in Israel at the head of a German Symphony Orchestra. Israeli
pianist-conductor Barenboim had been living in Germany and raising his
children among Germans in Berlin for many years. An ardent advocate of
Richard Wagner, Mr. Barenboim’s servility towards Germany and its cultural
institutions has been highly rewarded by grateful Germans over the last
three decades.
Nevertheless, when he recently became a target of an
anti-Semitic attack, evoking dark memories of old Berlin, Mr. Barenboim’s
denial and defense of his anti-Semitic German associates earned him the
nickname “Galut-Jew” in an Israeli daily.
Also
known for his manipulative use of the podium as a political platform, Mr.
Barenboim has been serving for many years as an invaluable mouthpiece of
the PLO and as an active sympathizer of the Palestinian cause.
back to
top
The US, Israel & Oil
Irving Kett
The article addresses the following 4 topics:
-
The strategic importance of the Middle East by
virtue of its geographical location and critical water passages for
world trade. While historically the Suez Canal and especially the
Turkish straits were the most important waterways in the eastern
Mediterannean, today the water passages that are most crucial in the
Middle East are further east, namely in the Persian Gulf and the Straits
of Hormuz.
-
The Middle East has emerged as the leading
petroleum and natural gas producing region in the world. It futhermore
possesses something like 2/3 of the world’s proven petroleum reserves.
Despite its prodigious and continuously daily output, the proven
reserves of Middle East petroleum and natural gas is still rising.
Petroleum products today are the single most valuable commodity in
international commerce. An assured supply of ME petroleum is, therefore,
not only of vital interest to the US in time of war, but also in time of
peace.
-
US interest in maintaining Israel’s
independence has constituted an important element in US policy toward
the ME for many decades. Nevertheless, concern for Israel in
policymaking circles, has vacillated between the extremes of maximum
support to one of advocating virtual abandonment. Since the demise of
the USSR and the Camp David accords of 1978, it is questionable whether
Israel can continue to be considered an important strategic asset of the
US in the new ME.
The abandonment of a truncated, increasingly vulnerable Israel, becomes
an evermore attractive option for the US.
-
There are two lines of thought with respect to the
ME battlefield in the 21st Century. One emphasizes high-tech weapons;
the other places greater importance upon well-trained, highly-motivated
fighters, prepared to engage the enemy at close quarters, and willing to
accept whatever casualties are necessary to gain their ideological and
military objectives. Indications are that determined enemy forces of the
latter type, employing protracted terrorist and guerilla tactics, are
the blueprints for future ME conflicts, of which there will probably be
many.
The strategic importance, coupled with a history of
almost continued crises, requires the US to consider the ME as a crucial
factor in formulating worldwide economic and military strategy.
back to
top
Jewish Zionist
Tasks Awaiting the Prime Minister
Yehezkel Dror
Israeli Prime Ministers are overloaded. But they must
not neglect their responsibility to strengthen and deepen the
Jewish-Zionist nature of Israel as the State of the Jewish People. This is
all the more essential as Israel is on a slippery slope towards
“normalization” and losing its Jewish-Zionist uniqueness. Governmental
action is crucial under Israeli conditions in shaping the future.
Therefore, the Prime Minister should allocate a significant portion of his
attention to reversing negative trends and assuring the special
Jewish-Zionist nature of Israel. This requires the Prime Minister to avoid
exclusive preoccupation with the Peace Process and security issues,
however important. Also, he should adopt a long-range perspective and set
up suitable policy planning staff units, sorely missing at present.
To fulfill his future-weaving role, the Prime
Minister should undertake eight main tasks: (1) Some action-oriented
contemplation, with the help of suitable advisors, to clarify to himself
the meanings of Israel becoming more of a Jewish-Zionist state, while
being also democratic and modern. (2) Crystallization of strong
Jewish-Zionist political will, with cooperation between main
Jewish-Zionist parties and social actors. (3) Strengthening of the
Jewish-Zionist self-identify of Jews in Israel and of the Jewish society
in Israel as a whole. (4) Additional taking into account of Jewish-Zionist
values in Israeli statecraft and critical choices. (5) Significantly
increasing Aliya to Israel, including a mega-project to bring about
massive immigration from the well-to-do Diaspora, including from the USA.
(6) Reversing negative demographic in Israel threatening to reduce the
proportion of Jews in the population. (7) Developing a holistic policy
towards the minorities, which assures their individual and communal rights
but prevents undermining of the overall Jewish-Zionist nature of Israel as
the State of the Jewish People. And (8) Integrating Israel fully into the
Jewish People, including participation of representatives of the Diaspora
in crucial Israeli decisions and initiating a Jewish People policy.
The mix and timing of tasks must be adjusted to
opportunities and situations. But, full awareness by the Prime Minister of
his responsibility for assuring and deepening the Jewish-Zionist nature of
Israel and the giving of high priority to tasks doing so is imperative.
back to
top
“He Who is Compassionate to the Cruel Will Ultimately Become Cruel
to the Compassionate” – Contemporary Lessons from an Ancient Midrash
Eliav Shochetman
The well-known folk-saying “One who becomes
compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the
compassionate”, has been employed to criticize the government for
not dealing harshly with the cruel terrorist organizations but rather
treating them forgivingly, which engenders cruelty to the general public.
In its primary context, this adage has a totally
different meaning. Originally, this saying was directed towards King Saul,
who did not properly fulfill the Torah’s commandment to battle against
Amalek until its liquidation. In the above adage, our Sages attempt to
convey that a King may not place humanitarian considerations above the
law, as the obligation to obey is incumbent upon the government just like
anyone else, and the government is not permitted to refrain from
fulfilling its obligations for any reason.
The Law of the State of Israel mandates to combat
terrorism until its demise. The government’s avoidance of waging an
all-out war against terrorism for political reasons is a repetition of
King Saul’s mistake – a mistake which cost him his throne and his kingdom.
The elected Prime Minister must learn the lessons of
the rich historical experience of the Jewish people in the realm of war
against those who threaten it with extinction and conduct peace talks only
with those among the Arabs residing in the Land of Israel who are truly
willing to recognize the existence of the State of Israel. As to all those
who want to continue the battle against Israel, it is incumbent upon us –
including, and above all, the Government and Prime Minister – to obey the
law and wage war against them until their demise. This is a precondition
for the Prime Minister to have any prospect of extricating the State from
the difficult situation in which it finds itself, since the inception of
the Oslo “peace process” in 1993.
back to
top
Regards from the GSS, Platoon D
(or: What If Yigal Amir Had a Girlfriend Like Tinkerbell?)
Sarit Yalov
The movie, “A Time of Favor”, whose writer seemingly
attempts to present “the conflict of conscience versus obligation”, is
essentially a libelous indictment. Filled with caustic innuendoes about
the activities of the “Temple Mount Faithful” on the one hand, and the
character of Yigal Amir on the other, it constantly projects to viewers
the sense that the religious settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are
capable of any evil.
“A Time of Favor” tells the story of a romantic
triangle. One central character is Menahem – a handsome, knitted-kippa
wearing paratroop platoon commander, who is dispatched by the rabbi of the
“hesder” yeshiva in which he studied to establish a platoon of “hesder”
yeshiva students. The second central character is Pini – a Torah genius, a
close friend of Menahem and the rabbi’s favorite disciple. The third
central character is Michal – Rabbi Meltzer’s rebellious daughter,
designated for Pini but desirous of Menahem. The overwhelming influence of
the rabbi’s teachings on Pini on the one hand, and his unrequited love for
Michal on the other, lead him to attempt to bomb the Temple Mount, the
mountain with the golden-domed mosque at its peak and the Western Wall at
its foot – by utilizing those under Menahem’s command and means at his
disposal. Menahem is suspected of belonging to a nationalist underground
organization and successfully battles to prove his innocence. It seems
that the writer’s inability to philosophically come to terms with the
profound spiritual component of religious Zionism, left him with no
alternative but to negate it totally. When he finally allows Rabbi Meltzer
to interject a statement with even a hint of spirituality: “The Temple is
not merely a building, the Temple Mount is not merely a place – it is an
idea” – the statement is portrayed as cunning demagoguery which can only
be countered by a sophisticated GSS officer with the ultimate retort: “One
does not steal so many crates of ammunition for an idea.”
back to
top
Their Sacrilegious Hearts
A Dispute with the Ariel Center and Martin Sherman
Yigal Elam
The people of the Ariel Center speak of democracy but
their concept of democracy is totally distorted. Their weltanschauung is
Darwinist, collectivist and ethnocentric, in complete contradistinction to
that of Western democracy. They also have difficulty grasping that the
philosophy of an ethnocentric Jewish state contradicts the idea of Greater
Israel. In order for Israel to expand over the territory of all of the
Land of Israel, it must take responsibility for all of the Palestinian
inhabitants of that territory and treat them as citizens. Instead, the
people of the Ariel Center dream of taking advantage of the historic
opportunity to expel the Palestinians from the territory of the Land of
Israel. They believe that it is feasible to commit this crime against
humanity and get away with it because, in their opinion, it is the way of
the world. Their philosophy is immature and violent. They are unfamiliar
with the attributes of power. They disregard the international rules of
the game. They do not understand the secret of the superiority of
contemporary Western democracies. Even the essence and the role of a
modern country are unclear to them.
Our right wing does not represent a patriotic outlook
but rather an anti-Semitic one, which is fundamentally anti-country and
anti-state. They do not believe in the possibility of peace with the Arab
world; truth be told, they have no interest in it, since peace means
coming to terms with the existence of a Palestinian nation in the Land of
Israel, alongside the Jewish people. They paint a false and defeatist
picture of the future – the destruction of Israel – and advocate a path
which will lead to the realization of that prophecy of destruction.
back to
top
His Sacrilegious Heart
A Response to Yigal Elam
Martin Sherman
Yigal Elam’s response to the ACPR position
paper detailing the dangers inherent in the Oslo process and its
derivatives is a rare mixture of defamatory dogma and ignominious
ignorance, heavily spiced with the impudent arrogance of the
self-proclaimed righteous. Elam begins his tirade by a priori
disqualifying the validity of his political opponents’ position
without providing any substantial rationale or factual evidence to back up
his position. He attempts to repudiate the positions set out by the
ACPR paper by pompously claiming a monopoly on political wisdom and
moral probity for his own curious blend of appeasement and
self-contradictory national effacement. Thus Elam heaps abuse on those
who would assertively defend Jewish nationalism, yet apparently views with
great favor concessions to foster Palestinian nationalism. He purports to
speak in the name of enlightened democratic values yet suggests that
promoting them requires acquiescing to the demands of the most tyrannical
elements on the face of the planet who represent the very antithesis of
the values he allegedly cherishes. Throughout his rambling diatribe, Elam
eschews, with admirable consistency, any semblance of an attempt to
present reasoned arguments or accurate data in order to refute the
reasoned arguments and factual data presented in the ACPR analysis.
Instead he tries to intimidate the reader and with a torrent of bullying,
unfounded and disingenuous invective in the hope that this will somehow
undermine his opponents’ positions. Is this the best that the Israeli
“left” can muster??
back to
top
|
