Wanted: Israeli neocons

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-16-04 | CAROLINE GLICK

[SJackson]

Israel's passivity in the face of Palestinian corruption, authoritarianism and hate indicates that what Israel needs most desperately is for a movement of Israeli neoconservatives to arise and "take control" of Israel's foreign policy.

Speaking at the Interdisciplinary Center's Herzliya Conference on Monday, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said that Israel's "interest is to separate the general Palestinian population from those involved in terrorism." This, of course, stands at the core of all anti-guerrilla and counterterror operational thinking.

Ya'alon noted the economic devastation that the Palestinian terror war has wrought on the general Palestinian population. Repeated suicide attacks at the Erez Industrial Park, where some 4,000 Gazans worked each day to support some 35,000 people, forced Israel to close the park. This week's attack against an IDF outpost on the border between Gaza and Egypt forced the army to close the border-crossing terminal, preventing Gazans from conducting business in Egypt. Suicide bombers disguised as ordinary workers have forced Israel to stringently limit the number of Palestinians working in Israel and to erect roadblocks throughout Judea and Samaria.

Israel has, over the past four years, and indeed since the first Palestinian suicide bomber introduced himself to Israeli civilians back in 1994, tried to develop methods of screening cargo and workers that would make Palestinian economic activity possible while preventing the infiltration of human bombs. Additionally, as Ya'alon noted, Israel has worked to ensure that the health and education systems in Judea, Samaria and Gaza have continued to operate. This, in spite of the fact that terrorists have hidden in maternity and cancer wards from Bethlehem to Jenin and that the Palestinian school system teaches children that their life goal should be to become a suicide bomber.

Yet, in spite of all of Israel's attempts to separate the broader Palestinian population from the terrorists, Ya'alon admitted that support for the terrorists had not waned, nor had enthusiasm for terrorism in general. In his words, IDF counterterror operations over the past two years "have decreased the ability, not the motivation" of Palestinians to carry out attacks against Israelis.

And so it can be said that the IDF, and Israel as a whole, have failed in the mission of separating the general Palestinian population from those involved in terrorism.

How can this be the case? After all, Israel's leaders have never declared war on the Palestinians. To the contrary, every time it seemed there was a break in the clouds, Israel moved quickly to embrace any opportunity to begin discussions with Palestinian officials – whether at the political level or among the various official Palestinian militia commanders.

An answer to this seeming paradox was provided by The Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh in a dispatch from Gaza earlier in the week. Toameh reported the case of Dr. Hassan Nurani, a psychologist from Gaza City who wished to run for the PA's presidency. Nurani composed a platform calling for the building of a "civilized and moral society." He was able to collect the requisite 5,000 signatures to submit his candidacy but couldn't afford the $3000 needed to register for the election. Desperate to run, Nurani tried selling off his small parcel of land and his home furnishings. But he still wasn't able to raise the sum, which is the rough equivalent of an annual salary in Gaza.

It is possible that Dr. Nurani supports terrorism. It is possible that he is not willing to live in a Palestinian society which exists alongside a strong and vibrant Jewish state. It is possible that he insists that Israel allow millions of foreign-born Arabs to immigrate freely into Israel as a condition for peace. But we'll never know, because he is too poor to tell us.

And then we have the frontrunner for the Palestinian presidency, new PLO head Mahmoud Abbas. He's the only show in town. It doesn't seem to bother anyone that Yasser Arafat's deputy of 40 years has refused to call for an end to the Palestinian terror war, saying just Wednesday in Saudi Arabia that he didn't mean to offend anyone when he said the day before that violence against Israel is counterproductive.

"All I meant," Abbas explained, "is that we are in a phase that does not necessitate arms because we want to negotiate." And in the meantime, he decried Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's call earlier in the day for the international community to build permanent housing for the millions of Arabs, whose ancestors may have once lived in Israel, who have been interned in UN refugee camps in the Arab world for the past 55 years. "Any proposal regarding the resettlement of the refugees is completely rejected," Abbas, the soon-to-be-democratically elected Palestinian leader, said.

Shalom's call for the rehabilitation of the residents of the UN refugee camps was given in the course of his address to the Herzliya Conference. Aside from daring to raise the possibility of letting these poor people finally be free of the burden of living their lives as political symbols, his speech was actually wholly supportive of the combative, rejectionist Abbas.

Shalom devoted much of his address to calling for the convention of a second Aqaba summit with US President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Abbas right after the January 9 elections. In his words: "The lead actors from the first Aqaba summit, which took place in June 2003 – Sharon, Bush and Abu Mazen [Abbas] – are the same actors today, but stronger."

So, in the run-up to the Palestinian election, which is supposed to be the first step toward the liberalization and democratization of Palestinian society, the presumptive winner – who stands opposed to any action against terror operatives or compromise on the so-called refugees that would enable peace to be achieved – is embraced as a positive development, a window of opportunity and a foregone conclusion.

In an interview with the Post's Ruthie Blum appearing today, Palestinian apologist extraordinaire Hanan Ashrawi assailed Bush for adopting "the neocon agenda" in calling for the transformation of Palestinian society from a terror-supporting and -engendering society into a peaceful democratic one before the establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "You don't use democracy for justifying the existence of states. You would then have to remove many states. Self-determination for Palestinians is a right that has to be implemented as a way of bringing peace and stability to the region. Therefore, you don't make a state dependent on its system of government."

And Ashrawi isn't alone. In his speech at the conference on Tuesday, Labor party leader and soon-to-be acting prime minister Shimon Peres assailed the notion that democratic reform is a necessary condition for peaceful relations.

Indeed, the very thought that Palestinian society must be democratized meets its staunchest opposition from Israeli elites. In his column in Yediot Ahronot last Friday, Nahum Barnea, Israel's journalistic supremo and proud socialist, wrote scathingly of Bush's attachment to the notions of democracy and morality. Speaking of Bush's reading of Minister-without-Portfolio Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, which argues that peaceful relations are contingent on individual freedom and democracy, Barnea sneered, "The book publisher can now advertise it as 'the only book the president has read in the last 10 years.'" He then went on to witheringly criticize Sharansky's book, describing it as "clear, easily digestible, unburdened by doubt, moralistic, very positive and totally simplistic."

Israel's elitists, like Barnea and Peres, and their sheep-like followers like Shalom, no doubt took comfort in the obnoxious responses evinced toward the Bush administration's policy doctrine of bringing democracy to the Arab world during last Saturday's conference on the topic in Rabat, Morocco. There, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was barraged by angry statements from the Egyptian, Saudi and Libyan foreign ministers, who claimed that the US can't talk about democracy until "the peace process" goes forward and US occupation of Iraq comes to an end.

Even German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the champion of the Israeli Left, said that progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians "will lend all reform and modernization efforts in the Arab world unprecedented momentum."

It isn't surprising that the same people who demonize their political opposition in Israel as warmongering extremists and potential political assassins would have such a low opinion of the possibility that Arabs might, if given the opportunity, choose to live freely and at peace with Israel and the rest of their neighbors.

And yet, as The Washington Post's editorialist noted on Wednesday, even as the Arab potentates were berating the Americans for daring to discuss democracy with them, Arab human rights activists who also participated in the conference insisted that the Americans continue to pressure their governments and that "Palestinian and Iraqi issues should not be used as excuses for not launching reforms."

And what did these people want? They demanded that their governments "allow free ownership of media institutions and sources; allow freedom of expression and especially freedom of assembly and meetings; ensure women's rights and remove all forms of inequality and discrimination against women in the Arab world; and immediately release reformers, human rights activists and political prisoners."

The American neoconservatives, who have been the most visible proponents of democracy in the Arab world and who Barnea, echoing Ashrawi, alleges "control the foreign policy of the Bush administration," have often been accused of working for Israel. Yet, as our elites' revulsion with democracy and our government's silence on the issue shows, American democracy advocates have almost no one to talk to in Israel. Indeed, Israel's passivity in the face of Palestinian corruption, authoritarianism and hate indicates that what Israel needs most desperately is for a movement of Israeli neoconservatives to arise and "take control" of Israel's foreign policy.

[PiersGaveston]

Yeah we need some Israeli neo-cons, after all the Palestinians will happily role onto their back and let the occupying forces tickle their stomachs if democracy is on the agenda.

Well I suppose it would be an improvement on the current policy of indiscriminate slaughter.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Mamzelle]

I suppose they could use a few neocons to do the intellectual work. They could also use some conservatives willing to pick up a gun and fight.

[rightwingcrazy]

Your post is confusing. You refer to "occupying forces" as if they were Israelis. I consider the Arab terrorists in the territories "occupying forces". After all, they are "forces", and they do "occupy". And their *avowed* goal is to exterminate or otherwise eliminate others (Jews) in their midst through acts of terror.

Then you refer to the "current policy of indiscriminate slaughter". And yet, the Israeli government strives to target only those who are trying to kill Israelis. In other words, they try to *discriminate* those who are trying to get Israelis killed from those who aren't. It's hard to argue otherwise, except by plugging your ears and screaming, or by simply eliminating others with a different point of view.

[PiersGaveston]

I consider the Arab terrorists in the territories "occupying forces". After all, they are "forces", and they do "occupy".

I think that the 'crazy' in your user-name is showing through here, the choice of name should relect one's persona - don't you think?

Yes the Arabs of occupying the land, and have been doing for a few centuries. But that's not good enough for the Eretz Israel types, who would push them off (preferably killing them), whilst spitting in the face of the Christian leaders.

the Israeli government strives to target only those who are trying to kill Israelis

Yeah, and driving bulldozers through refugee camps is a really accurate means of targetting - come to think of it, why are these people living in such camps, could it be the ethnic cleansing the Israelis undertook back in the late '40s?

[rightwingcrazy]

My user-name recognizes dialog like you post, which pretends name-calling is reasoned argument.

Regarding "Arabs" occupying the land for centuries, I doubt you'll find a single Arab that's lived there more than about 90 years. Or are you implying that common language to previous occupiers implies birthright to land and the right to exclude others from it?

"Bulldozing through refugee camps", "ethic cleansing", etc: now you're regurgitating historical fiction. I've seen images of bulldozers, and I've read uncontested assertions that the targets of the bulldozers were structures used by terrorists for storing weapons, planning attacks, conducting attacks, etc. Destroying those buildings doesn't sound "indiscriminate" to me. Sounds like a discriminating means of self-preservation. You seem to presume that the Israelis don't have a right to self-preservation.

[Valin]

current policy of indiscriminate slaughter


Indiscriminate slaughter? Who? Israel?

[Valin]

why are these people living in such camps, could it be the ethnic cleansing the Israelis undertook back in the late '40s?

Or could it be that the rest of the Arab governments use them to keep their own people "under control".

[PiersGaveston]

Or could it be that the rest of the Arab governments use them to keep their own people "under control".

Absolutely, the Arab government stormed into their villages in 1948 and forced them to flee, then blocked their return. All of the time pretending to be Israelis. Sounds good to me.

[Valin]

Last time I checked the west bank was controled by Jordon and the Gaza was controled by Egypt from 48 till 67, so why did they keep the Palestinians in the camps?

[judicial meanz]

Glad you signed up yesterday to post this trash. You seem like one of those hate the Jooooooooooo's agenda driven posters who are popping up lately. If you aren't, prove me wrong.

Rebuttal answersI think that the 'crazy' in your user-name is showing through here, the choice of name should reflect one's persona - don't you think

Ony if ones opinion of people who are professed right wingers happens to be skewed to begin with.

Yes the Arabs of occupying the land, and have been doing for a few centuries. But that's not good enough for the Eretz Israel types, who would push them off (preferably killing them), whilst spitting in the face of the Christian leaders

The Jews have been there for centuries also. They bought the land they live on, and are legally entitled to it by virtue of a UN resolution establishing the State of Israel, which was supervised by your very own Winston Churchill when British territorial holdings in the Middle East were given self determination in the late 40's.

Eretz Israel types? Thats a mighty large label applied with a huge brush stroke. Do you normally assign a reactionary label to an entire group of people with a common belief? If so, thats a method of intolerance and hate on your part

Spitting in the face of Christians? I've never had a Jew spit in my face, and I've read the article you are referencing. I've been to Israel a few times, so if this were as common as you allege, it probably should have happened to me by now. The Jews responsible were prosecuted for doing it by the Israeli's, so obviously this isnt a widely held belief common to all Jews. If it were, my wife and children should be spitting in my face daily.

Yeah, and driving bulldozers through refugee camps is a really accurate means of targetting - come to think of it, why are these people living in such camps, could it be the ethnic cleansing the Israelis undertook back in the late '40s?

Maybe you should ask this question of Jordan. They have 10 refugee camps with 300,000 people in them. UNWRA has to look over them because the Jordanians have periodically murdered more Palestinians than the Israelis ever thought of. The incident you are speaking in (Jenin) resulted in 20 Palestinain deaths, and an equal number of Israeli deaths due to an ambush and massacre by the Palestinans.

Dont forget the fact that Jenin sent out an inordinate amount of suicide bombers to murder Israelis prior to military operations conducted there.

[Paul_Denton]

Israel's passivity in the face of Palestinian corruption, authoritarianism and hate indicates that what Israel needs most desperately is for a movement of Israeli neoconservatives to arise and "take control" of Israel's foreign policy.

I agree. If it were me I would have had Arafat assasinated by a bullet to his head and would have occupied "palestine" as long as was necessary until Hamas and other terrorists were gone.

[rightwingcrazy]

The Israeli Left wants to be loved.

[Alouette]

Caroline Glick has nailed it.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian Israeli socialists will hand their own country over to the Palestinians to be destroyed rather than yield any scrap of power to "upstart" neocons.

No religious Jew or conservative challenger like Nathan Sharansky (or for that matter not even a rabid attack dog like Tommy Lapid) can expect to break the choke-hold that the old boy socialist kibbutz clique has on the government.

Is there any other explanation for the phenomenon that no matter which party gets elected, the Israelis are always stuck with Shimon Peres?

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel ping list.

WARNING: This is a high volume ping list

[Alouette]

Now ye troll, beg for mercy from...

...ZOT in boots!

[Valin]

Glad you signed up yesterday


Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? :-)

[PiersGaveston]

Glad you signed up yesterday to post this trash.

Well I signed up on Wednesday not yesterday, and it was to post other trash, this just seemed like a jolly argument to join.

You seem like one of those hate the Jooooooooooo's agenda driven posters who are popping up lately. If you aren't, prove me wrong.

I take that to mean that you think I am a rabid anti-semite. If so, you are utterly wrong. It would be impossible to prove this purely by written means, unless you accept my word that I am not. My view of the Jews is like my view of the Inuit, or the Mongolians - I am not one, but have no reason at all to have animosity towards them. I have come across of these anti-semites, and they were a bunch of utter lunatics; to suggest that the Jews secretly control the media, or the medical profession, or whatever else is almost as obviously false as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Jews have been there for centuries also.

Right into the 20th century there were more Christians than Jews, should this have become a Christian state?

a UN resolution establishing the State of Israel, which was supervised by your very own Winston Churchill when British territorial holdings in the Middle East were given self determination in the late 40's.

Well that all went back to the Balfour Declaration, which was rather silly. Sir Winston Churchill also ordered the Gallipolli campaign - ask our Australian brethren if you want to know about that - even the impramatur of such a great man does not make something right.

Also it is stretching a point to call it self-determination. It was a British pull-out based on frustration with the Arabs' lack of willingness to negotiate, and the terrorism of the Irgun and Stern Gang.

Eretz Israel types?

I mean those (both Jews and some protestant Christians) who apply a Divine Right to the Jewish possession of the entire land of ancient Israel. I have no problem with them holding that position, but as it is based on a particular view of revelation they should not be surprised when other people disagree with them; especially when grotesque means of accomplishing it are used.

Spitting in the face of Christians? I've never had a Jew spit in my face, and I've read the article you are referencing.

I'm glad to hear it, and for the record neither have I. however, I do tend to accept the views of local Christian leadership on the treatment of Christians in a given place, given the statements of the Latin Patriarch, the Greek Patriarch &c.&c.&c. I would not be terribly sure of decent treatment of Christians there.

[PiersGaveston]

Now ye troll, beg for mercy

I'd rather not old chap.

R.E. your tag-line, congratulations to yourself and your wife/husband. I am sure that your children are a great delight and source of pride to you.