There is a logical contradiction in the heart of Israeli behavior that ensures an ongoing long-term bleeding of the nation.
There is passivity all around and a lack of effectiveness both on the ground and in Hasbara. Suicide bombings such as in the Jerusalem Sbarro?s pizzeria or in the Dolphinarium in Jaffa were left without any real reaction and it was not until the Passover Park Hotel terror attack in Netanya, which killed 29, that a serious action was taken. Defeatism as expressed by a lack of decisive military action is compounded by intention to dismantle settlements that have already seen three generations and have been championed by a lifetime of work by Sharon himself. If something changed, it is only the greater value of these settlements in view of the increased threat of WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction), since such Jewish settlements with Arab settlements around them serve as a deterrent against the use of such WMD. Territorial separation between Jewish and Arab settlements will substantially increase the danger of actual use of such weapons.
Why is Israel not taking forceful military action - like for example destroying the village of the suicide bomber and deporting the inhabitants of the village to Eastern Palestine. After the first or second village, there would be peace and quiet. Alan Dershowitz, a reputed professor of law, has also suggested solutions along these lines, which are still much milder in relation to those adopted by other democracies. The British, after all, bombed Arab villages with their airforce when they wanted to quell the Arab revolt, and one is not even suggesting such drastic steps for now. Why not? The answer you are likely to get from the Israeli authorities is that world opinion would not allow such solutions to Israel.
Yet, when it is suggested to the Israeli authorities that proper Hasbara could help the world understand such steps, this is rejected without an explanation. Proper Hasbara, which would contribute to world opinion understanding Israel taking more drastic steps, would also include reminding the world how, for example, 630,000 innocent German civilians were killed by the Allied bombers when the Allies were already winning the war. It was done in order to shorten the war and save the life of Allied soldiers. This, too, was exactly the motivation behind the US using the atomic bomb in Japan. A normal nation tries to minimize the loss of life among both its civilians and soldiers.
Compare this with Israeli behavior. When, finally, in April 2002, the Israeli army took some action, the army wanted the airforce in Jenin. In fact, the job of the soldiers on the ground could be done with one F-16 plane, and the life of 23 reservists would have been saved. But the response of Binyamin Ben-Eliezer ? Ariel Sharon?s minister of defense - to the army was that for the sake of world public opinion and Hasbara, the soldiers will have to fight on the ground, in a terrain where it was known in advance that traps and ambushes were prepared. At the same time, the same government did not allow enhancing our Hasbara along the lines indicated above, reminding the world how other Western democracies acted, and act, in similar situations - a self-defeating paradox and a logical contradiction.
This is a typical situation. For example, in one case, even after Israeli soldiers have given civilians the possibility to leave a house - and were assured by these civilians that the house is now empty - Israeli soldiers still did not want to endanger civilians and entered the house themselves, instead of destroying the house from outside. The father of a soldier who was killed by the terrorists inside the house justifiably walked in protest from Shilo to Jerusalem with a banner asking ?Why is the life of Achmed more dear than the life of my son?? And I repeat, this the typical situation with the IDF - a moral behavior unparalleled in any other democracy. There has never been an army as moral as the Israeli army, but this costs a singular price in the life of the Israeli soldiers.
A similar logical contradiction lies in relation to the settlements (or the fence). Sharon says that the world would not let us keep all of Eretz Israel, and therefore it is better to get rid of some of the settlements and be left with the rest (e.g., in Yediot Acharonot, 24.2.2004). But our minister of foreign affairs and prime minister spokespersons often appear in public, on international TV for example, and are not allowed to say that the settlements are legal under international law, even though the other side and its allies focus on this ?illegality?. Is it not hypocritical and a logical contradiction to, on the one hand, invoke world opinion, external pressures and the requirements of Hasbara as the reason for dismantling settlements, and on the other hand, not allow the country?s diplomats to explain openly the legality of the settlements?
One could also say that it serves the interests of those foreign powers that want the dismantling of the settlements to conceal the legality of the settlements. But are our leaders and prime minister working for the interests of foreign powers? This concealing was done so effectively over so many years, including within Israel?s education system (e.g., generations were never taught Jewish rights according to the League of Nations mandate), that even Israelis now are ignorant and many innocently believe in the false foreign, and home-produced, anti-Jewish propaganda. Concealing the legality of the settlements makes it easier to dismantle settlements in the face of public opinion in Israel and abroad.
What is the reason behind these and many other related logical contradictions, lack of consistency and determination, and self-defeating and zigzagged Israeli policies? Is there somebody there that wants the nation to go insane and to bring about its collapse by mere internal demoralization, confusion and helplessness?
Is there somebody that thrives on long-term bleeding?
The explanations to these logical contradictions and irrational behavior include:
The need of Israeli politicians from both sides to court the 20% of Arab minority that sides with their Palestinian brothers; they do not serve in the army but do have full voting rights on the national level - an anomalous situation.
The intervention of foreign bodies and governments that often can buy and bribe Israeli politicians and ?intellectuals? in all sorts of direct and indirect ways.
Physical aggression by the left on the right, which is worse in Haifa because of its large Arab minority. This aggression is often ignored by the police and the judicial system. Administrative arrests of right-wing activists for long periods without any charges brought against them. The case of Noam Federman is a case in point. Creation of an atmosphere of intimidation against peaceful right-wing activists by various arrests and inquiries, all carried out by Israeli police and secret service. This also includes the brutal removal and demolition from her house of a widow and five children - a widow who just lost her husband to terrorists. The list of harassed settlers and their supporters is long.
International psychological warfare, whose methods includes giving position of influence in Israeli politics to Israeli Lenin?s fools, many from academia and literary circles. The psychological warfare also works on the principle that if you tell a victim of aggression many times that it is his fault - it is a known tactic of anti-Semites to blame the Jews for their own suffering - he ends up believing in it. This is a kind of absurd Stockholm Syndrome, since we are dealing with the most moral army and nation in the world.
Concealing of crucial information from the public, like the inability of even David Bar Ilan, the Chief Press Officer of Prime Minister Netanyahu, to let the nation know, via Haaretz, Yediot and Maariv, that the Palestinians are not only not keeping their side of Oslo, but that a terrible anti-Jewish incitement in schools and the media of the Palestinian Authority (and among Arabs in general) has continued from the beginning of Oslo. That incitement poisons the next generation and indicates the real long-term intentions of the Arabs, and not the camouflaged milder statements to Western media or signatures on peace agreements. This failure thus prolonged the period of wishful thinking, and the resultant continuation of one-sided concessions, that in turn and inter alia, cost much Jewish life, and created an almost-irreversibly worse situation for the Jews.
All sorts of corruption, like officials in the prime minister?s immediate circles doing business with the other side. Thus, it was reported that Dov Weisglass, chief of Sharon?s office, had business in a Jericho casino with PA dignitary. Yossi Ginosar, ex- Mossad leader, ran Yasser Arafat?s accounts at the same time that he personally did business with the Palestinian leaders. He was an envoy of Israeli prime ministers to Arafat. The conflict of interest was glaring. A tendency to ignore Palestinian violations is an understandable result of such affinities and conflict of interests.
Related to the above, since it is another form of corruption, is the speculation that Sharon?s (and his deputy, Ehud Olmert?s) out-of-character behavior, contradicting his life?s work, is based on the need to divert attention from his family?s judicial problems. He needs to appease the judiciary, that is often left-wing, by dismantling settlements.
If we try to connect directly the long-term bleeding of the nation and Sharon?s reign, one can observe that Sharon said in the past that he enjoys his position of prime minister and wants to be elected next time around, too. In normal times, Sharon?s chances of election would have been very low. He has indeed turned out to be an internationally hated figure. No matter how left he goes and how passive, conciliatory and non-violent he becomes, there is a constant stream of petitions from left-wing intellectuals and academics, in Israel and abroad, against Sharon. Abroad, even known politicians dare smear him and call him a war criminal. He evaded, for now, the Brussels court charges as a war criminal. The newspaper The Independent carried a caricature of a naked Sharon devouring Palestinian children - and the cartoonist got first prize in a national competition.
In Nativ of June 2002, there is an article by Jane Kastner, an American public relations consultant, who specializes in public relation for senior politicians. She writes there, that Sharon and Binyamin Ben-Eliezer would not have been elected to high office in any Western-type democracy. She says that their awkward physical appearance is not only physically repulsive, and this is important in this age where TV appearance counts a lot, but their overweight appearance provokes restlessness in the eyes of the observer. Furthermore, she says, by their inability to control their weight, which involves exercising self-discipline in diet and physical activity, they broadcast a general lack of self-discipline. So, she asks, if they cannot exert the minimum self-control involved in controlling their body, how you can you put in their hands the fate of a nation?
One can go on and find obvious reasons why in normal times Sharon would not be a natural choice for prime minister, but his unparalleled (already two) successes in the elections came not in normal times. They came when the nation was already bleeding. And in the collective memory of the nation, Sharon was the warrior of the hour. Just like Churchill, who was considered reckless and adventurous, but in a time of national emergency, he was called to the helm.
However, Churchill was dropped by the nation almost immediately after victory. A decisive victory over terrorism may lead to a similar fate for Sharon. The nation will have no use for his supposed forte and his other disadvantages will come to the fore. So from this point of view, it pays for Sharon not to be decisive and to let the nation?s ongoing bleeding continue.
It was reported that whenever Sharon visited the US, he met with Henry Kissinger, who had a theory that Israel should bleed in order to be amenable and obedient; therefore, Kissinger saw to it during his tenure that Israel will bleed first and will never have a decisive or too great a victory. Could it be that, in order to stay in power, Sharon perpetuates Israel?s bleeding, perhaps even subconsciously, sensing that after a decisive victory on terrorism, the nation will drop him?
There is passivity all around and a lack of effectiveness both on the ground and in Hasbara. Suicide bombings such as in the Jerusalem Sbarro?s pizzeria or in the Dolphinarium in Jaffa were left without any real reaction and it was not until the Passover Park Hotel terror attack in Netanya, which killed 29, that a serious action was taken. Defeatism as expressed by a lack of decisive military action is compounded by intention to dismantle settlements that have already seen three generations and have been championed by a lifetime of work by Sharon himself. If something changed, it is only the greater value of these settlements in view of the increased threat of WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction), since such Jewish settlements with Arab settlements around them serve as a deterrent against the use of such WMD. Territorial separation between Jewish and Arab settlements will substantially increase the danger of actual use of such weapons.
Why is Israel not taking forceful military action - like for example destroying the village of the suicide bomber and deporting the inhabitants of the village to Eastern Palestine. After the first or second village, there would be peace and quiet. Alan Dershowitz, a reputed professor of law, has also suggested solutions along these lines, which are still much milder in relation to those adopted by other democracies. The British, after all, bombed Arab villages with their airforce when they wanted to quell the Arab revolt, and one is not even suggesting such drastic steps for now. Why not? The answer you are likely to get from the Israeli authorities is that world opinion would not allow such solutions to Israel.
Yet, when it is suggested to the Israeli authorities that proper Hasbara could help the world understand such steps, this is rejected without an explanation. Proper Hasbara, which would contribute to world opinion understanding Israel taking more drastic steps, would also include reminding the world how, for example, 630,000 innocent German civilians were killed by the Allied bombers when the Allies were already winning the war. It was done in order to shorten the war and save the life of Allied soldiers. This, too, was exactly the motivation behind the US using the atomic bomb in Japan. A normal nation tries to minimize the loss of life among both its civilians and soldiers.
Compare this with Israeli behavior. When, finally, in April 2002, the Israeli army took some action, the army wanted the airforce in Jenin. In fact, the job of the soldiers on the ground could be done with one F-16 plane, and the life of 23 reservists would have been saved. But the response of Binyamin Ben-Eliezer ? Ariel Sharon?s minister of defense - to the army was that for the sake of world public opinion and Hasbara, the soldiers will have to fight on the ground, in a terrain where it was known in advance that traps and ambushes were prepared. At the same time, the same government did not allow enhancing our Hasbara along the lines indicated above, reminding the world how other Western democracies acted, and act, in similar situations - a self-defeating paradox and a logical contradiction.
This is a typical situation. For example, in one case, even after Israeli soldiers have given civilians the possibility to leave a house - and were assured by these civilians that the house is now empty - Israeli soldiers still did not want to endanger civilians and entered the house themselves, instead of destroying the house from outside. The father of a soldier who was killed by the terrorists inside the house justifiably walked in protest from Shilo to Jerusalem with a banner asking ?Why is the life of Achmed more dear than the life of my son?? And I repeat, this the typical situation with the IDF - a moral behavior unparalleled in any other democracy. There has never been an army as moral as the Israeli army, but this costs a singular price in the life of the Israeli soldiers.
A similar logical contradiction lies in relation to the settlements (or the fence). Sharon says that the world would not let us keep all of Eretz Israel, and therefore it is better to get rid of some of the settlements and be left with the rest (e.g., in Yediot Acharonot, 24.2.2004). But our minister of foreign affairs and prime minister spokespersons often appear in public, on international TV for example, and are not allowed to say that the settlements are legal under international law, even though the other side and its allies focus on this ?illegality?. Is it not hypocritical and a logical contradiction to, on the one hand, invoke world opinion, external pressures and the requirements of Hasbara as the reason for dismantling settlements, and on the other hand, not allow the country?s diplomats to explain openly the legality of the settlements?
One could also say that it serves the interests of those foreign powers that want the dismantling of the settlements to conceal the legality of the settlements. But are our leaders and prime minister working for the interests of foreign powers? This concealing was done so effectively over so many years, including within Israel?s education system (e.g., generations were never taught Jewish rights according to the League of Nations mandate), that even Israelis now are ignorant and many innocently believe in the false foreign, and home-produced, anti-Jewish propaganda. Concealing the legality of the settlements makes it easier to dismantle settlements in the face of public opinion in Israel and abroad.
What is the reason behind these and many other related logical contradictions, lack of consistency and determination, and self-defeating and zigzagged Israeli policies? Is there somebody there that wants the nation to go insane and to bring about its collapse by mere internal demoralization, confusion and helplessness?
Is there somebody that thrives on long-term bleeding?
The explanations to these logical contradictions and irrational behavior include:
The need of Israeli politicians from both sides to court the 20% of Arab minority that sides with their Palestinian brothers; they do not serve in the army but do have full voting rights on the national level - an anomalous situation.
The intervention of foreign bodies and governments that often can buy and bribe Israeli politicians and ?intellectuals? in all sorts of direct and indirect ways.
Physical aggression by the left on the right, which is worse in Haifa because of its large Arab minority. This aggression is often ignored by the police and the judicial system. Administrative arrests of right-wing activists for long periods without any charges brought against them. The case of Noam Federman is a case in point. Creation of an atmosphere of intimidation against peaceful right-wing activists by various arrests and inquiries, all carried out by Israeli police and secret service. This also includes the brutal removal and demolition from her house of a widow and five children - a widow who just lost her husband to terrorists. The list of harassed settlers and their supporters is long.
International psychological warfare, whose methods includes giving position of influence in Israeli politics to Israeli Lenin?s fools, many from academia and literary circles. The psychological warfare also works on the principle that if you tell a victim of aggression many times that it is his fault - it is a known tactic of anti-Semites to blame the Jews for their own suffering - he ends up believing in it. This is a kind of absurd Stockholm Syndrome, since we are dealing with the most moral army and nation in the world.
Concealing of crucial information from the public, like the inability of even David Bar Ilan, the Chief Press Officer of Prime Minister Netanyahu, to let the nation know, via Haaretz, Yediot and Maariv, that the Palestinians are not only not keeping their side of Oslo, but that a terrible anti-Jewish incitement in schools and the media of the Palestinian Authority (and among Arabs in general) has continued from the beginning of Oslo. That incitement poisons the next generation and indicates the real long-term intentions of the Arabs, and not the camouflaged milder statements to Western media or signatures on peace agreements. This failure thus prolonged the period of wishful thinking, and the resultant continuation of one-sided concessions, that in turn and inter alia, cost much Jewish life, and created an almost-irreversibly worse situation for the Jews.
All sorts of corruption, like officials in the prime minister?s immediate circles doing business with the other side. Thus, it was reported that Dov Weisglass, chief of Sharon?s office, had business in a Jericho casino with PA dignitary. Yossi Ginosar, ex- Mossad leader, ran Yasser Arafat?s accounts at the same time that he personally did business with the Palestinian leaders. He was an envoy of Israeli prime ministers to Arafat. The conflict of interest was glaring. A tendency to ignore Palestinian violations is an understandable result of such affinities and conflict of interests.
Related to the above, since it is another form of corruption, is the speculation that Sharon?s (and his deputy, Ehud Olmert?s) out-of-character behavior, contradicting his life?s work, is based on the need to divert attention from his family?s judicial problems. He needs to appease the judiciary, that is often left-wing, by dismantling settlements.
If we try to connect directly the long-term bleeding of the nation and Sharon?s reign, one can observe that Sharon said in the past that he enjoys his position of prime minister and wants to be elected next time around, too. In normal times, Sharon?s chances of election would have been very low. He has indeed turned out to be an internationally hated figure. No matter how left he goes and how passive, conciliatory and non-violent he becomes, there is a constant stream of petitions from left-wing intellectuals and academics, in Israel and abroad, against Sharon. Abroad, even known politicians dare smear him and call him a war criminal. He evaded, for now, the Brussels court charges as a war criminal. The newspaper The Independent carried a caricature of a naked Sharon devouring Palestinian children - and the cartoonist got first prize in a national competition.
In Nativ of June 2002, there is an article by Jane Kastner, an American public relations consultant, who specializes in public relation for senior politicians. She writes there, that Sharon and Binyamin Ben-Eliezer would not have been elected to high office in any Western-type democracy. She says that their awkward physical appearance is not only physically repulsive, and this is important in this age where TV appearance counts a lot, but their overweight appearance provokes restlessness in the eyes of the observer. Furthermore, she says, by their inability to control their weight, which involves exercising self-discipline in diet and physical activity, they broadcast a general lack of self-discipline. So, she asks, if they cannot exert the minimum self-control involved in controlling their body, how you can you put in their hands the fate of a nation?
One can go on and find obvious reasons why in normal times Sharon would not be a natural choice for prime minister, but his unparalleled (already two) successes in the elections came not in normal times. They came when the nation was already bleeding. And in the collective memory of the nation, Sharon was the warrior of the hour. Just like Churchill, who was considered reckless and adventurous, but in a time of national emergency, he was called to the helm.
However, Churchill was dropped by the nation almost immediately after victory. A decisive victory over terrorism may lead to a similar fate for Sharon. The nation will have no use for his supposed forte and his other disadvantages will come to the fore. So from this point of view, it pays for Sharon not to be decisive and to let the nation?s ongoing bleeding continue.
It was reported that whenever Sharon visited the US, he met with Henry Kissinger, who had a theory that Israel should bleed in order to be amenable and obedient; therefore, Kissinger saw to it during his tenure that Israel will bleed first and will never have a decisive or too great a victory. Could it be that, in order to stay in power, Sharon perpetuates Israel?s bleeding, perhaps even subconsciously, sensing that after a decisive victory on terrorism, the nation will drop him?