FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

On Sunday I found myself ‘stunned’ by the remarks of Hedva Radovanitz, a former officer of the New Israel Fund (NIF) who said that she believed that

in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

Today I understand that I shouldn’t have been surprised. This point of view is not really all that rare among the Jewish Left.

I suppose the stunning part is the way they can throw away the idea of a Jewish state so easily, when creating it was so difficult. Apparently keeping it may be as difficult or more so.

To my surprise, I received an answer from another former board member of the NIF and a member of the steering committee of Shatil, its “operational arm” in Israel. I don’t have permission to use his name, but he is a serious academic, someone that nobody would call an extremist. Here is what he wrote:

Here’s the problem:

Israel has 7.5m people, of whom ~20% are Arabs:  5.84m Jews and 1.59m Arabs.  Israel is democratic with a lot of discrimination:  Israeli Arabs are kept under control by depriving them of land rights, discrimination in housing and jobs.

The West Bank has around 2m Arabs (also 350,000 Jews, but these are also counted in the Israeli census figures).  They are kept under control by isolating them geographically one from the other, depriving them of all but the most fundamental rights (they can eat and shit, but they do not have freedom of movement without getting permission from the Israeli military, the unemployment rate is 20-40%) and by making the hapless Palestinian regime “responsible” for their welfare.  Their population is unknown, but somewhere between 2-4 million.

The dream of the Israeli right is to hold onto the West Bank and integrate into Israel  (most of them feel that somehow the Arabs will then just disappear). Suppose we succeed in holding onto the West Bank, and suppose that there is neither a massive Jewish immigration nor any return of Palestinian refugees.  As the spreadsheet below shows, in just 14 years, the population of Israel/West Bank will be about 55% Jewish and 45% Arab.   In 2025, the % of completely-deprived-of-civil-rights West Bank Arabs will have risen to 26%.

Now suppose we use the same population growth figures, but shift the date to 2050.  Jews will be 43% of the total population and West Bankers 37%.  Shift the date to 100 years from now, adjust the Arab growth rates down significantly, and you still get a very small Jewish minority.

So now the Jewish people—with a strong democratic tradition—has a problem:  Suppose we exclude the possibility of expulsion of Arab from Israel/Palestine.  If we get rid of the West Bank and manage to integrate the existing Israeli-Arab population (this will drive their birth rates down, and perhaps make them better citizens), then we have a chance of having a Jewish state.  It will have a large ethnic Arab minority, but this is doable.

On the other hand, if we insist on keeping the West Bank, then there is no way that we can have a Jewish state west of the Jordan River.  Unless, of course, we continue to oppress the West Bankers … in which case we will look even more like South Africa pre-1993.  Ultimately the Arabs will rise up and we will (at best) have a bi-national state.

This is the well-known ‘demographic argument’ against keeping control of the territories. Before I discuss it, I want to point out that it does not make the comment of Hedva Radovanitz, quoted above, any less offensive or irresponsible. Radovanitz not only predicted an Arab majority, but welcomed it, saying it would be ‘more democratic’. If her desire for an end to the Jewish state — in effect, a third diaspora for the Jewish people — characterizes the NIF, it is a pernicious organization indeed.

But let’s tackle the argument above, a case for divestment from the territories. I don’t intend to quibble with the numbers or growth rates (although some do).

The first thing to think about is that the argument above does not take security into account. The “hapless Palestinian regime” is the PLO, the folks who have murdered more Jews than anyone since the German guy with the funny mustache. The policy of the PLO, which should be 100% clear to anyone who pays attention to what its spokespeople say in Arabic, is to use a Palestinian state in the territories to leverage the conversion of Israel into an Arab state. More evidence for this consists of the PLO’s unending incitement against Jews and Israel,  veneration of terrorists, presentation of ‘Palestine’ as encompassing all of Israel, refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, etc.

There is also the very real possibility that the US, Europe and Israel will not succeed in propping up this regime, vicious as it is, and it will be taken over by Hamas, which is worse. And there is no assurance that a sovereign PLO state will not invite foreign troops to ‘defend’ it, or be ‘unable to prevent’ terrorism against Israel by ‘dissident’ factions. The withdrawal from Gaza should be a clear warning.

Those who argue for withdrawal insist that there would have to be meaningful security guarantees, perhaps international forces stationed in the territories. But there is no track record in the Middle East for the success of such an arrangement. Think of the MLF in the Sinai that departed at Nasser’s command, or the UNIFIL that failed to prevent the rearming of Hizballah, and mostly complains about Israeli reconnaissance flights  over Lebanon.

If there’s no security, then there will be no Jewish state, regardless of demographics. And I will add that an argument which mentions ‘civil rights’ for Palestinian Arabs but does not mention terrorism or security for Jews is dishonest.

Second, the argument doesn’t take into account the reality of expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in the territories (the number is close to half a million if you include eastern Jerusalem — which the Arabs and many on the Left do). When 8,000 Jews were removed from Gaza, it created a social disaster. Some of them have still not found permanent housing, and all of them are furious at the government for the way their compensation was handled (or not handled). The resources simply do not exist, not in Israel and not in the US, to provide for hundreds of thousands of new Jewish refugees. Politically, it would tear the country wide open.

Third, withdrawal would be an Israeli concession of something concrete in return for words. Once the land is evacuated, it will almost certainly not be reoccupied. If the PLO does not live up to its end of the bargain, or if the regime is replaced by one even more hostile, it cannot easily be undone.

Fourth, a withdrawal represents a surrender of the principle that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the historical Land of Israel. This right, recognized in the Mandate, has always been disputed by the Arabs. If Israel withdraws from Gush Etzion, eastern Jerusalem, Hevron, and other places where Jews lived before 1948 (from which they were ethnically cleansed by Arab pogroms or Jordanian soldiers), what guarantees the right of Jews to live west of the 1949 armistice lines either?

Fifth, the integration of the Israeli-Arab population is a very difficult proposition. Although some might suggest that the increasing radicalization of the Arab citizens of Israel is due to ‘occupation’, a consideration of their own proposals for change — some of which were produced by the NIF-funded groups Adallah and the Mossawa center — indicates that while they may use the words “civil rights” they are in fact demanding national rights, demands which would end the Jewishness of the state if they were implemented. These ‘Palestinized’ Israeli Arabs are not moving in the direction of greater cooperation with Israeli Jews, and it’s reasonable to suppose that an Israeli surrender to the PLO (this is how they would see it) would encourage them to greater radicalism, not less.

Indeed, it’s obvious that part of the Arab strategy, after a state in the territories is obtained, is to leverage the issue of ‘civil rights’ for Israeli Arabs (along with the refugee issue, of course) to “de-Zionize” Israel.

Finally, the argument assumes that the only alternatives are 1) nearly full withdrawal from the territories or 2) retention of  all the land, including the Arab population. But it is possible to separate the Jewish and Arab populations with minimal compromises to security by withdrawing only from part of the territories.

The proponents of the demographic argument will say that all of the above are separate, unrelated questions that can be dealt with. The imperative is to get rid of the territories, they say. But if getting rid of them is impossible or sure to be disastrous, and entails waiving the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in the Middle East, then a different solution to the demographic problem must be found. And there are other solutions.

I see the objective of a solution to be an Israel containing as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible, with no compromise in security. Since nothing is more disruptive than forced population transfer, every effort should be made to keep as many people, Jews and Arabs alike, in their homes (although the Left abhors the idea of transfer for Arabs, calling it ‘racist’ or ‘Kahanist’, it seems to have little trouble in recommending it for Jews).

With this in mind, let’s look at a different proposal for solving the demographic and security problems.

Approximately 95% of the Arab population of Judea/Samaria live under PA control in ‘area A’ and ‘area B’. Most of the Jewish residents live in the so-called ‘settlement blocs’, most of which are contiguous with or quite close to the Green Line. So I propose that we finally replace the arbitrary armistice line with a rational partition:

1. Israel should annex the settlement blocs and areas that are critical for security (e.g., the Jordan Valley and the ‘high ground’ overlooking Israel’s heartland). Some places of great religious, historical or psychological importance for the Jewish people should be included as well.
2. Land swaps should be implemented wherever possible to reduce the Arab population of Israel. For example, the so-called “Arab triangle” around Umm al-Fahm could be placed under Palestinian sovereignty.

Both of these ideas are entirely unacceptable to the Palestinians, so they would have to be accomplished unilaterally.

I understand that some would consider it unfair or unjust to ignore the wishes of the Palestinians. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that the goal of all of the Palestinian leadership, the PLO/Fatah, Hamas, and Marwan Barghouti (may he stay in jail), as well as the Palestinian in the street (according to numerous polls), is simply to destroy the Jewish state and establish an Arab state in its place. Historical precedent indicates that the position of Jews in such a state — those that did not flee and remained alive — would be far, far worse than the condition of Israeli Arabs today (who are probably treated better in Israel than any minority, especially Palestinians, anywhere in the Arab world).

Certainly a negotiated settlement leading to real coexistence would be preferable, in some alternate universe. But here on our earth, Palestinian Arab policy, ideology and psychology have left no room for anything other than unilateral actions leading to separation, and to an armed and vigilant truce.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians

This is stunning.

Actually, it’s completely expected, not surprising at all. It’s like your spouse admitting to having an affair. You knew it all along but hearing from her own lips is … stunning.

Last year, the US Embassy in Tel Aviv interviewed a number of people in connection with a law being considered by the Knesset to require transparency in non-governmental organization (NGO) funding.

It had become common knowledge that huge amounts of money from such sources as European governments and the New Israel Fund (NIF) in the US were flowing to ‘Israeli’ NGOs — primarily left-wing organizations — which were acting against the interests of the State of Israel. A particularly egregious example was the way a group of these NGOs provided almost all of the anti-IDF material in the UN’s vicious blood libel, the Goldstone Report.

Ambassador James B. Cunningham reported on the interviews in a cable sent to the State Department on February 25, 2010, now made public by Wikileaks. The cable includes an explanation by Dr. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor (a source I’ve quoted often) of why the legislation, based on the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is needed.

You should read that, but let’s cut to the chase. Ambassador Cunningham’s cable included this:

New Israel Fund (NIF) [former] Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radovanitz, who manages grants to 350 NGOs totaling about 18 million dollars per year, told PolOff [political officer] on February 23 that the campaign against the NGOs was due to the “disappearance of the political left wing” in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs. She noted that when she headed ACRI’s [Association for Civil Rights in Israel] Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated. Radovanitz commented that the NIF was working behind the scenes through many NGOs to prevent the NGO legislation from passing in its current form. She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

Could we roll the tape back, please:

She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

I would like all of my friends here in America who contribute to the NIF because they would like Israel to become “more democratic” to please read that again, and think about it.

Think about the sacrifices made by leftists and rightists alike to create a Jewish state of Israel. How many died unable to reach the land of Israel, how many suffered or died in the wars to create the state and protect it, how many struggled in poverty to build the state in an inhospitable land surrounded by hostile neighbors. The one, single, tiny Jewish state in the world. The one place a Jew is always welcome.

And this woman believes that a Jewish state can’t be democratic enough? That 22 Arab states in the Middle East aren’t enough, there should be 23? That the ‘Palestinian people’ have a right to realize their national aspirations but the Jewish people do not? That everything that the Jewish people created at such great cost in their historic homeland should be dismantled and the Jews sent out to wander the world, living or dying by the whims of ‘real’ nations?

Don’t kid yourself — that is what she (and the NIF) are working toward. Perhaps they imagine that Jews and Arabs could live together in peace, in the new, more democratic, Arab-majority state they want to create. Just look around in the Middle East if you  believe this.

Do not support the NIF of Hedva Radovanitz. Israel is a democracy, although it is not a democracy just like the US. There is a reason that the Israeli Left is disappearing, and that is because Israelis have learned by hard experience — from Gaza, for one example — that concessions and withdrawals do not bring peace.

Live in Israel or support it in the diaspora, but do not help those who want to destroy it.

Technorati Tags: Israel, New Israel Fund, Hedva Radovanitz, Wikileaks

Norwegian fascist Vidkun Quisling inspects Norwegian Legion troops, in pre- 'moral superpower' days

Norway, the American Ambassador wrote in a 2009 cable, wants to play a role in the Middle East ‘peace process’:

Norway’s desire to make a difference combined with the willingness to expend time and money has made it a mediator in conflicts as far a field as Sri Lanka, Colombia, Haiti, and Sudan. It has elevated peace and reconciliation studies in its universities and reorganized its Foreign Ministry to showcase its expertise in this area. It revels in its self-described role as the “moral superpower” and points to the Oslo Peace Accords as a defining national moment.

“Moral superpower.” What a concept!

But moral superiority begins at home. Does the name Jostein Gaarder ring a bell?

He is a Norwegian writer and intellectual, author of numerous books and winner of several prestigious Norwegian and international prizes. He is also known as an environmental and human-rights activist. In 2006, during the Second Lebanon war, he published a song of hatred for the Jewish state — and the Jewish people — in the Aftenposten, now the largest newspaper in Norway, entitled “God’s Chosen People.” It began as follows:

There’s no turning back. It’s time to learn a new lesson: We no longer recognize the State of Israel. We could not recognize the apartheid regime of South Africa, nor did we recognize the Afghani Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Serbs’ ethnic cleansing. We need to get used to the idea: The State of Israel, in its current form, is history.

We don’t believe in the notion of God’s Chosen People. We laugh at this people’s capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds. To act as God’s Chosen People is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as a justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the god of flora, fauna and the galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it silly, stone tablets, burning bushes and a license to kill.

We call baby killers “baby killers” and will never accept that people such as these have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We just say: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing and shame on every terrorist strike against civilians whether carried out by Hamas, the Hezbollah or the State of Israel!

We acknowledge, and pay heed to, Europe’s deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for the Jews to get their own home. However, the State of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flaunted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions and can no longer expect protection from the same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The Tribulation will soon be over. The State of Israel has seen its Soweto.

I don’t want to restart the debate over whether Gaarder and others are antisemitic or ‘just’ anti-Israel. Today it is a distinction without a  difference. Gaarder absorbed all of Hizballah’s manufactured atrocity stories and believed them all, in every detail. Then he played them back for the Norwegian people, called the Jewish state irredeemably corrupt and called for its dissolution. How ready he was to uncritically believe the worst and to indict, try, and pronounce sentence on a nation based on it! His  language, his emphasis on the illegitimacy of the Jewish state, and his propensity to believe the unbelievable make clear that his hatred is much more than a political point of view.

And he spoke not only for himself. A cable written by Benson K. Whitney, who was the American Ambassador to Norway, in 2009, discusses “Rising Norwegian Antisemitism” and gives some concrete examples:

Anecdotal evidence shows the small Jewish community in Norway, comprising about 1000 members, are experiencing a growing fear of rising anti-Semitism. When attempting to write a January 10 story about how Jewish families were dealing with the fallout from the war in Gaza, a major newspaper found that most of those contacted refused to be interviewed, because they were afraid of being targeted if they appeared in the paper. One orthodox Jewish family in Oslo chose not to take their children to synagogue, as their appearance on the street makes them especially vulnerable. Some Jewish parents are walking with their children to school as an added security measure. There have been reports of bullying at school, where Jewish children are subject to insults. A recent expose on anti-Semitism in a major paper found that “Jew” has become an epithet among both Muslim and Christian teenagers…

The chief Rabbi of the Oslo Synagogue reportedly receives a pile of hate mail each day. Typical salutations on such mail are, “Murderers,” “Maybe Hitler was right,” “May hatred toward you Jews grow and strengthen,” and so forth. In a question that typifies the general views of the Norwegian media, a reporter asked the Rabbi bluntly, “Don’t you understand that the world is outraged by the gruesome attacks against the civilian population in Gaza?” …

[An Israeli diplomat]  said he believed the rising tide of anti-Semitism represented a “terrible failure of the Norwegian establishment,” with for example Finance Minister Halvorsen initially participating prominently an anti-war parade that ended with a full-scale riot in front of the Israeli embassy. Cries of, “Kill the Jews!” were heard at this demonstration. Police had not seen such violent demonstrations since the 1980s. Interestingly, one pro-Israel demonstration in Bergen was cancelled because police told organizers that they could not protect participants.

Norwegians do not accept the idea that antisemitism is possible in their moral superpower. The Ambassador continues,

Norwegian society, however, has obstacles to effectively combating [antisemitism]. First, a deep-seated fundamental belief by Norwegians that their national character is deeply and essentially “good,” [!]  makes Norwegians reluctant to accuse one of their own of a sin perceived to be as odious as anti-Semitism. Second, whether an anti-Semitic (or racist) statement has been made is determined by the speaker, not the offended group. Even unacceptable statements are forgiven so long as the speaker insists upon his or her good intentions. Third, Norway follows a social model based on consensus rather than individualism, so Norwegians are somewhat more prone to have difficulty differentiating between individuals and groups.

Apparently, Norwegians have difficulty perceiving antisemitism in other places, too.  From another cable by Ambassador Whitney:

By 2007, FM Stoere decided to recognize the Palestinian Unity Government, which included Hamas Ministers. Hamas’ vow to destroy Israel was ignored or characterized as only rhetoric by the Norwegians. Norway became the leading dissenter to international norms (only joined by Switzerland), willing to overlook Hamas’ stated aims in pursuit of dialogue at all costs. At this point, some Israeli officials began to characterize Norway as the most anti-Israel state in Europe.

(Note: Although the [Government of Norway] would deny it, there are clear signs that contacts with Hamas go beyond a tactical desire for dialogue to a level of sympathy for Hamas positions. The FM once told DCM for example that one could not expect Hamas to recognize Israel without knowing which borders Israel will have. While the FM expresses some sympathy for Hamas’ positions only in unguarded moments, other prominent Norwegians go further. End Note.)

One wants to ask: Which Hamas positions are they sympathetic with? The one which quotes scripture as a reason to kill Jews? The one that says that “there is no solution to the Palestinian question except through jihad?” The one that insists that all the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean must be ruled by Muslims? The policy of randomly firing rockets at Jewish towns and cities in Israel? The act of kidnapping a young soldier and holding him for ransom, incommunicado for more than 6 years?

Norwegian policy has been pro-Hamas in a very practical way. Additional Wikileaks cables show that when, after Cast Lead, the US asked for help from various nations in interdicting arms smuggling to Hamas, Norway refused to join the effort. In a cable sent in March 2009, the Ambassador wrote,

Embassy Oslo believes that the stated concerns are real but only a small part of the dilemma that the Gaza interdiction effort presents for the GON [Government of Norway]. Reluctant to be left out of any significant Middle Eastern initiative but at the same time not willing to accept the isolation of Hamas, the GON is torn. Broadly speaking, the GON is clearly concerned that joining the interdiction effort would harm their cooperation and ties with Hamas. These ties are very important to the GON (and to FM Stoere himself) and their (his) desire to serve as a peace negotiator.

What could be less moral than the goals, policies and actions of the racist, genocidal Hamas?

And what could be more hypocritical than Norway, which “revels in its self-described role as the ‘moral superpower,'” supporting Hamas?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Norway, morality

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal meets Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu in Ankara, 2006

The Palmer report expressing the conclusions of the UN commission chaired by former New Zealand PM Geoffrey Palmer about the Mavi Marmara incident last May 31 is now public.

For  a UN document, it is remarkably fair, including the following:

Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza.  The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…

Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.  The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.  The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation…

Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection.  Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers.  Several others were wounded…

But,

The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable.  Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces.  No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.  Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance.  In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;

b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.

As I understand the events, it looks like the committee bent over backward to find some culpability on the Israeli side. Non-violent options — paintball guns and flash-bang grenades — were used. The ships were warned several times that the Israelis would “adopt all measures at their disposal” to enforce the blockade, although it is true that they did not announce the precise time of boarding, for obvious and understandable tactical reasons.

Deadly force was not used by the commandos until live fire (at least from guns taken from captured Israelis and possibly from other weapons, although this is still not clear) was directed at them. In other words, knives and metal bars were not initially considered deadly weapons, although of course they are. There is no doubt that some of the Israelis would have been killed if they had not used their guns.

Options could not have been ‘reassessed’ when seriously wounded commandos were already in the hands of the IHH thugs. Considering the degree to which the Israelis were outnumbered, that firearms were in the possession of the passengers, and that several of the Israelis had been captured, the decision to shoot to kill was understandable.

The area in which Israel can and should be criticized is the poor intelligence and lack of preparation for the violent reception the naval commandos got when they boarded the ship.

Nevertheless, the conclusion that the blockade was legal and Israel was justified in stopping the ships, and that the Israeli commandos acted in self-defense constitutes a rare diplomatic victory for Israel. The committee went into detail, describing the number of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza, and the need and justification for Israel’s self-defense. It specifically stated that the blockade was not a disproportionate response to Hamas’ terrorism.

The report said that the Turkish government “should have done more” to prevent the violence, but did not discuss the very real probability that it was complicit with the IHH in planning it. Some of the connections between the Turkish regime and the IHH are exposed here:

4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assassment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.

5. According to statements from the passengers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄŸan maintains close contacts with IHH. The flotilla set sail with the full knowledge and agreement of Erdogan, who expressed personal interest in its success and his intention to exploit it promote his status in Turkey and the Arab-Muslim world. Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.

6. That was supported by a statement from a journalist who had good connections with the heads of the Turkish government and with Bülent Yildirim, head of IHH. The following are statements from the journalist, who was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara:

A. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s power base is built on IHH activists. Without their help he could not have been elected prime minister.

B. The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: “The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

C. The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.

D. The affair of the flotilla strengthened Erdogan’s status in Turkey and turned him into the leader of Islamic world.

E. Three additional flotillas are expected to sail for Israel and the modus operandi will repeat itself.

F. The journalist stated he had visited the Gaza Strip as part of a humanitarian delegation and his impression was that there was no distress or lack [of commodities] in the Gaza Strip. He added that “everything is propaganda.”

7. In files found in laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara passengers were other indications supporting the vast amount of information concerning the linkage between IHH and the Turkish government…

The report quoted narratives provided by the Turks and by the Israeli commission that investigated the incident. In almost every case the report accepted the Israeli account. In particular, it rejected claims by the Turks that fire was directed at passengers from helicopters and speedboats before the commandos rappelled to the deck.

The Turks have gone ballistic. Yesterday they threatened that in the absence of an Israeli apology, they would pursue

a … diplomatic offensive against Israel which would include pursuing legal action against Israeli military officers at The Hague, halting commercial ties between the countries, expelling Israel’s ambassador to Turkey, supporting the Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition of statehood and other diplomatic sanctions. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel over a year ago.

Israel did not agree to ‘apologize’, although in keeping with the recommendations of the report it will likely issue an expression of ‘regret’ and possibly compensate the families of the Turks that were killed.

Some Israelis actually think an apology would have been a good idea. Dan Margalit wrote,

An Israeli apology is not necessary for justice to be served. It’s not legally required, yet doing so would slow the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations. Ultimately, such an apology alone would not remove the topic from the international agenda, but it could reshape cold albeit stable relations with Turkey, and also show Israeli support for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan’s criticism of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is currently slaughtering his own people.

I couldn’t disagree more. Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan has made the destruction of the former good relationship with Israel a fundamental part of his policy. As long ago as 2006,  he invited Hamas leaders to Ankara, claiming that “Hamas is not a terrorist group.” During Operation Cast Lead, he publicly insulted Israeli President Shimon Peres at a conference in Davos, Switzerland, saying “when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill” before stomping off the stage. He blamed Israel for the progress (although it was defeated) of a resolution calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the US Congress. Circles in Turkey — primarily military officers — who supported the relationship with Israel have been purged. The Mavi Marmara affair was, in my opinion, a carefully planned maneuver to justify the final move to open hostility.

There is no possibility of improving relations, because for ErdoÄŸan, the worse they are the better for his Islamist credentials. And while it is correct that ErdoÄŸan is opposing Bashar Assad, his goal is to install in his place a Sunni Islamist regime that will be controlled by Turkey. I’m not sure that this would be better than Assad.

An apology would only constitute a humiliation for Israel — always important to poseurs like ErdoÄŸan — set the stage for further demands to remove the blockade and provide grounds for  legal action, and magnify ErdoÄŸan ‘s image in the Muslim world.

The best summary of the whole ugly business was provided by the journalist quoted above:

“The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

Technorati Tags: Israel, Turkey, Palmer report, ErdoÄŸan, Mavi Marmara

Iron Dome -- it's not a panacea

The Iron Dome system is a very mixed blessing. During recent rocket attacks the system intercepted many (but not all) rockets fired at populated areas. Now an additional battery is being deployed to protect Ashdod, one of the targets for Grad missiles.

War, like many things, is an economic activity. Resources must be allocated where they will be most effective, and there is never an unlimited amount of money. So deploying Iron Dome to protect the civilian population is a decision to use scarce resources in a particular way.

Some critics say that the system enables the terrorists’ economic warfare against Israel, since each projectile fired by Iron Dome costs $40,000, while rockets are relatively cheap. But of course the cost of the damage caused by rockets which get through (not to mention possible loss of life) as well as the cost of alternative means of deterrence — helicopter missions aren’t cheap either — must be considered.

In my opinion, Israel should not rely on Iron Dome or similar systems for defense of the civilian population for a different reason. This is that while passive defense systems may useful tactically, dependance on them is a poor long-term strategy, from  military, psychological and political points of view.

Militarily, reliance on defense allows the enemy to stockpile missiles and build infrastructure without interference. A large stockpile of missiles allows them to attack by ‘saturation’, firing more missiles than the systems can intercept in a given period. No matter how many batteries are deployed, it’s always possible to overwhelm them by firing enough missiles. In addition, if the terrorists are allowed to continue infrastructure development undisturbed — digging tunnels, building bunkers, etc. — then this will be disadvantageous if (when) at a later date there is a direct confrontation.

It is also the case that shooting down rockets does not deter the enemy from building and firing more of them. Only retaliation directed at the enemy soldiers, the storage and manufacturing facilities, smuggling tunnels and commanders of the terrorist groups can do that. These kind of operations must not have resources diverted from them on the grounds that Iron Dome will protect the population.

Finally, it is simply too expensive to deploy so as to protect all possible civilian targets, especially as the enemy is likely to develop countermeasures that will render it less effective (this is borne out by history). If there are weak spots, these are where the enemy will attack, and rockets will get through.

Psychologically, reliance on defense is a signal that the terrorists are allowed to shoot at us. Retaliation makes the opposite statement. The world press barely covers rocket fire into Israel (although it does cover Israeli retaliation). The world is coming to expect and accept that Jews may live in a shooting gallery. Paradoxically, even negative coverage of a strong response sends the message that we won’t permit it.

Politically — and this may be the strongest point of all — the existence of somewhat effective defensive systems can and will be used as an excuse to prevent Israel from aggressively striking back at the terrorists, which is the only way they will be defeated. In particular, the Iron Dome’s cost of approximately $50 million per battery [!] is primarily being funded by the US. Does this give Barack Obama room to argue that Israel should not retaliate or preempt terrorist attacks? I think it does.

Iron  Dome can be highly effective in protecting critical military or industrial infrastructure, like airbases or oil refineries. But in my opinion, it should not be deployed — and expected — to defend the civilian population. Rather, Israeli policy should be to retaliate with deadly and escalating force against the groups firing the rockets. This will do the following:

• It will weaken the enemy by killing its soldiers and destroying its infrastructure
• It will deter the enemy from future attacks, and deter potential enemies from making war
• It will send a message that the Jewish state and the Jewish people will not permit themselves to be a target

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iron Dome