Doc's Talk: Livni should set aside her ego for the national interest

Monday, February 23, 2009

Livni should set aside her ego for the national interest

Isi Leibler on February 23rd, 2009

Our politicians are once again outrageously defying the will of the people. The electorate decisively rejected the former government’s policies of extending unilateral concessions to our adversaries and the inability to adequately defend citizens under continuous missile attack. By a majority of 65 to 45 (excluding the 11 Arab mandates) the people voted in favor of the so-called national camp.Regrettably, the hideously convoluted electoral system enabled Kadima to obtain one more mandate than Likud. Not because Kadima won the endorsement of the people but because traditional left wing supporters defected in droves from Labor and Meretz and diverted their votes to Kadima.

In contrast, on the assumption that [Likud leader Binyamin] Netanyahu becoming prime minister was a given, many supporters of the national camp diversified their support to the smaller right-wing parties.

For Kadima to suggest that this provided them with a mandate for leadership is absurd. Had there been a direct contest for prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu would indisputably have defeated Tzipi Livni by a margin of at least 2 to 1.

Precisely 12 months ago I wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post arguing that a unity government was desperately needed, not only to cope with external threats but also in order to deal with long overdue reforms to the electoral system and a wide variety of social problems that remained in limbo because of the veto powers of small one-dimensional parties. Today the vast majority of the nation recognizes the critical need for a unity government.

Yet unfortunately we are witnessing a disgraceful repeat performance of politicians, immediately after being elected, ignoring their obligations to their constituents and shamelessly displaying a willingness to promote their petty personal ambitions above the national interest.

To his credit, Netanyahu recognizes the need for a unity government. Despite resentment within his own party and anger from some of his potential coalition partners, he magnanimously offered Kadima an equal number of senior Cabinet portfolios to Likud. Yet Tzipi Livni had the chutzpah to demand a Prime Ministerial rotation as though the electorate was equally divided between those endorsing her policies and those promoted by the national camp. To further complicate matters, Avigdor Lieberman of Israel Beiteinu tried to leverage his position by playing both parties against each another.

There is thus a real danger that if these self serving intrigues continue, the new government could again become dependant on the whims of small parties motivated exclusively by their own narrow interests. If this happens, the nation would soon be confronted with yet another election.

The next few years may well determine the long-term future of the Jewish state. Our most immediate challenge is the existential threat facing us from a nuclear Iran. That alone demands a broadly based government enabling critical decisions in this area to achieve the widest possible national consensual endorsement.

Netanyahu is pragmatic and will continue peace negotiations. But unlike his predecessors he has pledged that he will not compromise over defensible borders or make further concessions without reciprocity. He is also expected to implement a regime of deterrence needed to protect Israeli citizens.

In this environment, a narrow government would embolden our enemies and intensify the dangers confronting us. In addition, we require a united front in the face of demands that even our friends may seek to impose on us. While there is still hope that the US under Obama will stay the course, there are already disconcerting murmurs emanating from the new Administration which represent cause for concern. They include the lamentable decision to continue US involvement with Durban 2 and a number of recent chilling remarks by Obama’s Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell which suggest a major tilt in policy is in the offing. Clearly the new government may be obliged to withstand pressures from friends as well as foes. At such a time it would be disastrous a to have a government in which decisions affecting our complex relationship with the new US Administration were to be determined by a narrow majority subject to veto from small parties.

A broad unity government dominated by the two larger parties would also provide common ground for devising constructive economic policies to minimize the impending fallout from the global financial meltdown without being subject to the traditional extortion from minority parties. Such a government could also introduce the long overdue electoral reforms to stabilize the system and prevent small one-dimensional parties from being able to veto desperately needed changes.

The government could ensure that Israelis who are not halachically Jewish will be enabled to institutionalize their marital bonds. They could also overcome the outrageous barrier to genuine conversions currently being inflicted on the nation by the haredi dominated religious courts. It could review the burgeoning haredi draft exemptions, introduce a form of national service for all Israeli citizens and at the very least, provide benefits to Israelis who serve in the IDF. It could also implement Netanyahu’s commitment to upgrade the educational system and infuse it with greater Jewish heritage and Zionist content.

The problem of the increasing radicalization of Israeli Arabs and their attitude towards the state could be rationally considered. There is nothing “racist” in holding Israeli citizens accountable if they indulge in treasonable activities, especially during a time of war. If this were to be accompanied by an effort to also raise the standard of living of Israeli Arab citizens, such a program would be endorsed by the vast majority of Israelis.

These are only some of the burning issues that only a broadly based unity government could successfully implement.

The bulk of Kadima Knesset representatives comprise of former members of Likud. To use an understatement, their political principles in the past proved to have been extremely malleable and there is absolutely no ideological barrier for the vast majority to find common ground with their former colleagues and join a unity government. How Kadima members who served previously under Netanyahu can refer to their former party colleagues as extreme right wingers is bizarre. If fact, if anything, key party members like Shaul Mofaz and Tzahi Hanegbi would be politically more inclined to the right than the average Likud Knesset member.

This is surely a time for Kadima members to prioritize the national interest and create a broad national unity government which will provide the people of Israel with the leadership to which they are entitled.

Tzipi Livni, you will go down in history as the great spoiler because of an unreasonable personal ego if you reject this opportunity to assume a constructive role and contribute towards achieving desperately needed security and stability for the nation.

It will be an act of national betrayal if you personally torpedo this unique opportunity to create a genuine Zionist national unity government which would at long last be enabled to deal constructively with the burning problems facing the nation both externally and internally. Now is the time for you to stand up and be counted. Do not inflict despair on the people of Israel.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published as a blog entry in the Jerusalem Post

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk