Doc's Talk: Speaking Truth to Power - The Ya'alon Controversy

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Speaking Truth to Power - The Ya'alon Controversy

Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and current Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon have much in common in terms of understanding that the cost of telling the truth is often very high. In his memoir, Duty, Gates recounts the resistance of President Obama to winning wars, especially in Afghanistan. He wrote: "The President doesn't trust his commander . . . doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out." In Washington, this kind of honesty is no way to win friends and influence people.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon, one of the most trusted leaders in Israel, has just made a similar discovery. At a recent private lecture he stated (with reference to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia): "If you sit and wait at home, the terrorism will come again. Even if you hunker down, it will come. This is a war of civilizations. If your image is feebleness, it doesn't pay in the world. Nobody will replace the United States as global policeman. I hope the United States comes to its senses."

In response, the United States used unprecedented language to condemn Ya'alon for his politically-incorrect honesty. Nor was this the first time Ya'alon has vocally and publically attacked U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Back in January, he said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was "acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor" during the latest round of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. "No agreement with the Palestinians will be reached in our lifetime," he said, and he was quoted in Yedioth Ahronoth as dismissing the American security plan as "not worth the paper it's written on. It contains no peace and no security." The Defense Minister argued that in practice there are no negotiations taking place because Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation state, refuses to give up on the right of return, and refuses to sign an agreement which will bring all claims to an end. This truth may be painful, but someone has to say it - and that's what Ya'alon did.
As Jonathan S. Tobin wrote on his Commentary blog (January 14^th): "The question facing both Israel and the United States is not so much what to do about Ya'alon ..... but at what point it will behoove the two governments to acknowledge the futility of Kerry's endeavor." That is, when exactly should Israelis be told the truth that a Palestinian Arab State will rain missiles down on Tel Aviv - after it happens, or before it happens? True, the Defense Minister's choice of the words "obsessive" and "messianic" to describe the American Secretary of State may not be graceful, but these statements include something refreshing and much more important than manners - a direct and sincere dialogue with the citizens of Israel.
Then, again, on March 19^th at what was thought to be a "closed" forum at Tel Aviv University, Ya'alon criticized the U.S. as too "weak" to deal with Iran and that Israel was going to be forced to act on its own. He correctly pointed out that, as a result of American passivity and indecisiveness, a massive void has been created by Obama's foreign policy failures which has led to America's rapidly declining regional and international status - failures that have included acquiescing in the overthrow of long-time U.S. ally and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, punishing the Egyptian military for overthrowing the highly unpopular Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi by stopping the supply of advanced Apache combat helicopters to the Egyptian army - military equipment that was to be used against jihadist groups threatening Egypt from Gaza and the Sinai peninsula, procrastinating on the continuing slaughter in Syria, inaction and perceived weakness in the face of Russia's annexing the Crimean peninsula, China's increased aggression in southeast Asia, and Iran's continuing march towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability - policies that are forcing states in the Middle East to alter their alliance framework.
Ya'alon accurately noted that the perception of the international community is that the United States is afflicted with "feebleness," which is jeopardizing the current world order and undermining the security of the democratic nations, including the United States.
It is no secret that the Sunni Arab states in particular are irate with the White House for a host of reasons, including Obama's erasable "red line" in Syria and his accommodationist attitude toward Iran. The interim nuclear deal with Iran signed in Geneva last November allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium, erasing yet another American red line. It makes no mention of Iranian support for terror or human rights abuses. It is silent about the development of Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it permits construction to remain on course at the Arak heavy water reactor - construction necessary solely for the production of plutonium whose only purpose is the development of a nuclear weapon. Its inspection provisions are not serious and as a consequence, the Iranians justifiably praised the deal as "surrender" by the West. Part of the cockiness in Tehran is due to the belief that the U.S. has withdrawn itself from the regional, if not international, equation.

Ya'alon's comments again produced anger in the State Department and demands for an apology from the Israeli government primarily because the State Department can't argue with him on substance. Nor is the Defense Minister alone in thinking that the Obama administration's retreats in the Middle East and its weakness in dealing with Russia and Syria have undermined Israel's security and U.S. credibility in the region. Ya'alon is just repeating out loud what everyone is thinking. Nor did he say anything that hasn't been said before. Similar statements are being heard from spurned U.S. allies around the region and the world. Not only were Ya'alon's statements reasonable, but the vast majority of Israelis share his views both on the untrustworthiness of U.S. security guarantees and on the absence of prospects for peace with the PLO.
If people in the State Department think there's a problem, the problem is not what Ya'alon said, but with whoever developed a foreign policy so out-of-touch with Middle East realities. He owes no apology to anyone for publicly telling the truth - painful as it is. After all, his comments accurately reflect State Department policies. If anything, it is the Obama Administration that owes an apology to the American people for shirking its responsibilities as leader of the free world and it's worth noting that the State Department's reaction to Ya'alon's remarks - which, in January at least, were made in private - is completely disproportionate to its reaction when other countries, including its allies, criticize the U.S. In fact, Obama and Kerry say far worse things about Israel's leaders as a matter of course than Ya'alon said about either of them.
It's not wrong to be right and besides, it's too late now to try and stop the conversation. So rather than getting furious at Ya'alon blunt candor for stating what for many is the obvious, the Administration may wish to consider that if this is what a senior leader of one of its staunchest ally in the world is thinking - one that wants to see a powerful and respected U.S. - then what must be going through the minds of our enemies?

Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel). He is a former member of the Canadian Justice Department, a past Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Western Office) based in Vancouver, a member of Hadassah's National Academic Advisory Board and a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters, Intellectual Conservative and Israel National News (Arutz Sheva). He also served as a Consultant to the Secretary General of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem during the first Palestinian intifada. His book "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad" and his articles have been archived under www. marksilverberg .com.

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