Hi all. Today I am going to focus on the Israeli governmental system and not on the actual politicians that sit in it today. I may reference them but this is not the main issue.
I lived in the USA (Michigan) for 27 years before coming to Israel and I didn't realize just how good the US system of government really was until I came here and learned what little I have learned with my fairly good but still limited Hebrew. Here are my problems and what needs to be done.
The election system. They have got to find a way to improve the system of elections. We cannot go on any further with just voting for parties. I will get to the party system later. So we will have more elections. Then we cannot have a day off for every election day. There are a few ways it could be changed. They could make it all electronic. This probably would receive some resistance but they could make all elections online and you would get a password by mail. This might not be the best idea so they could just not give a day off. Everyone would come after work or before work like they do in the states. Sure the lines will be longer but they can have more staff. More booths. The staff can be some of the people that worked during the day. There are other options like making the elections over several days. Just think. The parties have primaries with problems but they get by with no day off.
The next issue is the public initiatives. We have none. You cannot file a petition and do anything with it. Yes the politicians might listen if they choose but there is not mandate. There needs to be a way for the public to raise bills and laws for vote with a petition like they do in most US states. You get a certain number of signatures and it goes to vote in the next election. now we just got through with the election so now you know why it's important for the system to be more efficient. This will make the government more for the people.
Now some avid observers may have noticed that in the United States Federal government there are no public initiatives. Now I have a few theories why this is the case. It could be that some issues must be handled by politicians and also that there are 50 states and one cannot be sure that all will be represented in the petition or vote. Of course it could just be a big conspiracy.
Whatever the reason, they have something we don't. A real representative democracy. This is the biggest problem in Israel. This must change. Let me explain. In Israel you have probably 5 major parties. Now you might think this is better than the USA because they really only have 2 that matter. However there is no connection between the party representatives and the voters. For those that don't know when you vote, you just vote for a party. The parties all have a list. When the votes are tallied, they allocate the votes to the parties on a percentage basis. There are 120 reps so if a party gets 25% of the vote then they will get 30 reps in the next Knesset. There is a % threshold which I believe is 2% and any party that gets less than that % will have it's votes discarded which often causes even less people to vote for them.
This is a very flawed system. Let's say I voted for Likud which I didn't but this is the central issue. Now if the party doesn't act as I wished they would have I really have nowhere to turn. I could vote for another party but really there are no other parties like Likud. They are the secular right wing party. Let's say Aylon voted to release prisoners which he did. To whom is he accountable. No one. There are primaries but they really don't fix the issue. You see when the next primaries come around they will just be voted in again because they will get on the list.
Before I give my proposal I would like to add one more problem that is part of the proposal. You see the Prime Minister has too much power. He votes, and he gives minister appointments who are also cabinet members. This is a problem because then there is a big vote on an important issue that the PM really wants to see passed, he will threaten to strip the minister from his post. This puts the PM in a VERY VERY powerful position.
My proposal is this. 120 Knesset members is too many. If you add the house and the senate together you get 535 seats. So there is one seat for every ~560,000 residents. On the other hand there is one Knesset member for every ~58,000 Israelis. That's almost 10 fold. So we can get by with 20 less. The Knesset will be 100 members. The country will be divided into 100 districts and when we vote we will not vote for a party. We will vote for who we want to represent our district plus the PM. If the rep doesn't do as he promised his phone will ring and when elections come he will be voted out. In some cases large cities will have multiple districts but that's ok. So what about the ministers? Well the PM who will NOT be in the Knesset and will NOT have a vote. This is important so the PM cannot pressure governments to vote as he likes. So the true democratic process can take place.
Speaking of the true democratic process, we should just get rid this idea of forming and dissolving governments. Everyone that was voted in is part of the government. There is no reason to change anything. Anyways if you have districts the representatives will stabilize and probably the same ones will be there each time.
I know this would basically be the American system but there are other implementations of it and it works. I will tell you the downfall is efficiency. The Israeli government would move a lot slower but I have a solution for that and it's really already in place in the US. If you think about it, the only time it's really urgent is during war time. Well the President or PM is the commander in chief. He runs the military. This is a lot of power but then again the PM also would have no power to make the Knesset vote one way or another. Other things would take time but that's ok. Have you ever went into a store by yourself and bought something you regretted? Of course but if you went into the store with 99 of your closest friends and family you probably would make a lot less regrettable purchases. Sure it would take more time but when we are talking about making decisions that affect the Jewish State then it's worth that time. Maybe not so much on your next purchase.
The only reason I can see that someone would be against this would be if they don't trust the people. Maybe you are a leftist and you are afraid the public will vote right or maybe you are on the right and you are afraid of the opposite. Regardless you are missing the point. Isn't a democracy supposed to represent it's voters? With my plan the level of corruption will be greatly reduced and we will have a government that represents the people which is what everyone wants.
It's a great plan. Sure it could be tweaked but the principle of separation of the legislative and executive branches is what must stay in place. It will never pass and the reason is simple. The current state is nice for those that live in it. You can't ask the current government to vote for it's own demise. Well you can but they will never do it. Another equally solid reason is the global political climate. It's really easy for Obama to get Bibi to do what he wants. He and all his friends know that they will be there next time because they are protected by the party and it's list. If you can imagine though that Bibi tries to get his friends to vote for releasing prisoners. Now his friends all were voted in directly and they will have to take that into account when they vote and Bibi has no power other than to just ask. Ironically the very system that his country was founded on works against him in other countries but that's the way it is. When the voice that is breathing down the neck is Bibi and not the people well you know who they will vote for and that's the very reason why Obama would probably be against it.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Why peace talks don't work
Peace talks are against the very nature of the world. It's a relatively new idea. In reality peace talks come out of a few modern ideas.
First there is the idea that there should never be war after the Geneva Conventions and secondly there is then there is the issue of taking sides. We will visit the first idea later but when you tell a side or even both sides to stop you are in effect talking a side. Whoever is losing is the side you are taking. Or at least that's usually how it works. Maybe such an example without looking at the Israeli-Arab conflict is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is such a small country. Maybe no so different from Israel in that regard except that Iraq is much bigger than any Palestinian army. The world tells Iraq to stand down. They are talking Kuwait's side without thinking about it. Maybe they are right for doing that but still they took a side. They thought that one side was right and so they told both to stop. In this case there is more an issue of righteousness because of the difference in size in the armies but still there is an issue of the first part.
This idea that there can't be war is stupid. If you will take a look at the history of the world and how countries were formed and reformed you will see one common theme. War and then peace. Over and over. It's a recurring theme. It never ends. The world has sought to end this vicious cycle with good intentions but I think they have in some cases at least done more harm then good.
If you will look at one of the ugliest examples of genocide for the sake of war (The Holocaust was the worst but that wasn't for the sake of war so I will leave that alone) which was the American attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will see what I am saying. Sure, it was ugly. It was nasty. In the end however we have had years of peace. That is because of one simple concept. The Japanese decided that the price to continue fighting was worth more than victory if that was even possible. So as unfortunate as it was, after those bombings we had a lasting peace for what is now more than 60 years. Let's imagine if we had applied the Israeli-Arab conflict way of thinking here. First, the war would have had less fighting and probably there would never have been the A-bomb but there might still be fighting today. This is because one side was never allowed to win. This is the problem.
Now look at the Middle East conflict. Every time there is fighting, they are urged to stop. People don't get it. We don't want to stop. We want to fight. You see both sides believe that the price to fight is less than the price of losing. From my perspective which is very Jewish Religious I am willing to give it all up and so are they. However if the world would let us continue without intervention there wold eventually come a day where one side would give up. Surrender. The cost to fight for that side would be greater than cost of losing. They could give up. We are now in so-called peace talks. Why should either side give anything up? They have no motivation. The only real motivation is to please the rest of the world which isn't genuine. World. Do you want this conflict to end. Then let it come to an end. Think of it like a school fight. The fight happens in the middle of school and the teacher breaks it up. What really happened? Did she make peace? No. Absolutely not because after school those two will fight it out to the end and in the end one will stand down. There will eventually be mutual respect and usually peace between them. There will be clear lines and each side will know where the other stands. Until that happens in the Middle East there will always be war.
First there is the idea that there should never be war after the Geneva Conventions and secondly there is then there is the issue of taking sides. We will visit the first idea later but when you tell a side or even both sides to stop you are in effect talking a side. Whoever is losing is the side you are taking. Or at least that's usually how it works. Maybe such an example without looking at the Israeli-Arab conflict is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait is such a small country. Maybe no so different from Israel in that regard except that Iraq is much bigger than any Palestinian army. The world tells Iraq to stand down. They are talking Kuwait's side without thinking about it. Maybe they are right for doing that but still they took a side. They thought that one side was right and so they told both to stop. In this case there is more an issue of righteousness because of the difference in size in the armies but still there is an issue of the first part.
This idea that there can't be war is stupid. If you will take a look at the history of the world and how countries were formed and reformed you will see one common theme. War and then peace. Over and over. It's a recurring theme. It never ends. The world has sought to end this vicious cycle with good intentions but I think they have in some cases at least done more harm then good.
If you will look at one of the ugliest examples of genocide for the sake of war (The Holocaust was the worst but that wasn't for the sake of war so I will leave that alone) which was the American attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will see what I am saying. Sure, it was ugly. It was nasty. In the end however we have had years of peace. That is because of one simple concept. The Japanese decided that the price to continue fighting was worth more than victory if that was even possible. So as unfortunate as it was, after those bombings we had a lasting peace for what is now more than 60 years. Let's imagine if we had applied the Israeli-Arab conflict way of thinking here. First, the war would have had less fighting and probably there would never have been the A-bomb but there might still be fighting today. This is because one side was never allowed to win. This is the problem.
Now look at the Middle East conflict. Every time there is fighting, they are urged to stop. People don't get it. We don't want to stop. We want to fight. You see both sides believe that the price to fight is less than the price of losing. From my perspective which is very Jewish Religious I am willing to give it all up and so are they. However if the world would let us continue without intervention there wold eventually come a day where one side would give up. Surrender. The cost to fight for that side would be greater than cost of losing. They could give up. We are now in so-called peace talks. Why should either side give anything up? They have no motivation. The only real motivation is to please the rest of the world which isn't genuine. World. Do you want this conflict to end. Then let it come to an end. Think of it like a school fight. The fight happens in the middle of school and the teacher breaks it up. What really happened? Did she make peace? No. Absolutely not because after school those two will fight it out to the end and in the end one will stand down. There will eventually be mutual respect and usually peace between them. There will be clear lines and each side will know where the other stands. Until that happens in the Middle East there will always be war.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Why Israel doesn't need the US
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFUSpolicy.html#9
That link above says it all doesn't it? Israel can't stand up against it's enemies without the US military aid. Right? Wrong.
While it's true that the USA does give a lot of military assistance to Israel it comes with strings attached. Part of the agreement says that it must buy all of it's weapons from the USA even after it has used up the aid and at regular price. Now it's really hard to say how much they would save if they could negotiate with the US but I would say it's substantial.
On top of that Israel really doesn't need the exact weapons that the US sells it. This is because in reality it modifies every weapon it gets. This is one of the reasons why Israel has had so much success militarily. The idea is that an Israeli weapon is just a little bit better than your weapon and that will be enough. They shorten gun barrels, replace armor, etc.
While there are not tons of countries lining up to sell arms to Israel I can think of one that sells to anyone that asks. Russia. Russia certainly seems anti Israel but really they are not. They are pro money. Anyone who wants to buy gets and they haven't turned down anyone yet. Russian weapons are cheaper but of a lesser quality. When you consider that Israel is going to modify them anyways the quality is not a huge concern. Also when you consider that we are paying more for the weapons that we buy that are over and above the initial aid, the aid is really much smaller than it seems.
Israel is a very strong country economically. I don't need to go into details but we are not worried about money. Sure we have budget constraints just like any country but we certainly are able to finance ourselves just fine.
Where the issue of support is concerned, I believe the military and financial aid is pretty much a wash. We can do without. However support is more than just money. There is political support. There is recognition as a state. And there is the US veto. The US veto has been there for us in the UN for so long and it has bailed us out many times.
If the US were to threaten cutting military aid to Israel I don't think we should worry but if they threaten to stop using their veto then I think we should take notice. It's important to recognize what could happen. Israel is a strong country economically but that could change if we were black listed due to lack of cooperation. It would not be as bad as it sounds. Even absent of official national boycotts in most countries, Israel is still subject to private boycotts of individual citizens, organizations, and companies. Because of this Israel has become a leader in R & D. We mostly import all goods but we export brain power. We engineer the world. You will never see Intel write made in Israel on it's chips, but a large part of it's development was done here. I don't think this would change. Exports for sure would change. Essentially any steps we take should be weighed heavily based on the possibility of isolation and loss of the US veto in the UN. Other than that we can afford to lose the support financial or otherwise.
One last thought before I close this out. With all that being said, it is a big risk to be isolated or to lose that veto. However, I do think we are to scared. We have taken many bold steps that the world didn't agree with over the years and we have been condemned and criticized but in the end things went back to normal. Our leaders need to learn to call other country's bluffs more often.
That link above says it all doesn't it? Israel can't stand up against it's enemies without the US military aid. Right? Wrong.
While it's true that the USA does give a lot of military assistance to Israel it comes with strings attached. Part of the agreement says that it must buy all of it's weapons from the USA even after it has used up the aid and at regular price. Now it's really hard to say how much they would save if they could negotiate with the US but I would say it's substantial.
On top of that Israel really doesn't need the exact weapons that the US sells it. This is because in reality it modifies every weapon it gets. This is one of the reasons why Israel has had so much success militarily. The idea is that an Israeli weapon is just a little bit better than your weapon and that will be enough. They shorten gun barrels, replace armor, etc.
While there are not tons of countries lining up to sell arms to Israel I can think of one that sells to anyone that asks. Russia. Russia certainly seems anti Israel but really they are not. They are pro money. Anyone who wants to buy gets and they haven't turned down anyone yet. Russian weapons are cheaper but of a lesser quality. When you consider that Israel is going to modify them anyways the quality is not a huge concern. Also when you consider that we are paying more for the weapons that we buy that are over and above the initial aid, the aid is really much smaller than it seems.
Israel is a very strong country economically. I don't need to go into details but we are not worried about money. Sure we have budget constraints just like any country but we certainly are able to finance ourselves just fine.
Where the issue of support is concerned, I believe the military and financial aid is pretty much a wash. We can do without. However support is more than just money. There is political support. There is recognition as a state. And there is the US veto. The US veto has been there for us in the UN for so long and it has bailed us out many times.
If the US were to threaten cutting military aid to Israel I don't think we should worry but if they threaten to stop using their veto then I think we should take notice. It's important to recognize what could happen. Israel is a strong country economically but that could change if we were black listed due to lack of cooperation. It would not be as bad as it sounds. Even absent of official national boycotts in most countries, Israel is still subject to private boycotts of individual citizens, organizations, and companies. Because of this Israel has become a leader in R & D. We mostly import all goods but we export brain power. We engineer the world. You will never see Intel write made in Israel on it's chips, but a large part of it's development was done here. I don't think this would change. Exports for sure would change. Essentially any steps we take should be weighed heavily based on the possibility of isolation and loss of the US veto in the UN. Other than that we can afford to lose the support financial or otherwise.
One last thought before I close this out. With all that being said, it is a big risk to be isolated or to lose that veto. However, I do think we are to scared. We have taken many bold steps that the world didn't agree with over the years and we have been condemned and criticized but in the end things went back to normal. Our leaders need to learn to call other country's bluffs more often.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Seriously there will never be peace in the Middle East
I see so many things in papers and blogs. People are worried about the peace process or excited. You might be worried that we might have to give up land for peace which would be a grave mistake I will get to later. You might be excited that we might finally have peace. Or you might just feel like we (Israel) have no real peace partner which might be true but isn't the real issue of this entry.
There never will and never can be peace between Arabs and Jews at least not without divine intervention like Mashiach or rebuilding of the temple etc. I try to leave G-D out of this blog so we move on. There are a few reasons which I will mention but I will focus on the big one.
There can never be peace because of Jerusalem. You can look up and down the political spectrum of Israelis and except for the far left you can not find Israelis willing to give up on any part of Jerusalem period. Rumor has it that Ehud Olmert had agreed to give away Eastern Jerusalem but when he discussed with his colleagues in the Knesset he was shot down. They asked him, "Do you want us to give up our careers in politics"? Ironically they didn't stand up on ideological grounds but I guess that's politicians for you. The point is they can't give it up. You can't say this about Judea and Samaria or the other areas on the other side of the so-called green line. Jerusalem though is really for all intents and purposes not even on the negotiations table.
Now what about the Arabs. Well I am not on the Arab side but I can say that every time I hear Abbas speak, I hear him say "A Palestinian state with Jerusalem as it's capital". Yes he never leaves that out. Now in all fairness I have heard from a good Muslim American friend of mine that the Idea of Jerusalem is not so important as much as the temple mount and even that is not the end all be all. For a Muslim the most important place is Mecca. I am not an expert but this is what I have heard. In any event even though it is not the most important place in the Muslim religion, still they go crazy over it. I know in Ramadan it's extremely crowded. I once discussed with a Palestinian about rebuilding the temple and how we would have to destroy the dome of the rock. He said and I will never forget this, "You better be prepared for the Mother of all wars". This is a guy that I see almost every day and that I would say I am on very good terms with. I would say he's a good acquaintance but as soon as I mention destroying the dome of the rock, it's over. We are now enemies if this would happen.
So now what we have here is an impossibility. No one is willing to budge. It's pointless. Jerusalem is so important to the Jews and yet also so important to the Arabs. So what gives? I don't know to be honest but I will say this. This is the most important reason that there can never be peace and you should recognize this. I wish they the politicians would accept this but unfortunately this can never happen for a number of reasons.
First reason they will never acknowledge it is because they can't. Any high profile politician like Bibi or John Kerry or Obama will be committing political suicide. Sure there will be those that come to his rescue but he will not be able to face the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world is not delusional. They are all just trying to tow the line. You see there is a balance at play here. The world is in a state where war is always to be prevented which may not be good but that's reality. The USA wants to look good in the eyes of Jews and Arabs and Europeans. When the USA says Israel must have secure borders they making Israel happy and when they say that the Palestinians deserve a state, they are making the Arabs happy. They are able to make the Arabs happy. When they pressure Israel they are also making the Europeans happy as they are more or less pro Arab. The Europeans have a similar balance but they are more pro Arabs but they will come out in support of Israel to gain the Americans support. Now Israel will want to keep this balance in place so they will not deny the Palestinians right to a state but will talk about Israel's security and then so to the Arabs will usually not deny the Jews the right to a state. Now the Arabs are less politically correct and will deny in their own press but then won't do it in the national press. This is another topic but the point is that they are towing the line. Everyone is doing their best to not look bad but no one stops to notice that it's a lie. This is why they have to force Israel to give up on parts of Judea and Samaria. Of course since we know there can never be peace, we should never give up on any land. Really we should never give up land any way but that's theological which I am trying to leave out for now. Strictly on a logical level giving up land would be bad because of the security risks and because there is no chance for peace anyways. Because they have nothing else to discuss. It's the only way they can live their lie. Eventually there will be a war. There has to be. In the mean time I guess we will continue with the lie.
Another reason there can never be peace is the terrorist groups. Actually there are two reasons here. First, the terrorist enterprise is more than just terror. It's big business. The terrorist industry if you will is a multibillion dollar industry. There are engineers workers and most importantly there are big time executives making a load of cash. They won't let it end. It's maybe the same reason why the USA will never have socialized health care. The Insurance companies will never let it happen because it would be a huge hit to them. I digress as health care is not our topic. Also let's imagine for a second that there was a peace agreement. This could never happen because of Jerusalem but if there was, do you think the terror would stop? Of course not. The best Israel could hope for would be what they currently have in Iraq. There is no dispute over land but yet it continues for idealogical reasons.
There is one last issue that if this were all to work out then this could also hold it up. The refugee issue. I consider is a non issue though. The Arabs demand to return all the Arabs back to their homes that ran away and all of the generations that came after to their original homes. First, this would be by it's nature a refusal of any agreement. Many of these refugees would end up in the new agreed upon state. This would essentially not give Israel what it wants from an agreement because it would not solve the demographic problem. Also there is the issue of the developed area. We cannot go back on what was in the past. Surely and refugees can go back if it would be in the new Arab state. Anyways it won't get this far.
Ok so I hope you can see that really there will never be peace.
There never will and never can be peace between Arabs and Jews at least not without divine intervention like Mashiach or rebuilding of the temple etc. I try to leave G-D out of this blog so we move on. There are a few reasons which I will mention but I will focus on the big one.
There can never be peace because of Jerusalem. You can look up and down the political spectrum of Israelis and except for the far left you can not find Israelis willing to give up on any part of Jerusalem period. Rumor has it that Ehud Olmert had agreed to give away Eastern Jerusalem but when he discussed with his colleagues in the Knesset he was shot down. They asked him, "Do you want us to give up our careers in politics"? Ironically they didn't stand up on ideological grounds but I guess that's politicians for you. The point is they can't give it up. You can't say this about Judea and Samaria or the other areas on the other side of the so-called green line. Jerusalem though is really for all intents and purposes not even on the negotiations table.
Now what about the Arabs. Well I am not on the Arab side but I can say that every time I hear Abbas speak, I hear him say "A Palestinian state with Jerusalem as it's capital". Yes he never leaves that out. Now in all fairness I have heard from a good Muslim American friend of mine that the Idea of Jerusalem is not so important as much as the temple mount and even that is not the end all be all. For a Muslim the most important place is Mecca. I am not an expert but this is what I have heard. In any event even though it is not the most important place in the Muslim religion, still they go crazy over it. I know in Ramadan it's extremely crowded. I once discussed with a Palestinian about rebuilding the temple and how we would have to destroy the dome of the rock. He said and I will never forget this, "You better be prepared for the Mother of all wars". This is a guy that I see almost every day and that I would say I am on very good terms with. I would say he's a good acquaintance but as soon as I mention destroying the dome of the rock, it's over. We are now enemies if this would happen.
So now what we have here is an impossibility. No one is willing to budge. It's pointless. Jerusalem is so important to the Jews and yet also so important to the Arabs. So what gives? I don't know to be honest but I will say this. This is the most important reason that there can never be peace and you should recognize this. I wish they the politicians would accept this but unfortunately this can never happen for a number of reasons.
First reason they will never acknowledge it is because they can't. Any high profile politician like Bibi or John Kerry or Obama will be committing political suicide. Sure there will be those that come to his rescue but he will not be able to face the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world is not delusional. They are all just trying to tow the line. You see there is a balance at play here. The world is in a state where war is always to be prevented which may not be good but that's reality. The USA wants to look good in the eyes of Jews and Arabs and Europeans. When the USA says Israel must have secure borders they making Israel happy and when they say that the Palestinians deserve a state, they are making the Arabs happy. They are able to make the Arabs happy. When they pressure Israel they are also making the Europeans happy as they are more or less pro Arab. The Europeans have a similar balance but they are more pro Arabs but they will come out in support of Israel to gain the Americans support. Now Israel will want to keep this balance in place so they will not deny the Palestinians right to a state but will talk about Israel's security and then so to the Arabs will usually not deny the Jews the right to a state. Now the Arabs are less politically correct and will deny in their own press but then won't do it in the national press. This is another topic but the point is that they are towing the line. Everyone is doing their best to not look bad but no one stops to notice that it's a lie. This is why they have to force Israel to give up on parts of Judea and Samaria. Of course since we know there can never be peace, we should never give up on any land. Really we should never give up land any way but that's theological which I am trying to leave out for now. Strictly on a logical level giving up land would be bad because of the security risks and because there is no chance for peace anyways. Because they have nothing else to discuss. It's the only way they can live their lie. Eventually there will be a war. There has to be. In the mean time I guess we will continue with the lie.
Another reason there can never be peace is the terrorist groups. Actually there are two reasons here. First, the terrorist enterprise is more than just terror. It's big business. The terrorist industry if you will is a multibillion dollar industry. There are engineers workers and most importantly there are big time executives making a load of cash. They won't let it end. It's maybe the same reason why the USA will never have socialized health care. The Insurance companies will never let it happen because it would be a huge hit to them. I digress as health care is not our topic. Also let's imagine for a second that there was a peace agreement. This could never happen because of Jerusalem but if there was, do you think the terror would stop? Of course not. The best Israel could hope for would be what they currently have in Iraq. There is no dispute over land but yet it continues for idealogical reasons.
There is one last issue that if this were all to work out then this could also hold it up. The refugee issue. I consider is a non issue though. The Arabs demand to return all the Arabs back to their homes that ran away and all of the generations that came after to their original homes. First, this would be by it's nature a refusal of any agreement. Many of these refugees would end up in the new agreed upon state. This would essentially not give Israel what it wants from an agreement because it would not solve the demographic problem. Also there is the issue of the developed area. We cannot go back on what was in the past. Surely and refugees can go back if it would be in the new Arab state. Anyways it won't get this far.
Ok so I hope you can see that really there will never be peace.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Maybe Bibi isn't as stupid as you think.
Recently Israel announced that they have agreed with the PA to restart peace talks. First of all I would like to state that I am adamantly against this. I wish our leaders would just stand up and say that Hashem gave us this land. It's not up for negotiation. It would be like your grandmother asking you to save some family item for your grandchildren and someone asking you for it after she had already passed away but before you gave it to your grandchildren. How could you give it away? It's not even yours to give. Anyways I digress. We are not in that situation but maybe we have the next best thing.
Approximately 5 years ago Bibi gave his famous Bar Ilan speech where he declared that we want peace with the Arabs and that he supports a 2 state solution. Now many people were very upset at this (myself included) but he was to his credit very careful to stick in the clause that it must be a demilitarized state. This idea of a clauses or more appropriate clauses is the subject of this blog entry. In my opinion Bibi decided that he was stuck. He decided that he needed the world's support (and most importantly the USA) in the Iran issue but that he wanted to be firm on the Domestic Arab issues. So it is possible that he chose to put in difficult clauses so as to make it almost impossible for a 2nd state to be formed.
The first clause as I mentioned was the demilitarized state. Now no Arab leader is going to agree to this. Matter of fact they can't agree to this because their mission statement says that they will work to destroy the Jewish state. Now even if they do agree to this we will have more clauses as you will see.
The next clause wasn't really a clause but just refusing to have preconditions. He felt the Arabs stood to lose by negotiating and so he was calling their bluff by refusing to have preconditions. He was right actually but through American pressure the Arabs finally decided to call Bibi's bluff and come to the negotiation table.
Now here we are today and you might say well now what. If you were to go with the theme so far then you would think that Bibi would just be disingenuous in the talks. He would refuse things that he shouldn't. Not agree to anything. He may do this to some degree or it may appear this way but he is smarter than that. He knows that everyone will see through it and that he will lose the American support he was after. So he did something very smart and unexpected.
He declared that any agreement will go to a referendum. Now he knows that any agreement will have to be voted on. He knows that Israelis don't support peace with the Arabs because we don't trust them. Not only that he can be very bold. He can agree to give up more than he would want because he knows it will go to a referendum and he knows that the worse the agreement is the less chance it has of passing. He also knows that leftists will have a hard time complaining because the people are choosing. He knows he has nothing to worry about with Tzipi Livni because of the referendum. No leftist can say he was to the right because all he did was let the people decide. He might be committing political suicide on the right but he has lots of friends and he can always make the very agreement that I am making now.
In closing I would like to say that I could be wrong. I also don't like this approach because it puts us in a position where we look like we are willing to give away land. We really should just say that we are not willing. We need to say, you want peace fine. We are not shooting at you unless you shoot at us. You want our land? Well that's something else. You need to give up on that because it's ours. We won it fair and square in many wars over the years. People forget that the Arabs were threatening to throw us into the sea before 1967. I am too young to remember this but according to many veteran Israelis, in 1967 the joke was that the last one should not forget to turn off the light at Ben Gurion Airport. We were done. We had no chance. The State of Israel was about to be nothing but a part of history. We did the unthinkable. We preemptively struck them. It was a defensive strike though. We had no choice. Now they want it back. I digress. We maybe have the next best thing. Netanyahu and his clauses.
Approximately 5 years ago Bibi gave his famous Bar Ilan speech where he declared that we want peace with the Arabs and that he supports a 2 state solution. Now many people were very upset at this (myself included) but he was to his credit very careful to stick in the clause that it must be a demilitarized state. This idea of a clauses or more appropriate clauses is the subject of this blog entry. In my opinion Bibi decided that he was stuck. He decided that he needed the world's support (and most importantly the USA) in the Iran issue but that he wanted to be firm on the Domestic Arab issues. So it is possible that he chose to put in difficult clauses so as to make it almost impossible for a 2nd state to be formed.
The first clause as I mentioned was the demilitarized state. Now no Arab leader is going to agree to this. Matter of fact they can't agree to this because their mission statement says that they will work to destroy the Jewish state. Now even if they do agree to this we will have more clauses as you will see.
The next clause wasn't really a clause but just refusing to have preconditions. He felt the Arabs stood to lose by negotiating and so he was calling their bluff by refusing to have preconditions. He was right actually but through American pressure the Arabs finally decided to call Bibi's bluff and come to the negotiation table.
Now here we are today and you might say well now what. If you were to go with the theme so far then you would think that Bibi would just be disingenuous in the talks. He would refuse things that he shouldn't. Not agree to anything. He may do this to some degree or it may appear this way but he is smarter than that. He knows that everyone will see through it and that he will lose the American support he was after. So he did something very smart and unexpected.
He declared that any agreement will go to a referendum. Now he knows that any agreement will have to be voted on. He knows that Israelis don't support peace with the Arabs because we don't trust them. Not only that he can be very bold. He can agree to give up more than he would want because he knows it will go to a referendum and he knows that the worse the agreement is the less chance it has of passing. He also knows that leftists will have a hard time complaining because the people are choosing. He knows he has nothing to worry about with Tzipi Livni because of the referendum. No leftist can say he was to the right because all he did was let the people decide. He might be committing political suicide on the right but he has lots of friends and he can always make the very agreement that I am making now.
In closing I would like to say that I could be wrong. I also don't like this approach because it puts us in a position where we look like we are willing to give away land. We really should just say that we are not willing. We need to say, you want peace fine. We are not shooting at you unless you shoot at us. You want our land? Well that's something else. You need to give up on that because it's ours. We won it fair and square in many wars over the years. People forget that the Arabs were threatening to throw us into the sea before 1967. I am too young to remember this but according to many veteran Israelis, in 1967 the joke was that the last one should not forget to turn off the light at Ben Gurion Airport. We were done. We had no chance. The State of Israel was about to be nothing but a part of history. We did the unthinkable. We preemptively struck them. It was a defensive strike though. We had no choice. Now they want it back. I digress. We maybe have the next best thing. Netanyahu and his clauses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)