(from Into the Fray: Israel’s lethal land-for-peace laureates by Martin Sherman)


First picture Daily Mirror, picture above Daily Mail. Therefore we know! the people do know! These forces of the Jihad are hammering on the door of Israel especially from the Sinai. The only way that Israel can survive this Jihad is by sharpening its own resources and the only resource it has really is the State of Israel. The article by Martin Sherman is essentially about sharpening that state as are my remarks which follow. Please read, comment and get involved.

Thus, Begin surrendered the entire Sinai Peninsula (won in a war of anticipatory self-defense) with all its strategic depth, mineral wealth and economic potential

This is a nutshell is the theme of this article by Martin Sherman on Jerusalem Post today. It is a masterly exposure of a deadly theme, that if you surrender land as strategic position to an enemyy you will rue the day.

This is a universal theme in world history. In the Brest Litovsk treaty the Bolsheviks having won the revolution in 1917 were forced to bow the knee and to accept huge cuts to their empire. But as the following passage makes clear Trotsky (Lev Davidovich) did so with eyes wide open, open more than most:


“The strongest, in a military sense, proved to be Germany, due to the power of its industries and due also to the modest rational character of these industries side by side with a time-worn, anachronistic political system. It was shown that France, largely because of its petty bourgeois economy, had fallen behind Germany, and even so powerful a colonial empire as England, because of the more conservative and routine character of its industries, proved to be weaker in comparison with Germany. When history placed the Russian Revolution face to face with the question of negotiating peace we were not in doubt that we would have to settle the bill for the three and a half years of war – unless the power of the international revolutionary proletariat should decisively upset all calculations. We did not doubt that in German Imperialism we had to deal with an opponent thoroughly saturated with the consciousness of his colonial power, a power which in the course of this war, has come so plainly to the fore.”


Sadly what characterises all of the patched up “agreements” that Israel has made with a deadly Islamist enemy have been characterised not with that broadness of vision which was so characteristic of those two quite unique leaders Lenin and Trotsky – but (sad to say) with extreme narrowness.


Thus these “agreements” such as that of Begin, Dayan re The Temple, or Sharon were not based at all on any real knowledge but rather on pious hopes and “humanitarian” posturing of the very worst kind.


There was a complete lacking in even basic knowledge of what was Islam.


This had the telling experience (in another important área of combat on this theme) of leading American Jewish figures campaigning on behalf of the Islamist Killers in Bosnia and Kosovo and attacking Milosevic on behalf of reactionary British, German, French and US Imperialists of NATO


(“Conversations with Elie Wiesel”…in which he claims Milosevic wanted to expel and torment the civilians etc. which was all lies and based on the US propaganda machine and fed by the Jihadist lies of the Izetbegovic Islamists in Bosnia)


Wiesel shows that just because you have gone through one experience does not mean that you have understood it. Wiesel was supporting the Jihad in Bosnia even though the leader of the Jihad Hajj Amin el Husseini had been an instigator and supervisor of the Nazi death camps. In which Wiesel had paid the price. But his knowledge weas partial.


Sheer blindness and ignorance rather than stupidity has been at the base of almost all of the moves Israel has made since its formation. In fact the same lacking in, and of,  real knowledge is very evident in the founders of Zionism, like Hess even on to Herzl.


But there was one very sober analysis made at a most early stage (1852), that of the much maligned Karl Marx, who wrote emphasising the central truth of the present Sherman article in discussion:


QUOTE”The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various peoples to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels.”

A very simple statement indeed! Yet when you bother to absorb its content you will soon discover that Marx has written all there is to write about Islam and that if armed with that then none of this Jewish land would have been handed to this enemy. Not by Begin! not by Sharon! Not by Dayan! And not by Rabin!


I find it absolutely mind boggling the kind of barbs directed against socialism by the so called anti-Jihadists of today. The fact is that the founders of socialism were more clear than anybody else as to what precisely was Islam.


In fact Lev Davidovich in his clear calls for Jews in the 1930s to make their way to Palestine and to set up their state there, and specifying Mohammedanism as the enemy, and that the Jews had to make their state defensible in that regard, showed he too understood Islam as had Marx.


Looking back it seems that the more people grow old the stupider they get.


If only the Jewish people had been allowed to look the statement of Marx on Islam straight in the face and took it for what it was. The sheerest warning arguably  ever made about the Fascist nature of Islam – then things would have been very different indeed and today’s warning article by Martin Sherman would not have been so necessary.


Nowadays there are so many paid agents who are presenting as “marxists” people like Chomsky who explicitly hates us, or whatever, and do everything positive to present Islam as progressive. And the Anti-Jihadists in the pay of the state department who litter the blogs do exactly that as well. It is “leftist” this and “leftist” that all the way to perdition.


As Martin Sherman says clearly in this article – the events of today are being caterpulted in an alarming manner. Events do not proceed in slow evolution but in “Darwinian leaps” as presented by David Jay Gould, and this applies in spades to the critical situation facing Israel.


Israel has always been in war since 1948 but now must prepare for critical war situation on a scale that dwarfs 1948 and 1967.


This calls for sharpening the weapon and the only weapon Jews have is the weapon of the state of Israel. It is the state which must be sharpened.


A new role will certainly be found for the patriot Bibi Netanyahu who will forever remain in our hearts for his pioneering struggle against Iran, and especially against the sponsor of Iran President Obama, in Congress on March 3 2015. He articulates ideas better than anyone I know. But the ideas articulated by Bibi must be formulated elsewhere. Weare in a qualitatively different situation. Indeed in a different world.


Consider the steps that must be taken and we can understand better the way to achieve them:



Be objective about Israel. What is it? Surely the Jewish Homeland. Only Jews can vote the the Knesset. The rest is nonsense.


That (the precious) Knesset of the Jews holds the power. Disband as of now the Supreme Court. Trust the Jews a great people to rule with firmness, wisdom and benevolence.


Place the Karl Marx understanding of Islam in front. No Muslims can live in the Holy Land. Islam is not Holy. Islam is an ideology of war on us all. We can though proceed in a humanitarian way here but with great firmness. Always with firmness to the strategic end which is no Muslims in the Holy Land!


Define the borders: They are Golan, Jordan Valley in fullest sense, the sense of Weismann on 3 january 1919 with support from no less than Feisal, border with Egypt having taken Sinai on defensive basis, and sea.


As for democracy that is a indeed the highest form of democracy in this case, which can only be defined as the democracy of preventing a new Holocaust of the Jews by defeating the Jihad.



Sharon expressed this paralysis. He knew that the removal of Saddam by Bush would usher in a period of Iran dominance in Iraq and the Middle East, knew this very well based on his experience of the area, he was no fool! But he could not say so in public even though he argued with the political imbecile Bush. That seems to me to express just how unable to lead the Jewish people are all of the Jewish elites today. This leadership issue is central and creates great dangers which will only get worse!

All my reading on this subject of Israel and the way the world is attacking Israel, demands the need for a strong propaganda-like response from Israel


That is not forthcoming and under the leadership of the present groups/parties/individuals/blogs will not be forthcoming any time soon, meaning never.


That is the problem, the central problem, that dwarfs all else and is connected to Israel taking effective action to defend itself, which also it finds itself impossible to do. The Israeli elites were prepared to look elsewhere for about 7 years as the people of Sderot were bombarded weekly with hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets. They could not and did not take any action to block this which amounted to a second class citizen ship in effect being placed on these people next to this aza border.


So we have two things happening in synchronicity: the message abroad from Israel and the inability to take action to determine its future. Both of these are held together in a vicelike grip that will not let go.


The development of the world crisis of the capitalist system, with money markets as we speak more and more on edge and seemingly more vulnerable, the exposure of the world and its people to new forms of barbarity by the likes of IS flashing across our screens, and the obvious vulnerability to this by Israel, while the world as Martin Sherman says so well, corners on Israel, thus forcing Israel more and more into a Samson situation.


These are not small issues and cannot be answered in a  facile way.


This places great demands on Israeli leadership.


Here is the kicker though. It is possible for Caroline Glick to be enraged at EU reps but at the same time not to deal with the overall crisis in a comprehensive manner. (I am all for being enraged but rage in itself, like prayer, is never a strategy)


I will give two examples that point to the new aspect to the situation faced by Jews, Israel and the world.


  1. The methods of Netanyahu, ignoring then massive physical splurge on Gaza (Protective Edge) (Which episode in history has given no edge and which therefore was not protective) while at the same time tying the hands of the soldiers fighting in Gaza, have proved to be disastrously inadequate
  2. Related to that the reality in Britain, which I have looked at especially based on written reports, which were available and have been available but have not been discussed in any significant manner, that the old methods of defending Israel abroad have collapsed. I am referring to the bankrupt “friends” of Israel concept. I have showed that the “friends” quickly became the “enemies” as they effectively voted (many by abstaining) for a Palestine Jihad state. (Vote in Britain October 13)

Those two examples in our very recent past shows that there is needed an overall strategy for Israel, Jews and the rest of us, to fight this war and it simply is not there.


I think that is the starting point. The Antisemitic positions of European elites are just a symptom of this lack of strategy by the Israeli leaders. They are created because the Israeli leadership is vacuum territory.


It is impossible for Israel because there is no clear strategy inside of Israel on how it can defend itself and how the Jewish state can be brought forward in this situation. I need to return to that but the answer by Sherman to Bennett’s Saban tussle with Idyke is a starting point.


The leaders are paralysed because they do not know what to do and if they do not know what to do then they do not know what to say either


That may sound simplistic but it is true


this is the two state theory summed up in all its gory reality

From the recent Martin Sherman article on Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Into-the-fray-The-Arabs-war-against-the-Jews-cont-Root-causes-and-red-herrings-383081 ) there is this paragraph among many memorable paragraphs:


From the newly elected president, Reuven Rivlin, to veteran Police Chief Yohanan Danino, statements explicitly alleging or insinuating that the Jews’ own conduct – such as exercising their right of access to religious sites or legislative initiatives to codify in law the values reflected in the Declaration of Independence – precipitated, or at least, exacerbated, recent Arab butchery of innocent Jews in the streets, on the roads, inside synagogues, and at building sites across the country. – end quote


Rivlin we know. Danino is head since a couple of years ago of ALL of the police in Israel. He is a top dog really! And the type of person elected to be top dog is a man who was behind the persecution of Liberman, the Russian Israeli politician and essentially patriot (despite many issues he is that)


Even this one paragraph throws up serious issue and offers a light into the reality of Israeli elitist betrayal of the Jewish Zionist cause


Meanwhile the various bloggers on sites such as Israpundit and on Sherman’s own Facebook page simply cannot get to terms with the central issue which is ESSENTIALLY totally about leadership and the absence of patriotic leadership which CAN lead.


Sherman himself who is principled does not engage in hero worship of anybody and in the paragraph previous to this alludes to my central point – that it is an overall crisis of leadership of Israel that is at stake. Read this first and carefully before I comment:


One senior public figure after another – not only on the Left of the political spectrum – have come out with declarations that have ranged from regrettably inappropriate, through hopelessly unfounded, to dangerously counter-productive. (end quote)


I do not wish to divert but…Note that Sherman uses this outdated and irrelevant term the “Left” when the issue is one of nationalism and patriotism and not the price of bread. It is a corrupt term leading to corruption of the mind – the worst kind!


But having said that Sherman is very clear! It is as he says and I repeat “not only on the Left of the political spectrum” … that the betrayal of Israel is taking place.


In other words he is saying as I am – It is a total crisis of leadership. As far as true and principled leadership is concerned it is vacuum country.


As I said about a year ago there is a complete vacuum of leadership in Israel where all kinds of (what can I call them lets be charitable) “idiots” creep in


To finish off let me see how Martin Sherman ends his piece and it is the way actually that he ends every piece:


 Unless the Jews convey the unequivocal message that any such challenges will be met with overwhelming force, they will increasingly be the victims of such force at the hands of their Arab adversaries.


There may be those who find this prescription excessively harsh.


Sadly, the only way the Jews can avoid living permanently by the sword is to convey convincingly to the Arabs that they have the resolve to do so. I invite everyone to consider the alternative.


Only Arab despair can bring any hope for peace. (end quote)


I agree with every word in the above but I say in the ABC of politics the above is a very tiny A or (a)


In reality it is really tame because it does not deal at all with power and with the former scenario of the PRESIDENT and the HEAD OF POLICE being absolute scoundrels, and as far as Jewish patriotism is concerned THEY ARE NOT remotely so!




There are just 3 paragraphs to read in the Caroline Glick latest article – again the last three THE ENDING!


After much good analysis about this strange new Netanyahu Bill Caroline ends like this:


Rather than doing the hard work of running a continuous, relentless campaign to accrue the requisite power to reform the system, politicians on the Right have embraced an unnecessary bill that will do nothing to protect Israel’s future.


On the other hand, their counterparts on the Left have shown that the Israeli Left is today largely indistinguishable from the international Left which rejects Israel’s right to exist and rejects the Jewish people’s right to sovereignty and freedom in its homeland. With Haaretz acting as the conduit between the BDS movement and government ministers, politicians on the Left have become unmoored from the basic requirements of national life.


In other words, the current maelstrom over the draft Nation State bill shows that Israel’s political Right is far weaker than it needs to be and that Israel’s political Left is far more destructive than it ought to be.(end quote)



I mean what an ending! What is THAT about!


I feel as if I am in the middle of a large and deep lough and unable to swim and Caroline has planted me there.


There is just no way out of that last sentence of Caroline´s. I am sinking and if this is the best (Caroline) that Israel can do it will sink like a stone.


Europe attacks Israel as their Muslim population expands massively

Into the fray: The two-stage ‘solution’ …article by Jerusalem Post writer Martin Sherman with our commentary

This is an historic article by Martin Sherman because it follows and is an answer to the pivotal decision of the Swedish and British Governments to recognize a “Palestine” state. Sherman makes it clear in this article, quoting Palestinian Arabs themselves, that such a state is untenable and is only for the purpose of tearing down, likely through terror of one sort or another, the Jewish state. At the end of the article Sherman refers briefly to the fault of the Israeli State in not refuting these claims and moves towards a “Palestine” Arab state. It seems from this article that if they had decided to so refute then there was more than enough ammunition to convince the world that “Palestinianism” is Jihadism.


But they have not and are not doing so and that is the crunch issue in this Sherman article. Every article should lead on to a question “What to do next?”


In reading around the Swedish/Holocaust issue and in the article I wrote yesterday I left out a significant fact. As I stated the Swedish state and government as opposed to the Swedish people were up to their eye balls in collaborating with the Nazis. What struck me and what I left out of the article was the way that Shimon Peres has brown nosed these Swedish elites for so many years. Peres is old now but he has probably spent from say 1950 to 2010 doing this kind of fiendish activity. You see the Swedes were in on murdering 6 million of his people the Jews in the years of the Holocaust. Then Peres spent the next 60 years telling the Swedish Government “Forget about all of that. That is past. Let us be friends as if nothing has happened”


There is the strange whiff of treason here in the thought which must have been in the head of Peres “Really we understand your (Swedish) collaboration with the Nazis because anyway we the Jews had it coming”


This goes on right across the board. Why would any Jewish Israeli business do commercial business with a country like Britain that seeks to destroy Israel by means of the “Palestine” state? They are not stupid. They know that would be the result. How would they like a Jihadist state in Kent next door to London?


The second thing is how Jewish big wigs in America attacked without mercy the Serbs and supported the NATO bombing of the Serbs, as Clinton reached a deal with Izetbegovic (for sure and inhis own writing an extreme Jihadist) to carry out a massacre for false flag purposes. That was Srebrenica.


In all of that activity in Bosnia and Kosovo a man called Michael Ignatieff was central in mobilizing support for the Clinton war on the Serbs on the false thesis that the Serbs were carrying out a Holocaust on the Muslims. But it was Yugoslavia that was being invaded by Jihadists and the first beheadings that I saw in this modern era were done on young Serb small farming lads in the woods of Bosnia – supported and more (we can say actually instigated) by Clinton and a foretaste of the Islamic State.


I said “used” the Holocaust. Sadly there were Jews connected to the Holocaust Museum too ready to work with Ignatieff in this evil propaganda against the Serbs.


Ignatieff is an academic today but he certainly finds the time to set up Assad in the same way that he did to the Serbs. In January of this year he was splashing across the Media photos that  a “dissenter” had taken out of Syria. These photos were something along the lines of the Srebrenica Hoax propaganda of the Media.


The reason that I mention this today is that last night I heard it reported that Ignatieff had joined forces with an American Holocaust Museum and that this was on the wires yesterday. I have googled under “back news ignatieff holocaust assad” but can find nothing this morning.


This does not deflect from the truth which is that Ignatieff and others used widely the Holocaust against the Serbs, and used the Holocaust to carry out the NATO Clinton war against the Serbs. This has another lesson in relation to the Sherman article I mention above which is that the ruling classes in today’s world will stop at nothing to carry out their aims.


As regards the mention that Martin Sherman makes in his article on the British vote in Parliament to recognize a “Palestine” state I plan to write an article on this to complement the article I did yesterday on the Swedish recognition of “Palestine”. As I read around this one thing struck me and sticks so strongly in my mind. Just about a year after the Holocaust was ended by the defeat of the Allies (1945) the British Government was hanging Jews in Palestine! I prisons that the British had set up in Palestine to hang Jews ONE year after the Holocaust. Please do not tell us that this recent British Parliament vote is without context or meaning.


What to do? As always I come back to the governments of Israel and the present one is led by Netanyahu. The leader gives form to his government. We are now being backed up by many who then were silent. Netanyahu had to use the situation to totally destroy Hamas. That meant the arrest of the Hamas leadership. The thesis put about by Netanyahu and his people (literally cronies) that Hamas was needed to keep the Arabs fighting with each other was treasonous.


But Netanyahu still remains in power. That is the weakness of I may be so bold of the Martin Sherman article.


It centres all of the time on the question “What to DO next?”


I had experience of the site called Israpundit.org. Those people there would talk and talk and talk. Is that a feature of Jewish politics? If it is it is decidedly treasonous.


There must be found a way to create a new leadership and that is the issue I pose.

Feix Quigley writing from Spain, but native of Ireland






Into the fray: The two-stage ‘solution’


The entire issue of Palestinian statehood, and the Palestinian narrative on which it is based, are nothing but a giant hoax so transparent it is inconceivable that anyone even feigns credence to it.



‘With the two-state solution… Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the chosen people? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse…. Then we will move forward.”


 – Abbas Zaki, senior PLO official. (ANB TV, Lebanon, May 7, 2009)


Two recent events have once again propelled Palestinian statehood into the forefront of media spotlight, after several months of it being overshadowed by other events like developments in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and the televised barbarity of Islamic State.


One was the statement by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (subsequently somewhat equivocally revised) that his country would recognize a Palestinian state. The other was the British Parliament’s (nonbinding, but in the eyes of some, historic) vote on recognition of statehood for the Palestinians.


In light of these incidents, I was invited to appear on i24news news and participate in a discussion with a Palestinian interlocutor on the prospects for, and the prudence of, establishing a Palestinian state.


Much of what follows reflects the things I said during that 20-minute debate – and the things I didn’t, but would have, had time permitted.


 Patently incompatible


I began by asserting that it should be obvious to anyone with an iota of intellectual integrity that establishing a Palestinian state, in any conceivable configuration, is incompatible with the security and survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.


It is incomprehensible for anyone who holds this view of Israel’s role in the world not to strive to have the issue of Palestinian statehood removed from the international discourse.


After all, the recent round of fighting in Gaza should have brought home dramatically the perils involved in a Palestinian entity with a short 50-km. border, abutting the sparsely populated, mainly rural South.


Thus, little imagination is required to grasp the horrific implications for Israel entailed in the establishment of yet another Palestinian entity in Judea-Samaria (a.k.a.


“West Bank”), but now with a 500-km. border, abutting the heavily populated urban center of the country – with Ben-Gurion, Israel’s only international airport, easily within mortar range.


Just what the significance of this latter element is should be vividly underscored by two disturbing features of the last clash in Gaza. First, Ben-Gurion was closed down by the landing of a single stray rocket in its approximate vicinity. Second, the Iron Dome defense system, highly effective against Kassam and Grad rockets, was markedly less so against mortar fire.


Disastrously disruptive


Little imagination is required to envision the disastrously disruptive consequences for Israel’s international air contacts were its only gateway subjected to incessant – even intermittent – short-range mortar barrages from nearby locations, far more accurate than any occasional rocket launched from the remote Gaza Strip.


Much the same could be said for the country’s land transport system – with the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6) running for much of its length immediately adjacent to, and well within rifle range from, any prospective frontier.


Moreover, the impact of this chilling prospect is magnified by the fact that, unlike Gaza, much of the territory earmarked for a future Palestinian state comprises the limestone highlands which dominate Israel’s urbanized Coastal Plain. In it lie virtually all of Israel’s major airfields (civilian and military); main seaports and naval bases; vital infrastructure installations/systems (power generation and transmission, water, communications and transportation systems); centers of civilian government and military command; and 80 percent of the civilian population and commercial activity.


All of these could be disrupted at will, at minimal cost, by any hostile forces, whether regular or renegade, deployed on the western slopes of these highlands.


Clearly, recurrent disruption of their functioning – or even a tangible threat thereof – would make the maintenance of socioeconomic routine untenable.


‘Not since Dr. Goebbels…’


Amplifying the dire danger that a Palestinian state would pose for Israel is the undisguised intention of the Palestinians, of all political persuasions, to exploit such a state as a platform for further assaults on the Jewish state, until “Palestine,” from the River to the Sea, is totally free of the “Zionist invader.”


To convey the manifest mendacity of the Palestinian position, I drew on a quotation from an opinion column titled “Palestinian Lies” that appeared in Haaretz, towards the end of the near-hegemonic era of the Labor Party, then headed by Yitzhak Rabin: “Of all Palestinian lies there is no lie greater or more crushing than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank… Not since the time of Dr. Goebbels has there been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has borne such great fruits…”


There was a tangible sense of surprise in the i24news studio when I revealed that these were not the words of some rightwing religious radical, but of Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, who was elected to the Knesset soon after penning the cited article, served for a decade as an MK for the far-left dovish Meretz party, and held the post of minister of education.


 One narrative; five myths


I took the firm position that Rubinstein’s assessment of the veracity of Palestinian claims is essentially accurate, and that the Palestinian narrative is nothing but a giant hoax, a gigantic political sleight-of-hand, comprising five transparent myths: Myth of Palestinian Peoplehood; Myth of Palestinian Nationhood; Myth of Palestinian Homeland; Myth of Palestinian Statelessness; and Myth of Palestinian Refugees.


I have discussed these myths in some detail in previous columns. All are easily refutable, indeed freely admitted, falsehoods, intended to blur the fact that the two-state prescription is a two-stage blueprint for the annihilation of Israel.


When my Palestinian interlocutor in the debate charged that my position merely reflected my own, uninformed prejudices, I replied that quite the opposite is true.


My contentions can all be conclusively corroborated by deeds, declarations and documents of the Palestinians.


I began by citing former Arab MK Azmi Bishara, described as a “Palestinian intellectual,” and forced to flee Israel to avoid investigation of alleged acts of treason during the 2006 Second Lebanon War.


One could hardly find a more resounding renunciation of Palestinian nationhood than that provided by Bishara when, in a 1994 Channel 2 program, he astounded his Israeli co-participants with the following assertion: “I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so… I think it’s a colonialist invention – a Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from?” Indeed, when? Indeed, where? A swift tour d’horizon of decades of what prominent Palestinians have done, said and written will convincingly confirm the flagrant falsehood of the Palestinian narrative and the sinister subterfuge on which their demand for statehood is founded.


Five myths (cont.)


For example, senior Palestinian leaders have admitted – openly, consistently and continually – that Palestinians are not, and never have been, a distinct people identifiably different from others in the Arab world (Myth of Peoplehood).


But not only do the Palestinians admit that they are not a discrete socio-ethnic entity – i.e. a people – they concede that as a political unit – i.e. a nation – their demands and aspirations are neither genuine nor permanent (Myth of Nationhood) and are merely a contrivance to undermine Jewish nationhood.


The Palestinians explicitly eschewed any sovereign claims to the “West Bank” (and Gaza), only incorporating them in their territorial claims after these territories came under Israeli control (Myth of Homeland), clearly vindicating the view that the concept of Palestinian “national identity” is a fabricated construct, conjured up to further the Arab quest to repudiate Jewish national claims.


Moreover, the Palestinians are “stateless” not as a result of callous Israeli malfeasance, but of deliberate Arab malevolence (Myth of Statelessness). It is the Arabs who either stripped them of citizenship they already had (as King Hussein did in 1988), or precluded them from acquiring citizenship they desire (as per the Arab League directive).


Finally, regarding the issue of refugees, it is becoming increasingly difficult to conceal the fact that the status of Palestinian “refugees” is totally different from that of all other refugees on the face of the globe (Myth of Refugees). Were the same criterion that applies to all other cases, applied to the Palestinians, the number of refugees would plunge dramatically – from around 5 million claimed today, to fewer than 50,000.


The malice behind the myths


Arguably the most dramatically revealing and comprehensive declaration as to the malicious mendacity that underlies Palestinian claims to statehood was provided by the late Zuheir Mohsin, a senior member of the PLO Executive, in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw.


It is a declaration frequently cited by opponents of Palestinian statehood, yet seldom repudiated by its proponents. I, too, have referred to several portions of it in the past, but in the present international context, I feel there is great value in presenting it in its entirety.


In the interview headlined: “We are only Palestinians for political reasons,” Moshin stated frankly: “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.


We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation… We are ONE people. Only for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity.


“A separate Palestinian entity needs to fight for the national interest in the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak for Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria. Jordan is a state with specific borders. It cannot lay claim on – for instance – Haifa or Jaffa, while I AM entitled to Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Beersheba… The Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world and elsewhere. Once we have accomplished all of our rights in all of Palestine, we must not postpone the unification of Jordan and Palestine for one second,” Moshin said.


 Two stages, not two states


It is hard to conceive of a more brazen confession that the true goal of the twostate principle is the two-stage destruction of Israel.


It would be a perilous error to dismiss this as unrepresentative of mainstream Palestinian opinion today.


Nowhere is it more clearly articulated than in the Palestinian National Covenant, still posted on the official “State of Palestine” site hosted by the UN. It proclaims: “Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…


“Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history…”


Article 12 lays out the temporary nature of Palestinian identity in the staged strategy for the “liberation” of “Palestine” defined as “an indivisible territorial unit, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate.”


It states: “The Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Nation… [and] believe in Arab unity… however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity…”


The present stage? See what I mean by two stages? Stage one: Create Palestine.


Stage two: Eliminate Israel – precisely as per Abbas Zaki in the introductory excerpt.


 The real tragedy


All of this is – or at least, should be –painfully obvious. Yet, Israel has failed – even refused – to make this case to the world.


This is inexcusable, incomprehensible and unacceptable.


For as Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, correctly underscored in bemoaning the Swedish initiative, (Jerusalem Post, October 14), doing so is a “strategic imperative” for the nation.


It is one that Israel has failed dismally to address. That is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of all.


Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategic- israel.org).




Gaza PALESTINIANS SIT in a damaged house as they watch a parade celebrating Hamas’s ‘victory’ over Israel, in the Shejaia neighborhood, Gaza. (photo credit:REUTERS)


The analysis of Martin Sherman on the Gaza War is surely correct. This war was conducted in the most disgraceful even farcical manner by the Israeli leaders.


Sherman is correct in that they dissipated the good will in the world by not advancing energetically in the first days to challenge Hamas Fatah power. Very quickly their hesitation gave the opportunity to Antisemites in various forums to themselves organise and advance


But Sherman is incorrect in one main respect which is that he expects the present elite to somehow create a programme which includes propaganda, they call it “Hasbara”. Propaganda is vital. But how can it be done and what is its content. Sherman is incorrect if he thinks or expects or even implies that the present lot can do this. The whole point is that they cannot


But if they cannot then who can.


There needs to be a new party leadership in Israel. Given the total bankruptcy of the present leadership right across the board this will have to be a Trotskyist Party. It is necessary to possess the state and the state apparatus…KEY CONCEPT!


I wish they were not actually necessary or a truth. Then we could all get back to our gardening.


But history ordains that it is not possible. We have to face up to the demands of the situation.


The present Israeli ruling class is very divided and is very bankrupt. LET US NUMBER THEM…There is the traitorous elite around Labour (that is not socialism in case you think it is the discredited Labour Parties of the world), there is a religious outfit called Shas, totally opportunist, not really political at all, there is the openly Shimon Peres residue BASURA (OSLO) as carried on by Livni. Then there is Likud who have various strains of patriotism but that is drowned out by their political ignorance, and their division among themselves. For example Feiglin INTERESTING GUY says good things at times, but the way he treated Glenn Beck shows he is a kind of doctrinaire who lives in the clouds. (Beck had to be welcomed to Jerusalem while never abandoning independence from Beck). These are basic primary school political lessons.

Martin Sherman is doing a very useful job in facing down the excuses for action (he is calling them “canards” Like it!


Sherman wants 1 per cent of budget, a cool billion, devoted to “Hasbara”


I agree and would even up it. That is how important!


It is always concrete. Lenin said Land Bread and Peace. THAT was Hasbara! It was concrete. It explained reality. It proposed action. It justified action. And the action was decisive and courageous.  For example Lenin pulled out of the War Bloodbath while Kerensky kept on the bloodletting. THAT alone won huge support.


First steps then 2 months ago LET US IMAGINE


  1. Explain the enemy. Clarify the enemy. That meant the “Protocols of Zion” of Hamas, An evil Nazi type organisation. And Caroline Glick did the second part. She explained how Fatah WAS Hamas at every point.
  2. So I think perhaps one relevant paragraph from the Charter of Hamas would be sufficient
  3. Thus explain the need for the necessary action. Do not overload! Ever!
  4. Which was to take over Gaza by means of a massive onslaught in the very first couple or three days
  5. Kill or arrest (then execute after military trial) the enemy leaders. Even be magnanimous and offer exile to some
  6. Explain through Hasbara that this is the only way to peace, and why there must be nobody who harbours Antisemitic views living in the state of Israel (Our central point which we continually make). Explain this by means of basic maps produced by the pioneering Mark Langfan (for example 3 dimensional maps which show that the hills of Judea and Samaria are overlooking the massively populated Coastal Strip of Tel Aviv and are in striking distance, easily, of the main Israeli airport
  7. Arabs of Palestine can expect a new and promising life elsewhere. Offer this challenge to the world governments to help them, especially Arab Governments to help the Palestinian Arabs find a new life. What happens if they refuse? No matter this is not predicated on the cooperation of our enemy!!!)
  8. Remind the world that the Arabs got 22 states since 1922, not bad going at all, and they are most rich
  9. Even among these Arabs in Palestine there are some who do really love Israel and love Jews. They are exceptional people. Love them! This is a humanitarian solution and not a racist thing in any way!
  10. From that position of decisive power and complete understanding of use of the state (we are never Anarchists a battle which goes back now nearly 200 years) the way opens up
  11. A new situation is created through action




Do you agree? Good and we ask something in return. When you see attacks on Leon Trotsky do some digging because the above ideas are straight from our understanding of what Leon Trotsky was all about. Please. Do your own research. No sly digs either. I want the truth in everything. And I want some loyalty from my friends!




As Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman among many others are saying the whole of the Operation in Gaza has been a defeat for Israel. Israel and the IDF did not settle the issue of Hamas rockets and tunnels.


War is not casual. There is always a decisión. More than that targets always have to be set. The main problem in this case is that war was not declared and no targets were set.


Netanyahu and his group who control the Media and the State in Israel must not be allowed to ever spin it in any way that suggests a victory.


If no war was declared with clear aims that is a problem. If no targets were clearly set another big problem


War was NOT declared. Targets changed as things developed.


I am proposing that this looseness of language, action, aims, targets, is a result of how Israel is actually governed.



The war was run by two people, Netanyahu and Ya’alon (Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon)


The war, not called a war I repeat, was not run by a cabinet with the cabinet delegating. There was no delegation. Netanyahu decided.


It was also run by the Army Generals, that is the leadership of the IDF, in which Israeli Intelligence was involved too. But not by Cabinet.


A leader Danny Dayon was expelled from the Cabinet by Netanyahu because he did not toe THIS line, which is a line of ruling through a non cabinet cabal.


This is how no decisión was made to go to war and no targets were set, which resulted in something not war but “operation” (Operation Protective Edge), and not targets of war but tactics which were changing.


All of that has resulted in a failure. Every Israeli today knows that the rockets are not destroyed and the tunnels were not destroyed (Debka reports that only tunnels within a few miles of the border were hit by the IDF. Were they all hit? No! And that leaves the whole network in this strip which lead into these tunnels. The whole strip sits now on these deadly tunnels. And the same thing with the rockets, the majority still in existence in Gaza.


Politicaly too the war is lost totally. The Obama and Netanyahu line is to bring Abbas forward. But Caroline Glick shows that this is a récipe for disaster and for the introduction of rockets, powerful with guidance, into those tunnels


Lost too because Hizbullah and Iran are drawn in by Obama to this solution. That means defeat in spades for Netanyahu and his “Operation”


The question is how to form a clear point of opposition to Netanyahu?


4international has noted what a great job Martin Sherman has done in his last article in which he records in historical detail (Ben Gurion, Begin, Sharon) how Israeli héroes sell out at critical moments.



Now it is the turn of Netanyahu to betray. Netanyahu too is a favoured son of Israel, the brother of the Entebbe Raid hero, absolutely part of Jewish folklore. Caroline Glick has noted in great detail the ACTUAL (historical detail is her strong point) role of Abbas and how Obama, Kerry and maybe Netanyahu are pushing this person to the Forefront. Note as the UN was the front for Hamas in Gaza, as Caroline points out very clearly and above all comprehensively, detail very impressive, that now it will be Abbas, UN as front for Hamas.




There are many who are voicing the above feelings of dissidence with the ruling elite in Israel from the side of patriotism. (Note the use of left and right as commonly used in Israeli politics is not allowed on this site. These terms are meaningless in the broad world) (Martin Sherman I request you to be careful in using these terms…I have strong backing in this from Francisco Gil White, Jared Israel and Richard Landes)


But meanwhile back to this war situation and how practically to proceed.


I feel that complex issues can always be reduced down to simple things. In the case of Lenin it was BREAD the people were starving, PEACE the horrific world war 1, LAND many centuries of peasant oppression. (I know this example best so I use it and I think it should be used…this is not pushing “communism” even though I do that as well, and proudly so)


I see so many plans and schemes pushed forward by Jews. I know why. They are all trying to do their best and are so fearful of the future given their past.


But I try to reduce it to a simple concept. How about “Root out Antisemitism … out of the land of Israel”. Rephrase but keep the meaning.


To my studied political position as an irishman I hold that to throw a single Stone against a Jew in Israel (or anywhere on earth) IS ANTISEMITISM IN THE EXTREME.


So go figure! What does that mean in practice? it means it is ALL antisemitism in action today!


We can ask what does patriotism or authentic nationalism mean in Israel. It can have a religious aspect but still must be practical to survive … after all all human life is practical.


The whole of the campaign by Netanyahu in this Gaza Operation was an exercise in how to provide your Antisemite Enemies with all the ammunition they need to stir up vile Antisemitism in the world.


The biggest lesson is that the world is going to accuse Israel of being Nazi etc. anyway, whether they send warnings before destroying every empty house, whether they abort missions or not. So why do it?


The biggest lesson is that last paragraph above. Study any war, anywhere in the history of warfare and you will find that you attack the enemy with force and without warning. Also you do it decisively, brutally because war is brutal, and over as short a time period as possible. In other words you seek always to pulverise the enemy.


Those are the rules of warfare. But that is not adequate for this Jewish cabal who leads Israel since 1948. They want to have special rules for the Jews at war where the Jews are to be seen by the world as super humanitarians.


Why not just go to war TO WIN, end the war with victory in as short a period as possible TO WIN AND SAVE LIFE, having achieved victory and pulverized the enemy then be merciful if mercy is possible.


The very first consideration for a new leadership, as opposed to what has been in Israel since 48, is to face this consideration at the staart of this war.


Hamas control Gaza and the UN in Gaza is an arm of Hamas.




Evidence from Mohammed el Dura/France2 and from Qana (EU Referendum Reports) that the enemy have a vast Pallywood industry in operation.


We knew totally that the enemy control all aspects of the international media in Gaza, something which happened also totally in Yugoslavia against Milosevic and the Serbs.


So why did the Netanyahu group therefore do it like that, giving every opportunity and all of the time in the world for the enemy to promote their Pallywood productions and the international media to set up their extensive and long running campaigns of vilification of Israel AND OF JEWS?


I return again to these two great assets for Israel:


Caroline Glick has showed in the latest article in great detail how Fatah also is an arm of Hamas. This has great importance for the tactics now to be used.


Martin Sherman in his latest article showed how every Israeli leader since 1948, especially those with a bit of a name for bravery like Sharon and Begin, that they were a disaster in leadership


I cannot say that a Trotskyist Party can come forward this week or even next month and it pains me to say that. Trotskyisn was wiped out in 1940 by Stalin and by Hitler and by all capitalist governments. Roosevelt promoted Stalinism.


Nevertheless there must be a next practical step by patriots (Note again I shun the use of “Right” here a term that is lethally self-limiting for a great cause)


There must now be a new organised NEW party created on a platform opposed to a SECOND Palestine Arab state in Israel. Netanyahu has of course placed himself outside of this. Such a party is in opposition to Netanyahu. But note at times in unity and in defence of too.


Martin Sherman and Caroline Glick plus many others must continue their activity, telling Jews and the world the truth, but they must do it as part of an organised party which is in opposition to the present ruling group.


Of course such a party must defend Netanyahu and others who are actually our enemies if they come under attack from the Antisemites, but that is a necessary defence against the enemy, especially necessary to enable the discussion to proceed.


This defence of our political opponents becomes ever more necessary in a period like today when there is a Muslim Brotherhood man in charge of America with all the power that Obama brings to his mission to promote the Muslim Brotherhood. I return to this theme of how to defend Netanyahu at times agains the enemy precisely because of Obamam who is a Muslim hater of Jews


Now Obama clearly sees the need and the opportunity to rescue Hamas by promoting Abbas and Fatah.


El Sisi like Mubarak remains an Antisemitic Arab. The situation not to go along with Obama support for Abbas becomes ever more critical.


Israel does not need grand plans and it simply needs to find a way through a party to express its needs at each point



The very first step is to explain to the Israeli people that the Operation in Gaza did not and was never meant to defeat Hamas.


Moreover explain that Abbas is actually worse than Hamas. They are all part of the same Antisemitic scheme in the world against Jews and Israel.


That is the single most important issue to be fought out and clarified in front of every single Israeli today, and that includes those Arabs in Israel who love Israel.


It is a political and a practical task and not a religious one that has to be carried out. In this case freedom of religion means putting an end to Antisemitism in Israel. Start there at least!





(Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies)



http://www.4international.me is reprinting this important analysis of the present leadership situation in Israel today because we (mostly as we will see) agree with it. Yet Martin Sherman makes very serious mistakes which are rooted in history which unless they are corrected, in the sense of a leap in consciousness among Jews taking place, will lead into another cul de sac.


In the recent week 4international has called for Zoabi and her party to be exiled from Israel. More precisely 4international has called on Netanyahu to do just that.


Zoabi is today’s Fascist Antisemitism. Her call supports the kidnapping of the 3 Young boys from Hebron. They may by now be dead. I hope not but we are dealing here with Fascist Islamic Jihad.


The Nazis did not teach the Arabs anything about Fascism. Islam in the shape of Hajj Amin el Husseini simply morphed the traditional Jihad into modern Fascism. That was the significance of Hajj Amin el Husseini joining his forces with the Nazis in the 1930s. This was cemented in the concordat which el Husseini made with Hitler in late 1941 and in the key role which el Husseini played in the Holocaust. Zoabi stands in that tradition. It is a deadly tradition. It links with all aspects of Jihad not least being Iran and ISIl.


Martin Sherman quotes the Israeli journalist Gideon Levi in the following:


“The only way still open for the Palestinians to remind the Israelis of…their plight is the way of violent struggle. All other paths have been blocked. If the Gaza Strip doesn’t fire Qassam rockets at Israel, the Gaza Strip doesn’t exist.”


For one thing the position of Gideon Levi is first of all a theoretical and an historical issue. Levi is talking above about the “plight” of the “Palestinians”.


That right there in the use of the term is a political position right on its own is modern Fascism and Antisemitism.


In war situations such as this there cannot be two sides to the problem. In a war you chose sides. You cannot sit on the sideline in a war.


The “Palestinians” are a continuation of the Holocaust. This is proved by the existence in the history of the “Palestinians” of Hajj Amin el Husseini.


The “Palestinians” cannot write el Husseini out. He founded them.


Martin Sherman knows all of this very well and we on 4international will work with him on this amd all else.


Where Martin Sherman runs into the buffers is in his inherent anti-communism. There is no communist revolutionary movement in Israel and there never has been. What came into Israel were forms of social democracy (think Tony Blair) and Stalinism (think the gravediggers of the Russian Revolution here)


A new generation in Israel must as I said make a theoretical and political leap. This new generation will be of youth but will and can include thinkers like Martin Sherman and Richard Landes, such is the great power of the Jewish national and religious struggle (Zionism) that is very possible.


It is fairly difficult to know how to characterise these people of the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli Stalinists. They have become such a total mess having liquidated themselves many times over in various formulations based on opportunism.


They are only a danger in that people do not understand their real history. Understanding that history I refer to is not at all an easy chore. It requires quite detailed study.


To understand them, and also to understand the “Left” as in BDS today, you have to base yourself on a serious study of Leon Trotsky as he battled through the 1920s and 1930s, as he analysed the ravages of Stalinism and the growth of the Fascists.


Fascism today in the world is a growing trend. But the most dangerous Fascists are not actually in parties like Le Pen of France but in the “Left” I referred to above.


To understand this “Left” today it is necessary to understand that Leon Trotsky, leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution of 1917, through his analysis of world events had by 1937 called for an Israel to be set up, and by 1938 had warned and basically predicted what the Nazis would do – the Holocaust of the Jews.


Thus after an analysis which 4international agrees with in much we cannot at all forgive Martin Sherman for this ending, as follows:


I believe that is was the Arab-Israeli poet, Aton Shammas who once wrote that one cannot be both a Zionist and a Leftist.


 It would appear that even left-of-center columnist, Ben Dror Yemini, is coming to a similar conclusion. Echoing Shammas’s sentiments , he writes with evident despair and anguish: “There used to be a national left. There used to be a responsible left. There used to be a Zionist left. All of them are disappearing.”


I Felix Quigley disagree most fundamentally with Shammas and Ben Dror Yemeni. They are ignorant people who have not studied the history I have studied. To Shammas I say that Trotsky was not a “Leftist” but was a socialist revolutionary based on the theory and practice of dialectical materialism, and Trotsky was a Zionist. To the other historical ignoramus, Ben Dror Yemeni, I say there NEVER “used to be a Zionist left”. Read above.




(Begin analysis by martin Sherman here http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-fray-Israels-loony-lethal-Left-359984)


Since signing the Oslo agreement in 1993, Israel has made a series of astounding concessions, which did nothing but produce further Palestinian demands for even more far-reaching concessions.


   If the Left cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility that its position might be refuted, that position is no longer a rational political perspective but an article of “religious faith. They [the kidnappers] are not terrorists… They’re people who don’t see any way to change their reality and are forced to use these means until Israel wakes up a little, until Israeli citizens and society wake up and feel the suffering of the other.

– MK Haneen Zoabi on Radio Tel Aviv, June 17.


The only way still open for the Palestinians to remind the Israelis of…their plight is the way of violent struggle. All other paths have been blocked. If the Gaza Strip doesn’t fire Qassam rockets at Israel, the Gaza Strip doesn’t exist.


 And if, in the West Bank, yeshiva students aren’t abducted, then the West Bank disappears from Israel’s consciousness. Abductions or murders are aimed at puncturing Israel’s intolerable complacency.

– Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz, June 15.


 Compare the substance of the sentiments conveyed by the vitriolic anti-Zionist Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi of the Balad list (more on its roots later), with those conveyed by well-known columnist, Gideon Levy of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz.


Apologists for abductors


 Fair-minded readers would be hard pressed to detect any substantive differences between the two. Indeed the message they both articulate is, for all intents and purposes, identical.


 They both portray the recent abduction of three Israeli teenagers as a justifiable act of desperation. They both condone acts of Judeocidal terror as the last remaining resort to jolt the awareness of an apathetic Israeli public into recognizing the collective pain of the “Palestinian people”.


This is, of course, a staggering “misrepresentation” of reality.


 Since signing the Oslo agreement in 1993, Israel has made a series of astounding concessions, which did nothing but produce further Palestinian demands for even more far-reaching concessions.


 Indeed, as Jonathan Tobin rightly points out (Commentary, June, 16), the claim that “Israelis have blocked all other paths for the Palestinians except violence…is, to put it bluntly, a lie. It is the Palestinian Arabs who have consistently and repeatedly rejected offers of peace and statehood…” In an opinion piece “Terror apologists blame Israel for abduction”, Yedioth Aharonot’s Ben Dror Yemini, echoed Tobin’s assessment. With biting sarcasm, he writes “Not a day has passed since the kidnapping incident, and experts on Middle Eastern affairs and peace on earth have already informed us that it had actually happened because of us…We were wrong not to agree to release thousands of additional prisoners.


 We were wrong not to welcome the hand extended in peace by Hamas…In short, Israel is to blame for the abduction”.


Aiding and abetting the enemy


 Not only is it difficult to identify any tangible divergence between the positions espoused by Levy and by Zoabi, but in light of the naked mendacity of their accusations, we would be equally hard pressed to understand how their proclamations deviate in any significant way from what Israel’s current legal system stipulates as the grave offense of aiding and abetting the enemy.


 Clause 99 (Aiding the Enemy) in Section 7 (b) of today’s Penal Code dealing with “State Security, Foreign Relations and Official Secrets: Treason” states: A person who, with the intent of aiding the enemy in its war against Israel, commits any act to so assist it in this objective – is liable to the death penalty or life imprisonment.


 Clause 91 provides the following definitions: Enemy – Anyone who is at war with, or maintains a state of war against Israel; or who declares themselves to be one of these, whether or not war has actually been declared, whether or not there are ongoing military actions; and a terrorist organization.


 Terrorist organization – an organization whose aims or activities are directed at the destruction of the State, or at harming the security of the State or the security of its residents or harming Jews in other countries.


 Accordingly, it seems impossible not to interpret the proclamations of both Levy and Zoabi as conforming precisely to the specified offense.


 After all, given their endeavor to provide a demonstrably fallacious rationale for justifying/ defending/endorsing actions that are clearly aimed “at harming the security of the State or the security of its residents”, and perpetrated by what is, by law, indisputably an “enemy”, there seems no other way to construe their conduct but as acting “with the intent of aiding the enemy in its war against Israel.”


The Zoabi-Levy nexus


 So, whether or not one feels that Zoabi and Levy should be punished to the full extent stipulated by law, there can be little doubt as to the gravity of their egregious actions.


 Indeed, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman remarked “not only are the kidnappers terrorists, Hanin Zoabi is a terrorist too. The fate of the kidnappers and the fate of the inciter who encourages kidnapping Haneen Zoabi should be the same,” But while Zoabi’s vehement opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is undisguised, the case of Levy is far more invidious—and insidious.


 After all, Zoabi, an Arab resident of Nazareth, has “impeccable” anti-Zionist credentials.


 Her party, Balad, founded in 1995 by Azmi Bashari, later forced to flee the country under a cloud of suspicion of treason for aiding Hezbollah in the 2006-Lebanon War, openly opposes the founding rationale of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Yet, in the profoundly perverse and promiscuous political system in Israel, Balad is allowed to compete in national elections and participate in its parliament.


 Zoabi herself, has overtly shown her identification with Israel’s enemies, arguably most vividly illustated by her 2010 presence on aboard the Mavi Marmara, in support of the frenzied Judeophobic mob, chanting calls to kill Jews, and their attempt to break the maritime quarantine of the Hamasruled Gaza.


 However, while it is possible (albeit not prudent) to dismiss Zoabi as representing a marginal—and thus tolerably minor—constituency in Israeli society, this cannot be said of Levy. Indeed, it would be a serious error to dismiss the essence of the views expressed by him as unrepresentative of large swathes of Israel’s left-of-center so-called “intelligentsia”. The fact that he espoused the same venomous anti-Israeli invective as Zoabi, has particularly grave implications.


Revered, not reviled?


 For while Zoabi’s political doctrine openly prescribes ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state, Levy purports to be striving to make it a better Jewish state.


 Indeed, the Haaretz columnist is hardly a figure who is shunned by mainstream society.


 Quite the opposite, he is a welcome and frequent guest on radio and television, given roles in widely viewed docu-dramas and feted by many for his alleged “journalistic courage.” He has been hailed by New York Times’ Tom Friedman as “a powerful liberal voice”.


Unsurprisingly therefore, “Commentary’s” Tobin cautions against “dismissing Levy as an outlier”, lamenting that “his callous dismissal of Palestinian terror as merely Israel’s due is very much representative of much of the commentary that is published internationally about the peace process.”


Worse, as Tobin correctly observes, “Levy’s arguments are the foundation of much of the criticism of Israel and its policies even by those who are too fastidious to justify terrorism.”


Dramatically corroborating Tobin’s diagnosis, Yariv Oppenheimer, secretary-general of “Peace Now” published an opinion piece on Wednesday, in which, after perfunctorily condemning the kidnapping, heartily condoned it.


 Echoing precisely the Zoabi-Levy rationale, he wrote: “It was clear that the despair…and anger on the Palestinian side would find their way out…. But in order to understand how to deal with the problem and prevent escalation, we must examine reality from the Palestinian viewpoint as well. The loss of hope on the other side, the Israeli arrogance and the unwillingness to compromise are blowing up in our faces”.


The Levy-Livni-Lapid nexus


 Of course many in the mainstream Left in Israel would howl in protest at any suggestion that their worldview/ political agenda is in anyway comparable to Gideon Levy’s.


 While such protest might be entirely sincere subjectively,it would be entirely wrong objectively. For although there might be differences in style, semantics and sentiment in the expression of their political perspectives, there is very little—if any— difference in the substance in the political credo they promote.


 Both Gideon Levy on the one hand, and Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, on the other, essentially allege that the Jewish presence across the pre-1967 lines (a.k.a. “The settlement enterprise)” is the source of virtually all iniquity in Israeli society.


 Thus, at last week’s Herzliya Conference, Livni accused the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria of being “a security, economic and moral burden”, hinting darkly that they comprise a fiendishly cunning scheme “aimed at preventing us from ever coming to an arrangement” with the Palestinians.


 At the same conference Yair Lapid, who immediately following the elections sought to distance himself from the “Hanin Zoabis of the world”, railed against the Jewish presence across the 1967 Green Line, alleging that, if only it were removed, Israel would “end its international isolation, increase the personal security of every citizen, create an economic boom, dramatically raise the standard of living in Israel”.


There can be little doubt that Levy (and Zoabi) would warmly embrace/endorse this “mainstream” excoriation of the Jewish communities and their residence as the root of all evil in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as a common core to their respective political agendas.


Religion of retreat


 The proponents of Jewish retreat seem to be totally impervious to facts—clinging forlornly, if ferociously, to a failed doctrine that, time after time, has brought nothing but predictable (and predicted) disaster.


 Yet, undeterred, they refuse not only to admit error but even the very possibility of error.


 At last week’s Herzliya Conference, I had a brief encounter with one of the most prominent proponents of Jewish retreat (a.k.a. the two-state paradigm), Prof. Alan Dershowitz. Although Dershowitz is undoubtedly a stalwart defender of Israel as a Jewish state, he seems oblivious to the fact that his support for the two-state idea obviates the possibility of a Jewish state.


 In this regard, I asked him if he could imagine, theoretically, some scenario, which if it occurred, would persuade him that his support of the two-state principle was mistaken, and thus bring him to retract his call for a significant Jewish retreat from much of Judea-Samaria.


 His response was that he could not conceive of any such theoretical scenario, and since he wanted to maintain Israel as a Jewish democratic state, nothing could induce him to admit error.


 In the past, I have had similar responses from other well-known two-staters, including Gershon Baskin and Alon Liel. (If I have misrepresented/misunderstood them or if they have since revised their position on the theoretical possibility of error, I would be happy to be corrected.) Clearly, if one cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility that one’s position might be refuted, that position is no longer a rational political perspective founded on fact and logic but an article of “religious faith” held irrespective of prevailing realities and impervious to any changes that might occur therein.


The irrelevance of Palestinian goodwill


 The two-state paradigm has always been afflicted by “tunnel vision”, and its validity predicated on the alleged existence of a Palestinian partner of good faith, who could be trusted not to take advantage of the far-reaching Israeli concessions that would be required for its implementation.


 As I have pointed out, repeatedly, in the past, the alleged sincerity of any Palestinian “peace partner” is largely irrelevant. For whatever deal may be struck, its durability cannot be assured.


 Even in the unlikely event of some Palestinian with the requisite authority and sincerity to conclude a binding deal with Israel did emerge, he clearly could be removed from power as the Gaza precedent demonstrates.


 All the perilous concessions made, on the assumption of “sincerity”, would then accrue to a far more inimical successor, whose political credo is based on reneging on commitments made to the “Zionist entity.”


Even this caveat is being overtaken by on-going events in the Mid-East, with the sweeping victories of the ultra-extremist Islamists (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, now threatening to destabilize Jordan… Would an ISIS take-over of Jordan induce Levy or Livni, Lapid or Deshowitz, Baskin or Liel to recant their “religion of retreat”? Or would they still hold fast to their loony and potentially lethal dogma?


‘There used to be a Zionist Left’


I believe that is was the Arab-Israeli poet, Aton Shammas who once wrote that one cannot be both a Zionist and a Leftist.


 It would appear that even left-of-center columnist, Ben Dror Yemini, is coming to a similar conclusion. Echoing Shammas’s sentiments , he writes with evident despair and anguish: “There used to be a national left. There used to be a responsible left. There used to be a Zionist left. All of them are disappearing.”






by Felix Quigley

Hanging over the Jewish people is 6 million of their people murdered by the Nazis…that is murdered by Antisemitism


The uniqueness of the Jews rests especially on the Jews being the longest nation of mankind…some 4000 years AND of the uniqueness of Antisemitism as a special hatred among men


Those two factors place a great challenge on leadership today


It must be said that right across the board (speaking of Israeli leadership) that challenge is not being met and I predict will not be met by present leaders.


The present leaders remind me of the driver of a badly damaged Grand prix car, where the driver tries to steer but every jerk of a reluctant steering wheel sends a judder through the whole car (Israeli public) and amid s`pectator gasps causes a further tremor. Such can be said of the latest proposal of Bennett who seems to be an advocate of the discredited theory that if you make your enemy (Palestinians) comfortable in life then they will respond by “liking” you in nirvana friendship never-ending. Sadly that is not so. Antisemitism trumps that. Similarly the proposals by Martin Sherman based on paying Palestinians to make a new life for themselves elsewhere aided by financial grants and other help falls into the same trap. Antisemitism is likely to trump Sherman as well as Bennett.


It is all about leadership as far as Jews are concerned, as far as Irish are concerned, as far as ANYBODY is concerned. THAT is the central issue. So it is well to look closely at existing Israeli leaders right across the board. There is need for clarity. In this there are no “friends”! There are indeed colleagues in struggle, brothers in struggle. But there must be open discussion. Give a man a post in a bourgeois government (Bennett) and he stops communicating and be becomes a “prophet”!!! So there needs to be fair discussion where the discussion is carried on with a lot of that elusive quality “FAIRNESS”.


Proposed a humanitarian solution to the Palestinians. Why not! We wish no living being ill man or animal and I would say especially our dumb and totally dependent cousins! But wait…let us also have some principles BECAUSE The Palestinians cannot have a lucky or fortunate future under any circumstances or under any way of thinking if they remain Antisemitic, The Palestinians must break from Antisemitism. That involves the Palestinians understanding their own history. The Palestinians must find a concrete way forward but based on that. Bennett says make them prosperous, as Scarlett Johannson that gorgeous creature thinks also, and they will forget all about ideology of Antisemitism, but ideologies do not work like that and the prosperous Palestinian will become more envious and more Antisemitic not less!!!




Figures show that Antisemitism is deepest among the Arabs. This is a combination of ethnic hatred of Arabs towards Jews, and the hatred promoted by Islam towards Jews


The first step, the very first step, is for the Palestinians to break free from Antisemitism. Jews are never responsable for Antisemitism. Until then Jews simply must defend themselves by all means against Antisemitism…everlasting position of Trotskyist 4international


The Jewish people by still being around after such persecutions and setbacks in 4000 long years of history shows that they will always fight for a future. The problem today is that there are conflicting ideologies as to what Jews should do




Some immediate conflicting ideologies


  1. Paul Erlinger says that the US acting on this Antisemitism of the Arabs is not significant. I wonder where he has been living as Obama and Kerry preceded by Bush and Condi have stoked it up
  2. The religious paralysers…they say we have existed with the help of God for 4000 years what can destroy us today…forgetting that the Jews were saved not by God but by the Red Army, for all the thanks that the Russian lads and girls got for defeating Hitler. The religious folk of Israel create a diversion which you must reject because the religious folk do not provide an answer in the real world (of today)
  3. The Palestinian loving Jews in Israel which is a widish sward. They all have one thing in common…they do not like Jews and they just love Arabs and seek at every turn to be friends with Arabs. They are dangerous and Steven Plaut often rightly attacks them as such. They blame Israel. They omit history. They live in their own heads. These are in general various leftist Anti-Marxists, various Stalinists as in the Israeli Communist Party, Peace Now idiots, Labourists and renegades from Likud like Livni. Sharon was also a renegade. In general they have the same political philosophy as the German Jews who would or could not fight Hitler, and in the end were forced to try to collaborate with the Nazis. They died anyway. Sometimes no compromise is possible
  4. Extreme anti-socialist leaders like Steven Plaut. Plaut falsifies the history of socialism and is a falsifier no more need be said. There are very many bloggers in this category
  5. Patriotic Jews with good and factual analyses. They understand the truth. Yet they are caught in the trap of individualism. An individual cannot change history in the sense we are talking about here.
  6. The Israeli military..the leadership is politically stupid, totally obtuse, having not understood anything in the past 10 years…Yugoslavia, Mubarak, Gadhafi, Ukraine and of course Assad. In general their obtuseness leads to paralysis. The IDF soldiers are patriotic and intelligent but they are led by political careerist mostly fools and tied to military discipline are a threat to the Jews in the longest run, but in the short term the Jewish people have no other defence
  7. The Israeli people…They were mobilising strongly against the Sharon Gaza withdrawal…but without a party to lead the growing revolt of the masses of Israelis was sold out by the Rabbis of the Settler Movement. The individualist activists were powerless and the youth were betrayed.


All of this spells up to a crisis of leadership.


How to resolve that issue of leadership is a BIG issue. Let us discuss the mechanism.











To state what is. To see reality. To act upon that…These concepts were also pit forward in the following paragraphs



I remember some discussions in 1927 in Moscow after Chiang Kaishek stilled the Chinese workers. We predicted

this ten days before and Stalin opposed us with the argument that Borodin was vigilant, that Chiang Kaishek would not have the possibility to betray us, etc. I believe that it was eight or ten days later that the tragedy occurred and our comrades expressed optimism because our analysis was so clear that everyone would see it and we would be sure to win the party. I answered that the strangulation of the Chinese revolution is a thousand times more important for the masses than our predictions. Our predictions can win some few intellectuals who take an interest in such things, but not the masses. The military victory of Chiang Kaishek will inevitably provoke a depression and this is not conducive to the growth of a revolutionary fraction.



You can imagine the same kinds of arguments as the Stalinists were putting forward in 1927, Borodin (Stalinist) was going to remain vigilant, so Netanyahu or Livni will also be vigilant, so therefore a Palestinian Jihad state is not going to be a problema, they are so vigilant!!!


But the very act itself would be a massive physical and psychological defeat. Despite the majority of Jews in Israel being very afraid the leadership ploughs ahead and under pressure from international capitalism they would give in, and stop fighting, against the Jihad. The results would be horrible for Jews. The psychological effects would cause a total deadening and a cynicism among the best Jews. They may even turn to defeatist mysticism.


This is an effort by Martin Sherman to understand the reality facing Israel. Israel as long as it is led by false prophets is indeed wallowing naked in the Winter snow, and then some…

What Martin does not deal with fully is what does it take to be a “good prophet” in this era. The bourgeoisie is in big trouble, even a blind man can see that. America is in debt by SO much, I do not want to go into the process here. There is SO much credit splashing around the capitalist markets. Deals are made electronically with no direct human intervention in unbelievable fractions of seconds. America supports Islam and the Jihad and does this now quite openly while those ideological slaves of Obama ideology will openly call you a racist if you even question Islam (here Russell Brand on Halal is merely carrying on the traditions of Karen Armstrong). The British Government leans towards Sharia and allows the brutality of Halal meat being consumed from British supermarkets unlabelled. The girls and people of Nigeria are being whipped into accepting the slavery of the ancient Islam and so on. This is the first weakness of the approach of Martin Sherman. For good or ill you HAVE to posit Israel of today inside that overall crisis of the system under which we live and you have to do this consistently and almost ruthlessly.

For my money the starting point is the still amazingly concise points laid down by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto. Without this guide to knowledge 8that is the method behind the Manifesto) then we are still and always condemned to tramping around in the dark.




Shakespeare on the futility of self-deception 

I believe that to adequately comprehend the situation we are in, we must understand the process that brought it about.

At the risk of being flamboyant, I should like to begin my explanation of the foretold futility of the “peace-process” with a quote from Shakespeare’s Richard II, Act I, Scene 3.

Although some might find the connection between the citation and the Arab-Israeli conflict e abstruse, I will explain the relevance shortly, and hope that, like myself, the Post readership will find it instructive in elucidating the defective rationale on which the entire peace process was founded.

The quotation relates to an incident in which Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) is exiled by Richard II (ruled 1377-1399) and is distraught at being banished from his beloved England.

His father, John O’ Gaunt, attempts to assuage his distress by advising him to fend off the hardships of exile by imagining that they do not exist: 

Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it
To lie that way thou go’st, not whence thou comest:
Suppose the singing birds musicians,
The flowers fair ladies, and thy steps no more
Than a delightful measure or a dance;
For gnarling sorrow hath less power to bite
The man that mocks at it and sets it light.

But the realistic Bolingbroke responds by rejecting the recommendation for self-delusion and wishful thinking, declaring forthrightly: 

O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?

The relevance for the ‘peace process’ 

In a very fundamental way, this citation conveys precisely why the peace process was a forgone failure.

For it portrays the belief, held by some, that reality can be transformed by wishful thinking; that one can forge changes in reality by sheer force of imagination and wish away inconvenient facts by denying their existence.

It is precisely the intellectual licentiousness of the kind advocated by John O’ Gaunt that afflicted the architects of the Oslo process, who seemed – indeed, still seem – sadly immune to the sober realism of Bolingbroke. They cling to the belief that imagination can transform “singing birds” into “musicians,” and “flowers” into “fair ladies,” steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that one cannot “hold a fire in one’s hand [b]y thinking on the frosty Caucasus.”

Indeed, the entire “peace process” has, from the outset, been based on suppositions detached from reality; and the policies adopted to promote it were futile attempts to bend reality to unrealistic desires.

Growing awareness of futility 

There are growing signs that awareness of this futility is beginning to dawn – earlier for some, later for others. However, as I shall explain (next week), this is not necessarily producing proposals for alternatives any better, or less hazardous, than the doomed twostate approach.

The futility of the peace process was always a foretold inevitability.

For the structure of the bargain that needs to be struck for the twostate paradigm, on which it is based, to be viable, is unattainable.

It was Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, who remarked, half a decade ago: “The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between the sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing.”

Sadly, perhaps the most fitting analogy to graphically convey the situation is that of two cowboys, the one in a black hat, the other in a white one, facing each other in a duel in the main street of a dusty western town, when just before they “go for their guns” the one growls at the other, “This town ain’t big enough for the both of us.”

This is precisely the situation that prevails vis-à-vis Israel and Palestinians with regard to the territory between the (Jordan) River and the (Mediterranean) Sea.

There is no way to arrive at a stable geo-political configuration that involves dividing the sovereignty over this territory between Jews and Arabs And let me stress, I make this determination as a political scientist – not a as religious fundamentalist or radical right-wing ideologue.

Eroding position; desperate proposals 

The increasingly evident futility of the endeavor to reach a negotiated settlement is manifesting itself in two main ways: (a) Increasing erosion of Israeli positions; and (b) Increasingly desperate proposals both on the Left and Right.

To grasp just how far Israeli positions have been eroded, consider the following citation from a senior mainstream politician, who almost four decades ago predicted with chilling accuracy what would come about if Israel were to embrace the two-state paradigm: “The establishment of such a state means the inflow of combat- ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,000 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military] equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence…

and to cause bloodshed among the population… in areas adjacent to the frontier line.”

Even more remarkable than the accuracy of the prophesy is the identity of the prophet. Those were the prescient words of none other than Shimon Peres, who now enthusiastically endorses the policy he urged Israel to eschew.

Even more significant erosion 

But perhaps an even more dramatic illustration of how gravely Israel’s positions have been eroded in the futile pursuit of an agreement with Palestinians is provided by the text of the final address by Yitzhak Rabin to the Knesset on October 5, 1995, seeking ratification of the Oslo II Accords – a mere month before his assassination.

In it Rabin rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood, declaring that: “… the permanent solution… will include… a Palestinian entity which will… be an entity which is less than a state…” He went on to assert: “We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines… These are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision… in the permanent solution: “First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty… “The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

“Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Betar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the Green Line prior to the Six Day War.

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

This address was delivered after he had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize and hailed as a “valiant warrior for peace.” Yet today, if any Israeli leader were to embrace the Nobel Peace laureate’s vision for a permanent settlement with the Palestinians, he would be dismissed as an unreasonable and unrealistic extremist.

Understanding the impasse: Israel’s twin imperatives 

The discovery of the failure of the peace process is not a matter of hindsight. For anyone with the slightest grasp of the basic elements of political science, international relations, the theory of the nation, and the stability of nation-states, it was a foretold inevitability.

Belatedly, the validity and viability of the paradigm that has dominated the discourse – the two-state land-for-peace approach – based on political appeasement and territorial withdrawal – is being questioned by mainstream pundits across the political spectrum.

Thus in 2007, Maj.-Gen. Uzi Dayan, formerly deputy chief of staff and head of the National Security Council, observed: “The landfor- peace idea has now collapsed.

We have to find another way, and a new concept is urgently needed.”

Echoing precisely the same sentiments, distinctly left-wing pundit Prof. Carlo Strenger wrote in Haaretz: “It is time to have a clear-headed, hard look at reality: The two state solution is dead.

Where do we go from here?” To understand the reasons for, and the nature of, the impasse, we need to recognize that for Israel to survive over time as the nationstate of the Jewish people, it must contend with two vital imperatives: The Geographic Imperative and the Demographic Imperative.

In addressing these two imperatives, Israel faces two mortal dangers: The two-state paradigm – which does not address the Geographic Imperative; The one-state paradigm – which does not address the Demographic Imperative.

Not ‘right-wing scaremongering’ 

The visuals distributed to the JNF audience prior to my address (“Israel: Through the binoculars of a Palestinian intelligence officer”), clearly illustrate why the two-state proposal would make Israel geographically untenable.

Not only would the width of the country – in its most populous areas – be reduced to a minuscule 15-25 km. (roughly the distance from Beverly Hills to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard), but these would be completely dominated topographically by the limestone hills that comprise the “West Bank” and rise above it from the east. Any forces – regular or irregular – deployed on their western slopes, will command: 
• Virtually all major airfields in the country (civilian and military), including the only international airport; 
• Major sea ports and naval bases; 
• The fresh water system; 
• Main land transportation axes (road and rail); 
• Principal power plants; 
• The nation’s parliament;
• Crucial centers of government and military command; 
• Eighty percent of the civilian population and the commercial activity in the country.

In any two-state scenario, all of the above would be in range of weapons being used today from areas already transferred to Arab control. This can therefore no longer be dismissed as right-wing scaremongering, for it is merely a prudent extrapolation of the empirical precedent.

Next week – Part II 

In the concluding part of my analysis next week, I shall deal with the remaining topics raised in my address: 
• The Arab Spring as a threat multiplier 
• The irrelevance of assumed Palestinian “sincerity” 
• The Hamas-Fatah rapprochement 
• The one-state paradigm – A precursor to Muslim tyranny 
• Mirror images of desperation: Proposals for unilateral withdrawal vs unilateral annexation/enfranchisement of Arab residents in Judea-Samaria 
• My assessment of what Netanyahu is liable to do 
• My assessment of what Netanyahu ought to do 

I will end next week’s column with the very same words with which I end this one: In the final analysis, between the River and the Sea there will exist either exclusive Jewish sovereignty or exclusive Arab sovereignty.

The side that will prevail, is the side whose national will is the stronger and whose political vision is the sharper.

This is not right-wing extremism or religious fanaticism.

It is merely sound political science.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.



Yakobson, 2009

I ask who in political terms is he?


I challenge what is meant by Israeli bloggers when they use terms like “Radical left” or even “Leftists”. Some of the articles by Steven Plaut use the term “Radical Left” it seems to me about 40 times in one article. In any case a lot. So is a member of “Peace Now” such as Alexander Yakobson one of those too (radical left) and what then does it mean? In what way is “Peace Now” in any way connected with Lenin or Trotsky…they most likely know nothing about Lenin and Trotsky, and if they did know would be absolutely opposed. Is this then part of a lie that is being put about by people like Steven Plaut who seek to lie and discredit our socialist history because they seek capitalism for the Jews? Who then is Yakobsen? What does he mean for us or represent in reality, politically? All of us Jews and non Jews in this period have to be absolute precise in our language and meaning.


4international has immense pleasure in reproducing the stirring and not too son call from a jewish student in america for international hasbara. we support his call fully


Modern King David Fighting the USA Campus Goliath

Sunday, April 13th, 2014

On Shabbat I read a disturbing open letter in the Jerusalem Post and decided to blog about it. Unfortunately, it’s not one of the op-eds on their site. After a mercifully quick Google search, I found it someplace else.

An open letter to the FM By Justin Hayet

Dear Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and the entire Netanyahu government,

I asked you, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, a question this Sunday at the Jerusalem Post’s Annual Conference in New York. My question, I thought, was simple; “What is the Foreign Ministry of Israel doing to stand with college students, like myself, to fight BDS [Boycott, Divest, Sanction] on campus?”

Your response was nothing but loaded rhetoric downplaying the existential BDS threat and downplaying the attacks against me on my campus for being a Zionist. Perhaps worst of all, you downplayed the anti-Semitic attacks on students across the United States, Europe and soon the world. These attacks exist because we are proud Zionists.

You should have responded with a big fat “nothing,” because the Foreign Ministry of Israel has decided to focus its attention elsewhere. Though it may be more practical to allocate time and resources elsewhere, in doing so, Israel is taking a risk it cannot afford to take. By focusing all of its energy on its adversaries, many of whom will never recognize Israel either on a map or as a Jewish state with a right to exist, Israel is putting the passion of North American Zionists, many of whom are Jews and many of whom are not, on the back burner. This, I believe, is of a greater existential threat than a nuclear-ambitions Iran.

I was not born in Israel. I was not born in an Israeli home in American. I am a Jewish American. But before I am anything, at the most fundamental level of my existence; like Foreign Minister Liberman, like Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, like every soldier my age in the IDF, I am a Zionist. And you, Mr. Foreign Minister, overlooked the fact that, unlike Israelis, I and the thousands of students made the active decision to fight for Israel, a country which has redefined and challenged our perception of what “home” really means.

Though five thousand miles away from Israel, we awake to Israel each morning as we flinch our eyes to see the Israeli flag hanging in its infinite blue beauty above our beds. We do so with pride. Israel is with us as we wake to see the news from the past day in Israel as we slumbered in our secure beds in upstate New York. Though not wearing a Magen David every day, we carry our Zionism on our backs each day, and people try to slander us for it as if “Zionism” is a dirty word.

We are the lost unit of the IDF Spokesman’s Office, we are the story of SUNY (State University of New York) students who stayed up until 5 a.m. to watch the victorious fight against BDS resolutions at UC Berkeley, we are the students who laughed off the libelous labels of being called “imperial genocidal maniacs” by a paid employee of our university. And we carry out these increasingly routine acts of educated-backed passion, not because we are in contract with Israel to do so or because we want accolades; we do it because we are Zionists. Contrary to those closed-minded individuals who say Zionists must live in Israel, the movement of young college students in the States fighting for Israel represents the very core of Zionism. That is, young people doing incredible things for the State of Israel.

You have given us MASA, you have contributed to the founding of Birthright-Taglit and this was your gift to us. We, now, have a gift for you, Mr. Foreign Minister and Mr. Prime Minister. Its called hasbara (public diplomacy). It’s free, it’s our duty, it’s our calling, it’s our obligation and it’s our gift to you and the Jewish state and the flag we awake to every morning. What do you think?


COMMENT BY FELIX QUIGLEY OF http://www.4international.me

Zionism is a great movement and we salute this callby this Young American Jew. Also it is a great call in many respects but in one respect above all others. To fight for Israel you do not have to be IN Israel. Israel in one of its respects is a refuge for Jews against Antisemitism but it is simply not accurate to say that Jews internationally are int he same position that Jews were in in 1939 in Germany and Poland. Some religious Jews are saying that at this momento in time in Europe and America it is already all over and it is too late to fight for Israel and to fight against Antisemitism. Forgive me1 I was not aware! Has a Fascist Party already taken power in America and done away with Congress? Are trade unions and all other parties other tan the Fascist Party banned and its leaders in concentration camps? I answer do not be ridiculous! Bit the answer is also based on history. In 1939 the Nazis were already in power for 6 years. the critical year in the Nazis taking power was without a doubt 1933 and I am led to the conclusión that if there had been a clear leadership in the German working class, and not the leadership of the Stalinist Comintern and the Second International (Tony Blair Labourites) in power, then the Nazis would have been stopped in 1933. But where do Young Activists like Justin Hayet go from here? To answer that question it is necessary to have a far better understanding of the political programme of Hayet and that is now an urgent necessity.


The picture shows a child with gun in hand with implication that the Palestinian Arabs have right on their side


On how to combat what is in essence antisemitic propaganda by Arab Palestinians, by Martin Sherman

After all, Israel is not maligned in international forums because it is accused of having poor medical care, shoddy irrigation systems, underdeveloped technological achievement, unattractive women, backward agricultural practices or uninviting tourist attractions.

Accordingly, focusing on dispelling such assumed “misconceptions” is hardly likely to stem the tide of vicious vilification of Israel and the Zionist vision of a sovereign nation-state for the Jewish people in its ancient homeland.



I turn first of all to a definition of what is BDS which is from Wilipedia

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a global campaign[1] which uses economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement: The end of Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab land, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees.[1]



The first quotation is from martin Shermain on BDS from the Jerusalem Posts Conference last week held in New York. Note 1 on the second quotation above brings us to “Marcelo Svirsky (28 October 2011). Arab-Jewish activism in Israel-Palestine. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-4094-2229-7. Retrieved 3 June 2013.


That makes it very clear what BDS is all about. To emphasise A…The end of Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab land, B… full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and C…respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees


Let me consider these 3 points in more detail A… the idea that Israel is occupying Arab land is ridiculously easy to answer in full in a very short period of time if the issue is approached from a sincere historical narrative perspective B… by asking what is an Arab-Palestinian citizen of Israel when every Arab country has expelled its Jews and set up Judenfrei states which again can be done in a very short period of time, especially if one bases the research on the ties between the Arabs and the Nazis in the Holocaust and finally C…again in simple historical terms a people, that is the Arabs, with their Arab Palestinian component wage genocidal wars following the Holocaust and inspired by Genocide of the Jews then they have no rights of any kind. I repeat NO RIGHTS


It follows therefore in this analysis by 4international that Martin Sherman is on precisely the right track


Martin is saying basically that the enemies of Israel and Jews are choosing their ground. So they are not attacking Israel (sarcasm follows) because Israel is supplying many new pioneering methods for curing people of all races from cancer. No these enemies are not stupid. They shun these many good qualities of Israel like the plague. They chose the 3 above which I have simplified into A, B and C


Indeed I will write more on this, specifically on why Martin Sherman cannot spur Israel into action. This is the serious flaw int he praxis of Martin which also must be examined, but I want to first dwell on the truth of the above, that answering these Antisemitic memes is not rocket science.








Jews like Trotsky are made into good Jews when they get an axe or ice pick stuck in their head… A bad Jew then became a good Jew. Kapish???



What has the above piece of fascist literature got to do with the debate over Israel and the Palestinian Arabs? Answer everything!


The debate is now in full swing. It takes one crucial form in the differences that Martin Sherman has with the new book by Caroline Glick


I and 4international are totally on the side of Martin Sherman and against Glick and the conclusions of the Glick book. These comclusions were very well described by Sherman thus:


But I have grave reservations – to understate the case – regarding what is, in fact, the center-piece of her book: Her proposal that Israel not only annex the entire area of Judea and Samaria, extend Israeli sovereignty over these territories and apply Israeli law to them, but incorporate the Arab population there as permanent residents of Israel, and offer them a path to citizenship.


It would require more than a gigantic leap of unsubstantiated hope to believe that such a measure could precipitate any result other than “Lebanonization” of Israel.


Implausible and imprudent


“Lebanonization,” as the noted New York Times columnist, the late William Safire, explained, refers to the [situation] within a single country so riven with religious and other disputes that [it] becomes impossible to govern”; and should be distinguished from “Balkanization,” which refers to splitting a country into several separate – usually rivalrous – countries.”


Were Glick’s prescription to be adopted, it is difficult to see how internecine inter-ethnic strife, which has become the hallmark of Israel’s northern neighbor, would not afflict Israel itself. Even if her demographic calculations are correct, it would induce almost intolerable pressures on the socioeconomic fabric of the country, were it to attempt to maintain itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people.


Glick does seem to be aware, at least partially, of the severity of the problems implementation of her policy prescription is likely to generate. She writes: “The main price Israel will pay for applying its laws to Judea and Samaria… will be the demographic burden of increasing its potentially hostile Arab minority by 1.66 million people.”


Elsewhere she acknowledges that there will be an “initial shock that [Israel’s] economy will likely absorb following the sudden, steep rise in the number of applications for its welfare rolls after it grants permanent residency to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.”


But apart from glib acknowledgment of their existence, I could find no indication of how Glick proposes that the grave societal strains she mentions (and the many that she doesn’t) will be resolved, other than an expression of optimism that they will be.


In other words Glick proceeds in her political praxis on a wing and a prayer. Sherman along with the great majority, I maintain, of Jews do not want to proceed like that.


I maintain this because the connections of Glick with the US Establishment Jewish groups give her the appearance of much and deep support. That is the Lie right there.


Sherman is right to call her.


Belman the editor of Israpundit has refused to back Sherman in this struggle. Which brings me back to that piece of Hitlerite Nazi crap at the top of this piece. That was published on Belman´s editorship of Israpundit and remains there.


This is not the kind of leadership Jews today need.


What type of leadership do Jews today need? Jews need today the leadership of a party based on the science of Marxism, which is Trotskyism.


This Trotskyist party in Israel will be based on a scientific understanding of history, meaning a treatment of history which is based on facts, and which will seek the truth about history.


In recent years writers like Andrew Bostom have made great strides in investigating what is the real nature of Islam. This has been hidden for many centuries but by going back to primary sources the truth has emerged. Islamic Spain was the most cruel of all places known to mankind. By going back to primary sources writers like Bostom, and there are now quite a few, have answered the blatant lies of people like the ex nun Karen Armstrong. This is a great asset for us Trotskyists.


Similarly we feel indebted to Martin Sherman for his challenge to Glick and to her book. Glick essentially is trying to gloss over the nature of the Palestinian Arab movement. In one sence this began with the Arab defeat of 1967. Then knowing they were defeated the Arabs turned towards creating the myth of the “Palestinians”, at first it took the form of a meme, now though it is more than a meme, it is hard ideology.


But the Palestinian Arab phenomenon as sold to the world is no more than Jihad in Alliance with Christian Antisemitism a la Vatican. It is also intermixed with the crisis of US Imperialism and with the non viability of the EU, with this crisis in capitalism producing growing trends towards war, especially towards war by NATO against Russia. So Jihad is central in many of the plans of the most reactionary fast becoming Fascist forces on earth: Islam, the EU, US Imperialism


What does Glick propose to do? Not take the fight against this ideology but lodge it ever more strongly inside the Israeli state, with up to 40 per Arab Jihadist against the unfortunate 60 per cent Jews, unfortunate because the Jews are alone, while there are billions of Muslims surrounding her.


It is the most ghastly thing that Glick has done in this book. Glick does not mean or set out to do so, but she weakens Israel as Iran helped by the US and the growing crisis between US and Russia prepares to strike Israel and Jews


Martin Sherman does not posit this issue of the Jews in the world economic capitalist crisis situation. Still he has taken a valiant step against Glick and I support him critically but unconditionally in doing this


felix quigley





Gaza Betrayal by Jewish leaders


The issue was really over the nature of the whole Israeli ruling class, whatever they may be called. The disagreement between Ted Belman editor of Israpundit and Francisco Gil White was about that.

Gil White had called Netanyahu a traitor. I agreed with him but I go much further because I call the whole of the Israeli leaders right across the board traitors. Big difference. But let us not stray. How did Belman react to Gil White? It is most instructive to see what Belman wrore:

I disagree with Gil-White’s conclusion.  Everyone involved with Oslo from the start knew of the Nazi connection and chose to ignore it.  I don’t see continuing it as treason but as stupidity or naivete.  Ted Belman




A strange response by Ted Belman



A similar situation is that your friend is being conned by a conman out of his life savings and you sitting there beside your friend while this is going on know he is a conman, but your friend does not, and you say nothing. If you do that you are not a friend, not naive, not stupid, but you are a traitor to your friend


The same applies with all these political leaders in Israel. Call them right call them left, whatever (AND if you do that just shows your political and historical ignorance)



The Jews are being continually conned here by the US Government. They were conned over OSLO, conned over the Gaza withdrawal, conned by Churchill over Jordan, conned by the UN in 1948.


But on this score the US Government would not have been able to con the Jews if it had not been for the Jewish leadership in Israel.


The Likud leadership knew exactly what Sharon was doing in 2005 and yet the Likud leaders refused to act against Sharon. There was lots of time and the very first thing the Likud leaders should have done was expel the TRAITOR.  (To add to my argument who emerged as the greatest traitors of the Jews during the Gaza removal? It was the rabbis and the Settlers leaders!)


While all this was going on Netanyahu was there but he basically was lying low, and he only put up a bit of a show at the very end, when it was too late, and moreover he knew it was too late. How do you characterise this kind of behaviour, naïve!!! No traitors to the Jews. All human activity is conscious.





Note that these are what is called the right

  1. Netanyahu made his name as a right politician
  2. Likud to a man and woman is opposed to socialism

Now since this is about Martin Sherman what about him? Well Sherman looks at the situation in Israel and does 2 things


  1. Sherman like Belman thinks that the Likud and Right are also naive
  2. While he sees the right as naive only Sherman then confuses the issue totally by referring to what he calls the “left” thus echoing the confusers supreme on this score Geller and Spencer.

Those therefore are two big problems about Sherman.


In his article Sherman makes this reference to Glick:

Regrettably, however, most of these are poorly thought through, and even if implemented, would leave Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, in a situation hardly less beleaguered – diplomatically, politically and physically – than if it adopted the perilous prescription of the Left.

Typically, these alternative proposals fall into three broad categories. (a) Those that would leave Israel with a massive enfranchised Muslim minority (up to 40%) within its frontiers, critically undermining the ability to maintain the dominant Jewish character of the state, whatever the initial electoral arithmetic; (b) those that would leave Israel with excessively long and torturous frontiers, impossible to delineate (other than on a map) and to secure; and (c) those that entail both (a) and (b).

Most of these alternative proposals draw on optimistic (but not necessarily unrealistic) demographic assumptions as to the growth of the Arab population, but pay little heed to the negative effect the proposals might have on the Jewish population, were they to be implemented.

Lamentably, by insisting on blatantly flawed and clearly counter-productive political paradigms as proffered alternatives to the Left’s prescription of appeasement and accommodation, the authors of these proposals and their supporters only bolster the false perception that the latter is the only game in town

In the above Sherman is attacking Caroline Glick. You would hardly know but he is.

That is the good thing about Sherman…he is clear that the Glick proposals are the proposals of somebody who is betraying the Jews. Yes to leave 40 per cent of Muslims inside her Israel, that is a Glick betrayal right there and Sherman calls her on this betrayal.

At least Sherman is clear on the betrayal of Glick.

But there is no way forward at all with Sherman. Jews need a new leadership.


Israel is in great danger.

From the outside…the Arab Spring which is not a Spring but a Nightmare, has weakened Israel greatly

From the Outside…the role of the US Government and of the EU Governments

From the Outside…the role of the Vatican and Protestant Churches

From the Inside also…lack of leadership

The issues in this article by Martin Sherman we will in the next days take up in as much detail as we can


By Martin Sherman, JPOST


Michael Orin who was ambassador to the United States and who Martin Sherman disagrees with here

One solution could be a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian population centers in the West Bank… but unlike in Gaza, most Israeli settlements would remain within Israel, and Israeli troops would still patrol strategic borders. Of course, the preferable solution is two states for two peoples. But if that proves unattainable, then Israel can still end the occupation of the Palestinians, preserve its security, and perhaps lay new foundations for peace. – Former ambassador Michael Oren, in answer to the question, “What if the process fails?” – CNN, January 11, 2014 

The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements. – Dr. Michael Oren, prior to his ambassadorial appointment, Haaretz, April 24, 2009 

Having proved itself – completely and conclusively – a disastrous and delusional debacle, the nutty notion of unilateral withdrawal (a.k.a. capitulation) is surging back into fashion with the fashionable bon ton set – big-time. That anyone with half a brain could still place any credence in this failed, foolhardy fantasy beggars belief.

Yet, over the past few weeks, there has been an alarming spate of public expressions of support for this harebrained and hazardous hallucination.

Erudite, eloquent, elegant 

One of the more newsworthy voices endorsing this ill-advised policy prescription was that of Michael Oren, until recently ambassador to the US.

To his credit, the affable Oren is endowed with many laudable qualities. He is eminently erudite, eloquent and elegant. Born in the US, a graduate of an Ivy League university, an acclaimed, articulate author, and well-versed in the mores and customs of US society, it is difficult to fault his appointment as envoy in Washington.

Indeed, there have been few – if any – suggestions that he discharged his challenging duties with anything but polished professionalism.

That said, however, Oren’s recent (and not so recent) pronouncements as to his policy preferences regarding the Palestinian problem indicate that deft diplomatic skills are no guarantee of political prudence or strategic acumen.

For in light of the catastrophic consequences of unilateral abandonment of Gaza, any rational observer might be excused for attributing a remarkably flat-learning curve to anyone who persists in advocating such a fatally flawed formula. Only this time, on a dramatically larger scale.

Unilateralism and ‘breaking news’ 

Graphically underscoring the pertinence of this was the following item in The Jerusalem Post’s Breaking News section at the beginning of the week.

Headlined “Schools closed in Ashdod following IAF strikes on Gaza,” it went on to report: “Following the IAF air strikes on Gaza, the Ashdod Municipality decided to cancel schools in unfortified buildings on Sunday…” This, of course, underscores the gravity of the consequences of the 2005 unilateral evacuation of the Gaza Strip and its subsequent inevitable takeover by radical extremists. In the wake of the IDF’s departure, the terror organizations there can now operate against Israel with low-cost weapons with relative ease. The Palestinians are able to disrupt the socioeconomic routine in the South at will, and, as the Post news item indicates, even the prospect of IDF punitive responses to terror attacks can lead to such disruption – because of the fear of retaliation to those actions.

The folly of unilateral withdrawal is so starkly evident that even someone like Jeffrey Goldberg, who has elevated getting it wrong to almost an art form, seems to have grasped this. Writing in Bloomberg (January 11), he remarked: “Sharon made one terrible mistake in Gaza.… His mistake was leaving unilaterally… [The] radicals in Gaza were empowered by Sharon’s unilateralism.

They believed, not entirely incorrectly, that their terrorism had paid off… The fallout from the withdrawal is well known: Hamas soon came to power and turned Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks.”

One can only scratch one’s head in puzzlement and wonder which part of this Oren doesn’t get. Recklessly irresponsible

After all, there is little reason to believe that what once was, will not be again. In any case, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, it would be recklessly irresponsible not to adopt such a working assumption for future policy.

Little imagination is needed to envision the havoc that would result if anything like the realities which the civilian population in the South has been subjected to, courtesy of unilateralism, were to be inflicted upon the residents of the central Coastal Plain. As I have warned repeatedly in previous columns, it would be impossible to maintain any semblance of socioeconomic routine if 80 percent of the nation’s population and commercial activity, crammed into a narrow strip, stretching roughly 65 km. north of Tel Aviv and 50 km. south of it, had to endure the bombardments the residents of Sderot experience.

Moreover, unlike in the case of the low-lying Gaza area, this heavily populated belt would lie hopelessly exposed to any hostile elements deployed in the highlands of Judea-Samaria that rise to its east and comprise much of the territory to be unilaterally abandoned.

It seems inconceivable that anyone committed to the national security of Israel and the physical safety of Israelis could contemplate forgoing Israeli control of this territory, thereby laying the foundations for the emergence of a mega-Gaza in areas evacuated by the IDF or a giant South Lebanon in areas where it remains deployed. More on this later. Dangerous delusion of “neo-unilateralism” 

To be fair, some of today’s unilateralists (hereafter “neo-unilateralists”) acknowledge that the 2005 unilateral pullout from Gaza has been less than a stunning success, and hence, suggest that this time it be conducted differently. Typically, this difference focuses on continued IDF deployment in all, or part, of the territories over which Israel will declare it has no claims, and from which Jewish communities are to be removed – see, for example, Oren’s “unlike in Gaza… Israeli troops would still patrol strategic borders.”

Golly, what a good idea! So the Israeli military will be deployed in (read “occupy”) areas that Israel admits belong to someone else (as in pre-2000 South Lebanon), instantly and inevitably transforming it from the “Israel Defense Forces” to the “Zionist Occupation Forces.”

Unpersuasively, neo-unilateralists try to counter this by suggesting that this deployment will only last until Israel’s security can be ensured – predictably never stipulating what such assurances would be, or from whom they are to be attained – and sustained over time. But setting this “minor” omission aside for a moment, this prescription for “temporary occupation” would be dismissed as so much claptrap, with a brusque retort something along these lines: “How can you expect security while you are occupying someone else’s land. Withdraw, and you will have security.”

If Israel rejects such counsel, it will continue to maintain a situation reminiscent of pre-2000 South Lebanon. If it complies with it, it will simply be duplicating the realities indistinguishable from those created in post-2005 Gaza. Folly of rejecting quid pro quo for quid pro nil

Oren, who according to Haaretz (April 24, 2009), admits he “supported the disengagement from the Gaza Strip,” seems to continue believing that by unilateral withdrawal in Judea-Samaria, Israel “can still end the occupation of the Palestinians, preserve its security, and perhaps lay new foundations for peace.”

This wistful sentiment is so hopelessly unmoored from any trace of reality that it compels one to puzzle over just what is it about the Palestinian problem that makes otherwise seemingly smart people expound such utterly stupid ideas.

For anyone with even a minimal grasp of Mideast realities, it should be crystal clear that nothing will totally obliterate any chance of a negotiated peace accord more effectively than unilateralism. Gee, even Jeffrey Goldberg gets that – well, almost.

For the unmistakable message that Israeli willingness to contemplate unilateral retreat conveys, is this. If one confronts the Jews with sufficiently robust intransigence, they will capitulate and surrender everything – or at least, significant things – in exchange for absolutely nothing. Ergo, why negotiate or compromise.

Thus, even if some Palestinian partner, sincerely willing to negotiate and compromise, were to emerge at some future date, his more militant opponents could swiftly undermine his position by, rightly, pointing out that past unilateralism has proven that there is a need for neither.

Accordingly, for someone who hopes someday to “lay new foundations for peace,” nothing could be more counterproductive and foolish than advocating to replace the sober principle of quid pro quo for the fanciful quid pro nil.

Demography: The other side of the equation

Of course the alleged “ace” that unilateralists claim in their pack, is the demography card. But, in reality, it is far more like the joker.

For we should not forget that the demographic balance in the country is a function of two elements: The number of Jews and the number of Arabs.

One of course might question how realistic it would be to believe that even if Israel evacuated all, or part, of Judea-Samaria, the presence of a large, impoverished Arab population with a GDP per capita about 5% (!) that of Israel’s, would not generate irresistible economic pressures – similar to those along the US-Mexican frontier – for a large Arab influx into the country.

Even without the specter of this very plausible prospect, unilateralists ignore the detrimental effect their proposal is likely to have on the other side of the demographic equation – the Jewish side.

In this regard, a highly significant demographic fact should not be ignored. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, despite the massive influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, Israel’s Muslim population, within the pre-1967 Green Line, has, as a proportion of the population , almost doubled since independence – from just over 9% in 1949 to over 17% in 2011. The ratio of Jews to Muslims plunged from over 9 Jews to every Muslim to less than 4.5.

Now imagine the impact of a mass exodus of Jews because of a gravely deteriorating security situation.

Israel can only retain its Jewish character if it retains its Jewish population and attracts Jews around the world to choose it as their place of abode. But this can only happen if Israel affords them acceptable security and prosperity. Nothing would make it a less inviting choice than visiting the realities of Sderot on upmarket locations like Ramat Aviv and Ra’anana, Ramat Gan and Rishon Lezion – and, oh yes, Herzliya, where Oren has recently taken up a teaching position at the Interdisciplinary Center.

I urge him to consider the demographic impact of ongoing volleys of Kassam rockets landing in the vicinity of the IDC-campus – situated barely 11 km. from the pre-1967 lines…

My challenge to Oren

I hereby challenge Oren to meet me in open debate to address the points raised in this essay, and many that I have not – but that necessarily emerge from his policy prescriptions.

I challenge him to produce a map delineating the frontiers to which he sees Israel unilaterally withdrawing, and to explain how they will be delineated and secured.

I challenge him to stipulate whether Palestinian villages like Rantis and E-Luban that overlook the runway at Ben-Gurion Airport, will or will not be under Israeli control. And the hills of northern Samaria that dominate the massive Rabin power station adjacent to prestigious Caesarea, home to many from Israel’s moneyed classes? And what of areas abutting the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6) and the approaches to Jerusalem?

I challenge him to specify whom he sees as administering the “unoccupied” Palestinian territories. Who will supply them water, electricity, postal services, tax collection? If, as is likely, the Palestinian Authority will – with good reason – refuse to take responsibility for what Israel deigns to confer to it unilaterally, who will provide civilian services to the population? And if, as in Gaza, extremists take over the reins of power, how would he recommend Israel respond? Who would be responsible for health issues, sewage, pollution control…? I challenge him to address these and numerous other issues that would drastically impact the lives of all Israelis… and the decisions of those contemplating becoming Israelis.

If he cannot do so convincingly, I call on him to desist from advancing the perilous idea of unilateralism.

Unilateralism as intellectual surrender

In conclusion, unilateralism is not a well thought out strategic choice. It is a knee-jerk reaction of those who oppose the settlement enterprise, a flimsy excuse rather than a serious policy option.

It reflects, at best intellectual surrender, at worst a preference to make Israel’s situation untenable rather than admit to error.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)

REACTIONS TO THE MARTIN SHERMAN ARTICLE (one day after writing above)

The first thing I did was to read the comments to the Sherman article and challenge to Oren on the original Jerusalem Post site. All except one were in agreement with Sherman and against Oren.

Who was this “one”?

… Itzik Sivosh. Is he from the Israel Labour Party? On his Facebook Page Sivosh has this quotation from Golda Meir. I followed up this quotation


We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.Golda Meir, to Anwar Saddat just before the peace talks. Israeli (Russian-born) politician (1898 – 1978) 


This must be one of the worst things any Israeli leader has ever said.

However Sivosh on the Jerusalem Post in opposing Sherman is in a minority of one


Leaving aside Sivosh, who seems deadly to me, and his attacks on Sherman remind me of Stalinism, very personal attacks, very bitter, not principled. He opposes Sherman completely and backs Oren up as much as he opposes Sherman. i would like to get to know Sivosh better tan I do.

…One comment emphasised the key point made by Sherman in this article, which is also my thinking. If Jews are not happy in the Jewish Homeland, and do not feel secure in the Jewish Homeland, then many will leave for pastures new. But this is catch 22 because if you take the same view of capitalist crisis that I do, a major US default could spell economic disaster, thus growth of Antisemitism as scapegoat, so all escapes blocked as in the late 1930s.

Another comment drom Alan Miller in Tel Aviv was very sharp on the danger posed by handing over any land to an enemy. He wrote

“If Mr. Oren has served in the IDF, then he may have known that next to Nablus is a mountain with a view from its peak of the whole Israeli plane from Ashdod in The South to Hadera in the North and Ben Gurion Airport exactly in the middle.  I’ve seen the view from that peak when I served in the IDF.  To turn it over to the PA is inviting suicide.  And I doubt Mr. Oren is an advocate of that.”

But it appears he is…FQ




I added many links on Holocaust Remembrance Day to my Facebook Page on www.Facebook.com/felix.quigley and this morning following yesterday remembrance I added this comment  “A Study of the Holocaust is essential for Socialists

Holocaust Day 2014 had the BBC and Spanish TV doing programmes remembering the Holocaust. The Spanish station had a beautiful programme on Ann Frank. Yet Spain, Britain and Ireland are at the forefront in hatred of Israel, which is the Jewish Homeland. That is the central contradiction that needs to be resolved through consistent study END QUOTE
Then in today’s Israpundit, editor Ted Belman, Canadian origin, has this article by a Jewish woman called Anne Bayefsky which deals with this very same phenomenon. It goes
“Holocaust Remembrance Day at the UN: A Disturbing Paradox 
by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared on FOX News.

It is Holocaust remembrance time at the United Nations. Once a year, Jews from around New York, a dwindling number of Holocaust survivors, occasional celebrities, and precious few friends, file into the General Assembly Hall and grant the U.N. the privilege of appearing to care.

This year’s speakers include Steven Spielberg. When it is over, the year-round ritual censure of the Jewish state will resume.

Characteristic of “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust” is the scarcity of express emphasis on Israel, save for the remarks of the Israeli ambassador.

Modern Israel, if it had existed, would not have allowed six million Jews or one million children to perish while railway lines delivering human cargo to their final destination were left intact. And yet, the well-being of the only country dedicated to saving the Jewish people is generally peripheral.

At first, the pattern seems odd, given that the U.N.’s Holocaust Remembrance Day and associated activities of its “Holocaust Outreach Programme,” are supposed to be about ‘never again’ and a U.N. commitment to genocide prevention.

Strange also, since the U.N. member state of Iran is openly pursuing the annihilation of Israel, and a repeat of the Holocaust that it denies.

Of course, it is no secret that the U.N. has failed miserably to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity in countries from Africa, to Europe and Asia.

The explanation, however, does not lie with general incompetence. For the organization has managed to devote its energy, time and resources to the denunciation and delegitimization of Israel – the embodiment of Jewish self-determination.

The behind-the-scenes story of the 2005 General Assembly resolution creating a U.N. Holocaust remembrance day sheds light on the connection between Holocaust remembrance and Israel-bashing at the U.N.

Despite the fact that the U.N. was erected on the ashes of the Jewish people, the General Assembly has never adopted a resolution dedicated specifically to anti-semitism. Periodic mentions of the word antisemitism appear in lists. By contrast, for instance, there have been resolutions and reports focusing on Muslims, Arabs and Islamophobia.

In 2004, Israel proposed the adoption of a General Assembly resolution on antisemitism. And off-camera all hell broke loose.

For its initial backing, Germany was given to understand that such a role would jeopardize its hoped-for permanent seat on the Security Council, and its support vanished.

The State Department was content to leave the matter to the Europeans. Arab and Muslim opposition led the European Union to condition support on garnering consensus, thus handing a veto to antisemites. The idea went no further.

Why was an anti-semitism resolution so vociferously opposed?

It would undermine the very agenda being pursued so successfully at the U.N. itself. Modern anti-semitism encompasses the grotesque demonization of Israel, the U.N.’s Jew among nations.

The Holocaust resolution was the consolation prize. Despite the grumblings, it was less politic for Israel’s enemies to oppose.

In the end, the resolution was adopted minus the word “anti-semitism,” though it did mention the Jewish people along with “countless members of other minorities.” Subsequent exhibits have included: “The Holocaust against the Sinti and Roma.”

The current condition is a moral swamp.

Last fall the General Assembly’s criticisms of human rights abuse amounted to 19 resolutions against Israel, one each for five other states (including the United States), and zero for the other 187 U.N. members.

The only country in the world criticized annually by the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women for violating women’s rights is Israel – for violating Palestinian women’s’ rights.

Half of all the emergency sessions of the General Assembly have been on Israel – and not one on the catastrophes of Rwanda, Sudan, or Syria.

On January 20, 2014, the U.N. kicked off its first “civil society” event for the new U.N. Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

U.N. Headquarters hosted a public screening of a film supporting the U.N.’s notorious Goldstone report. Among other things, a young Palestinian is heard to say: “The Israeli soldiers were shooting at the people, as if they were not human, as if they were chickens or mice. For the Israeli army this is something without meaning. But the victims were very precious to us, even though they didn’t consider them human.”

When the film ended, Palestinian speaker Laila El-Haddad told the audience that Israel engages in the “systematic targeting of the Palestinian civilian sector.” In short, it was a typical U.N. afternoon in which Israelis are portrayed as Nazi-like wanton baby killers.

But here’s the kicker. The U.N.’s perceived antidote to criticism of the U.N.’s anti-Israel policies is Holocaust remembrance.

Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, has made attacking Israel a principal feature of her U.N. career. She is the leading champion of the racist “anti-racist” Durban Declaration, which charges Israel alone with racism, and a zealous backer of the Goldstone report.

In an effort to draw attention to U.N. double-standards, last October Israel threatened not to participate in another U.N. Human Rights Council inquest. This particular hearing, known as the “universal periodic review,” was scheduled to take place on October 29, 2013.

Israel’s threat to blow the cover off the universality of the universal review presented a very serious challenge to the UN.

This is how Pillay responded. She scheduled a visit to Auschwitz on October 13, 2013, had photos taken and, unusually, held the photos back from publication.

Suddenly on October 29, 2013 she pasted the photos of herself at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum front and center on the U.N.’s human rights home page, choosing precisely the same moment that Israel might have succeeded in putting U.N. discrimination front and center.

It was pure political theater. Holocaust remembrance activities sponsored by the largest global platform for modern anti-semitism are more than paradoxical.

We will know if the U.N. has learned the lessons of the Holocaust when it does more than remember history’s unique horror and its Jewish victims.

When the General Assembly adopts a resolution dedicated to anti-semitism, commissions a report on its current manifestations, adopts recommendations for combating antisemitism in all its forms, and ensures their implementation.

A strong Israel, supported by the community of nations, is the central remedial lesson of the Holocaust.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her on Twitter @AnneBayefsky