Israel’s Security Budget Undermines Our Security

By Moshe Feiglin, Jewish Press

Feiglin1Israel’s security apparatus has requested an additional 11 billion shekels in wake of Operation Protective Edge. In my opinion, Protective Edge proved that the security budget actually undermines our security.

Let me explain.

What was the Hamas’s budget during this war? A fraction of Israel’s. Maybe one percent. So, if everything depended on money, how is it that such a huge monetary gap in our favor did not lead to a resounding Israeli victory – quick, simple, and without fatalities?

Israeli soldiers seen at a deployment area near the border with the Gaza Strip in August. Israel could not win a war like the one this past summer with Hamas, according to the author, because its policy makers are “captive to the concept of the two state solution.

The reason we did not win in Gaza has nothing to do with money. We did not win because we are still captive to the concept of the two state solution. Since the Oslo Accords, this concept has spawned an entire “peace industry” – careers in politics, economics, academia, media, and justice, international funds, and a high-cultural life. Only politically-correct and one-dimensional thinking is allowed. In short, what we have is a true dictatorship.

Thinking out of the box built by the Oslo and two-state architects has become a death trap for anyone wishing to advance in Israel’s public service. It is not so pleasant to talk about, but this mental dictatorship has completely conquered Israel’s military leadership. An aspiring officer cannot progress past a certain rank if he does not toe the line. The result is that when it is necessary to scare the cabinet away from victory in Gaza, the Chief of Staff presents a slideshow demonstrating that conquering Gaza would take five years.

Now back to the military budget. In essence Israel’s military has forgotten what the word “victory” means. And yet, its “job” is to provide security. So how does its job? By building fences, anti-missile systems, warning bombs for enemy civilians, anti-tunnel systems, etc. In short, it exchanges ideology for technology.

The increased security budget is not meant to preserve our safety. The budget – beside the widespread corruption that it funds (government-funded pensions and the like) – is meant to preserve… the Oslo mentality.

The problem is that an erroneous idea is like a balloon. You can pour more and more money into it (Oslo has cost us close to one trillion shekels to date), but, ultimately, like the Maginot Line, it will collapse – leaving us without security and without money.

Thus, today’s security budget undermines our security. The more money we pour into it, the more the defense apparatus will be able to evade its responsibility to defend us and not the Oslo mentality. Our defense problem is conceptual – not monetary.

About the Author: Moshe Feiglin is the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and a member of Israel’s Security and Defense Committee. He heads the Manhigut Yehudit (“Jewish Leadership”) faction of Israel’s governing Likud party. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: “Where There Are No Men” and “War of Dreams.” Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.

September 12, 2014 | 16 Comments »
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

16 Comments / 16 Comments

  2. Ted Belman Said:

    I don’t see clearly how “Israel’s Security Budget Undermines Our Security” unless he means that Oslo undermined our security.

    I think he is saying that defense budget money goes to support and facilitate the political aims of Oslo at the expense of security.
    E.G. money spent on gaza war was spent not to win, which would enhance security, but to maintain Oslo goals which is a political goal contradicting security. Perhaps the same can be said of the administration of area C.
    Ted Belman Said:

    I have often written that Bibi, though he refused to negotiate based on ’67 plus swaps was in fact doing so. The only thing to his credit is that he refused to make an offer or draw a map. Bibi’s mantra should be,”We will never agree to ’67 lines plus swaps.” From a political point of view he can be right of center as oppos3ed to far right of center. He should also embrace the Levy Report. I could go on.

    Perhaps BB is not the person he pretends to be. If you knew he was trying to implement centrist or leftist goals you would not bother to write to him or vote for him. I think BB gets votes from the right because they convince themselves that his actions are stalls rather than his real agenda. The things you write to him about are his decisions: the Levy report, etc now appears to be an electoral ploy to get right wing votes, just like E1. Don’t forget the appointment of LIvni as Justice Min., which was entirely unnecessary politically, he could have given her any ministry if he needed her. One has to wonder how many things he needs to do to convince the right that he is not a rightist. I think he is a “centrist”, a poll implementer.

  3. I don’t see clearly how “Israel’s Security Budget Undermines Our Security” unless he means that Oslo undermined our security. Perhaps what is meant is that the defense budget props up Oslo. It would have been clearer if he titled it “Paying them to leave is a better strategy than trying to live with them.” This I can understand.

  4. He replied with, among other things and questions :

    How specific do you want him to be?

    Moshe wants to take the money that Oslo costs us annually over the next 10 years and use it to pay each arab family in Israel (including all of yesha) $200,000 to get out. There is enough money over 10 years to do this for EVERY Arab family. EVERY ONE!

    We don’t care where they go, and the thought is that with that much money, almost every country will take them, which they certainly will. Do you doubt that a family with this much money will be able to find a home?

    And there polls show that the vast majority will take the money and leave.

    I replied,

    What Sherman and Feiglin propose, I am in favour of providing it can be done. Getting a government which would follow this policy is a whole other question. Obviously the Israeli public has to be convinced to support such a policy. No small task.

    But I have raised the issue that a coalition of Countries lead by the US would refuse to take them in. I see this as a possibility.

    My guiding principle is no more Arabs in Israel. So any annexation plan that allows autonomy in A and parts of B, I support. But I criticize Bennett for the following:
    1. He wants to remove the fence,
    2. He wants to give citizenship to qualified Arabs over time.
    3 He wants to improve the economic well being of the arabs. This works at cross purposes with getting them to leave.

    I am not sure what Leiberman proposes. He hasn’t come out with a Plan.

    I have often written that Bibi, though he refused to negotiate based on ’67 plus swaps was in fact doing so. The only thing to his credit is that he refused to make an offer or draw a map. Bibi’s mantra should be,”We will never agree to ’67 lines plus swaps.” From a political point of view he can be right of center as oppos3ed to far right of center. He should also embrace the Levy Report. I could go on.

    I am totally against Glicks Plan, supported by Michael Wise, of giving citizenship to Arabs in J&S. I have recommended first annexing most of C and part of B to enable a rational temporary border and then to spend the next 20 years negotiating autonomy. During this time we should offer them compensation to leave. We could start with the Arabs living within 10 miles of the ’67 lines.

    My staged process is designed to win the support of more israelis i.e. annexation plus autonomy. Emphasis need not be put on compensating them to lease. But what Israelis care most about is no more Arab citizens.

    I complained about Moshe’s Gaza Plan because it was not well articulated and his defense of it on American TV, was horrible. A few days prior to him announcing it , I came out with the suggestion that the rehabilitation money should be used instead for resettlement. And that the World should allow Israel to annex all of Gaza after enough Arabs had been resettled. End of problem.

    Similarly, his present article fell short. It should have articulated what his alternative was in one short paragraph. Like I wrote to you “More needs to be said.”

  5. I wrote this to a person on Feiglin’s team.

    I am sorry to say that more needs to be said.

    What is Feiglin proposing to replace Oslo and why will this work and why will it lower the budget?

    As I understand it in other articles he proposes that we pay them to leave. Same as Sherman.

    Its one thing for the west to tolerate 20,000 Palestinians emigrating but who says they will tolerate 200,000 emigrating yearly. The west makes no attempt to resettle the “refugees” preferring to keep them as a club to hold over israel. The west is quite prepared to rebuild Gaza. rather than resettle Gazans to solve the problem. Why?

    Perhaps they are not trying to solve the problem or to strengthen israel. They might resist massive emigration for the same reason.

    The article is very unclear.

    Can you get Moshe to do a follow up article?

  6. @ bernard ross:

    I am really impressed with your response to the oxymoron. He always wants the Jews to pay. We weren’t even the cause of this dilemma but we are suppose to pay.

    When is the church going to pay up? Same thing, the church ( one of the current owners of the golden calf) always expects others to pay for their blunders with little compassion or mercy for the Jewish people and ESPECIALLY Israel! G-d forbid! Once Israel gets enough power she should demand that the borders be returned to ‘biblical lines’ and ALL false god symbols be removed. Until then….we have to grin and bear it! Stupid fools…

  7. @ CuriousAmerican:

    “Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will not keep quiet while a government (Israeli) rules over them, and they have no vote.”

    No. With or without a vote in Israel, the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria will not keep quiet while THEIR OWN LEADERSHIP — Fatah or Hamas — rules over them, unless that leadership wants them quiet.

  10. @ honeybee:
    GREAT STUFF! I copied it to the boss for her consideration.
    When we cook one I’ll send a picture. hehehehehe
    It takes forever here to get construction done. The BBQ area is not yet done… Grrrrr

  12. CuriousAmerican Said:

    While oddly, doing everything to make the two state solution impossible by building more Jewish domiciles. This is schizophrenia.

    once again your self serving rubbish is geared to lead to your perennial conclusion.
    First,one is a captive to the 2 state solution whether one agrees or disagrees because decisions are made in its shadow and in considering how it will affect the tss narrative. Second, you are lying when you say “the two state solution is rendered “impossible by building more Jewish domiciles.” This is rubbish on many levels. 1-They are building in areas that they will retain. 2- a tss is possible if even gaza alone is the sole state, 3- even if C is annexed a tss is possible in a & b.
    Conclusion: you merely gratuitously parrot the international mantra that jews building homes in Israel hinders a tss and “peace”.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    If Israel opposes the two-state solution, by building more and more domiciles, and increasing the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria, then it cannot undermine itself by acting as if a two-state solution existed in other areas. One or the other, decide!

    Rubbish, as I just explained, no one or the other necessary, in fact there are other solutions including the autonomy envisioned by Oslo, which did not mandate 2 states.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Israel is biding for time. It has been doing so for 47 years: Hoping against hope that 5 Million Diaspora Jews would wake up and move to Israel in the morning, and give Israel the reason she could “officially” annex Judea and Samaria.

    Contradictory, chronic, serial rubbish! 47 years is not the next morning…Jews have been continually immigrating during the period, no next morning necessary. Furthermore, Israel needs no reason to “officially” annex YS other than it is the Jewish homeland. the only obstruction is the Jews inability to make the choices and operate unilaterally in its self interest, a psychological problem resulting from lack of education and a stokholm syndrome.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Arabs in Gaza have been forbidden to move to Judea and Samaria, even though according to the hated “OSLO” accords, they were supposed to be able to move freely.

    More rubbish, even if Oslo so states it is irrelevant because the other side did not observe the agreement rendering it void. Citing a breached agreement for your support is disingenous, part of your repeated attempts to paint Israel as immoral and the pals as moral. Oslo, is and has been defacto null and void and only continues in some parts when the participants so decide. But you knew this when appealing to “Oslo”. In fact have you noticed that Oslo is less and less referred to by anyone?

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Israel wanted to treat the areas as two distinct units – in contravention of OSLO

    Gaza and the west bank have never been unified as one unit, Oslo envisioned that at the end of the day but Oslo was a failure from the outset. Citing Oslo is as foolish as citing the UNGA 181, its only relevancy is that it once existed as an idea whose time never came. Oslo was replaced by the road map which also immediately failed and the Bush letter which was reneged by the US. there is no agreement currently operating except in the minds of those unable to see facts. Oslo died defacto and nothing replaced it: a failure that has yet to be replaced, that is the current status. quoting Oslo is merely denial.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    The present regime is not sustainable without violence from both sides. 1.5 to 2.5 (depending on who is asked) Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will not keep quiet while a government (Israeli) rules over them, and they have no vote.

    Violence is a part of the ME muslim culture, it is to be expected and taken into account in any policy. The trend has been that repeated violence has led the pals nowhere and there is a lot less violence from the PA and I expect the same will ensue from gaza…not based on any agreement or good will, but on the continuing futility they experience from violence. Hence, the PA embarking on the diplomatic approach as a substitute for a futile effort which kept them in poverty.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    The PA is a facade, and has no real power –

    It’s power is to police its people and reduce violence in order to allow some economic growth. You must also ask if the PA really wants a state at this time? How would they deal with millions of pals who want to return to the PA or gaza if they had a state? Would they refuse and subject themselves to more problems? Would they accept and subject themselves to the inevitable destabilization that would occur coupled with an inevitable loss of power by the current leaders of hamas AND fatah? Are you so foolish to believe that they are not aware of this future problem for which “sovereignty and statehood offer no solution and bring more real problems? I submit that Abbas is quite happy with the status quo and would find millions of returning pals to be frightening.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    The present regime is NOT sustainable,

    there is no evidence to suggest that the present regime and structure are unsustainable, or some structure similar to the existing autonomy as opposed to a state. Trends suggest the opposite: that repeated cycles of failed violence and wars have increased stability in the west bank and we might even see the same in gaza now. The only thing that obstructs the current regime is the fomented violence and incitement of leadership, I think that most pals become fatigued after wars and intifadas that go nowhere. Apparently each generation has to go through its learning curve. Israel has increased its logistical and technological ability to continue the current regime. It is only BS parroting, repeating failed mantras, that assert this “unsustainability” it is quite sustainable, repeated cycles of violence can be dealt with, it is all over the ME, it is part of their culture; no need to avoid it as it is reality; there is as yet no other solution proven better.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    So what to do with the Palestinians on it.

    A) Slowly start to enfranchise them

    B) Pay them to leave.

    The long song and dance which always leads to the same conclusion. You would do better to leave out the song and dance, which is usually stock full of baloney as I just demonstrated, and just state your expected inevitable conclusion.

  13. The increased security budget is not meant to preserve our safety. The budget – beside the widespread corruption that it funds (government-funded pensions and the like) – is meant to preserve… the Oslo mentality.

    But what is the “Oslo mentality” really? It is that Israel is not a state, a country, a nation, but that Israel is a ghetto, a Jewish quarter, existing at the tolerance of an antisemitic world.

    This is what the military budget of Israel exists for to these of the Oslo mentality, it is to support and advance a high tech ghetto wall in the hopes that such an effort does not inflame the blood lust of its neighbors and their sympathizers. That’s what Iron Dome is, a high tech ghetto wall. Israel’s defence is only tolerated within the harried space of that ghetto. If it acts outside it, then the blood libels begin.

  14. Precisely. We are being fleeced by planned losers chasing their own benefit. And that of their controllers.
    They also betrayed us on Iran.

  15. Feiglin knows nothing about military matters as this entire pile of nonsense so plainly proves. Sadly Feiglin is more concerned with trying to prove he is not an idiot and thus qualified for something more important, right now I would suggest that Feigling be given a more important job, like cleaning the toilets in the Knesset, he might be able to handle that!

  16. The reason we did not win in Gaza has nothing to do with money. We did not win because we are still captive to the concept of the two state solution.

    While oddly, doing everything to make the two state solution impossible by building more Jewish domiciles. This is schizophrenia. I am not in favor of a two-state solution, but the Israeli government’s policy is schizophrenic. If Israel opposes the two-state solution, by building more and more domiciles, and increasing the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria, then it cannot undermine itself by acting as if a two-state solution existed in other areas.

    One or the other, decide!

    Since the Oslo Accords, this concept has spawned an entire “peace industry” – careers in politics, economics, academia, media, and justice, international funds, and a high-cultural life. Only politically-correct and one-dimensional thinking is allowed. In short, what we have is a true dictatorship.

    Israel is biding for time. It has been doing so for 47 years: Hoping against hope that 5 Million Diaspora Jews would wake up and move to Israel in the morning, and give Israel the reason she could “officially” annex Judea and Samaria.

    When that did not happen, Israel started to separate Gaza from the PA authority. Since September 2000, Arabs in Gaza have been forbidden to move to Judea and Samaria, even though according to the hated “OSLO” accords, they were supposed to be able to move freely.

    The reason. Israel rightly understood that if it did not do so, then half a million Gazans would move to Judea and Samaria, and ultimately make annexation impossible. So Israel set up a movement and residence permit system long before Hamas was even a player.

    Israel wanted to treat the areas as two distinct units – in contravention of OSLO – NOTE: I AM NO FAN OF OLSO – so that ultimately Israel could ditch Gaza while annexing Judea and Samaria.

    Israel wants the land – I AM COOL WITH THAT – but does not want the Palestinians on it.

    That is the problem.

    The present regime is not sustainable without violence from both sides. 1.5 to 2.5 (depending on who is asked) Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will not keep quiet while a government (Israeli) rules over them, and they have no vote.

    The PA is a facade, and has no real power – and everyone knows it. Even the PA’s taxes are collected by Israel. The PA has no power to issue residency IDs.

    So let’s think outside the box.

    Okay. Everyone here agree: ISRAEL SHOULD NOT GIVE UP THE LAND.

    So what to do with the Palestinians on it.

    A) Slowly start to enfranchise them

    B) Pay them to leave.

    The present regime is NOT sustainable, and is violation of lashon hara in that it gives the Gentiles cause to speak ill of the Jews. The military rule in J&S looks bad. I know Jews are under military rule in J&S, but they get tried in civil courts, NOT military courts, like the Palestinians, so there are degrees of military rule, and the Palestinians are under the worst of it.

    Yes, Egypt and Syria are worse; but they do not claim to be democracies.

    Paying them to leave is thinking outside the box.