Beyond the Politics of Stagnation

By Prof Paul Eidelberg

A. Introduction

1. Unless Prime Minister Olmert is indicted for alleged crimes, he’s going to hold on to his job as if it were a life raft. Nevertheless, suppose the government falls in a few months. What then?

2. Many feel that the only eligible prime minister is Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is certainly preferable to Olmert. He’s articulate, well-informed, and appears like a statesman. But remember these facts:

    First, Netanyahu voted for disengagement in the Sharon cabinet.

    Second, he signed the Wye Memorandum which yielded 40% of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat; Third, he surrendered 80% of Hebron. Fourth, he supplied arms to the terrorists. Fifth, he voted against abrogating the Oslo Accords despite their constant violation by the PLO. Sixth, he is willing to negotiate with the PA and surrender of more of Judea and Samaria under the label of “reciprocity.”

3. Reciprocity? As I have often said, the term “reciprocity” is foreign to the Arab mind. And by using this misleading rhetoric, Netanyahu undermines Jewish loyalty to Eretz Israel. He even lacks the courage to say, as former CIA Director James Woolsey said: “The Palestinians should not be granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens.” This suggests that Woolsey opposes Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

4. So what are we to do? Before addressing this question, we need a new assessment of the present situation in Israel and in the world at large. Two old issues have to be reevaluated: first, the demographic issue, second the issue of institutional reform.

B. THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

1. In the past, like everyone else in the nationalist camp, I warned about the demographic problem. We were all misled by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics which in turn was misled by Palestinian census data. Happily, the study of an American research indicates there is no demographic time bomb.

2. What happened was this: In 1997, the Palestinian census exaggerated the Arab population in Judea, Samaria , Gaza and Jerusalem by nearly 50%. Rather than 3. 8 million Palestinians, it was no more than 2. 4 million. Since those registered as Jews in Israel comprise almost 80% of Israel ¡Çs population, they make up a 59% majority with Gaza and Judea and Samaria and a 67% majority with Judea and Samaria without Gaza.

3. Moreover, the American researchers found that Jewish fertility rates are steadily increasing while Arab fertility rates are steadily decreasing. So, not only is there no demographic time bomb necessitating the surrender of Judea and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists, but Israel’s demographic position should encourage us to develop a strategy for annexing Judea and Samaria.

4. This year the American researchers arrived at the Yamin Israel position. As you know, Israel today is governed by a proportional electoral system that treats the entire country as a single voting district. The Americans recommend a multi-district voting system divided along the lines of the Interior Ministry’s administrative partition of the country.

5. It turns out that with regional elections, Jews will form large majorities in every administrative district in the country except the northern district, where Arabs comprise a bare 52% majority. But the internal migration of just 52,000 Jews to the North would overturn that majority.

6. As for Judea and Samaria, an internal migration of approximately 150,000 Jews to these areas would give them strong Jewish majorities. Since the Tel Aviv district has a 99% Jewish majority and the central region of the country has a 92% Jewish majority, it would be easy to facilitate such a migration of Jews from this crowded area. This is precisely what Yamin Israel proposed ten years ago when we proposed a Land Act to attract Jews to Judea and Samaria.

7. As for the issue institutional reform, none of the constitutions being proposed by other parties and organizations provide for an independent legislature, whose members are elected by the voters in multi-district elections AND will not subservient to the Government. Also, none of the proposed constitutions provides for a genuine presidential system of government. So Yamin Israel remains the only party that has a realistic program that can preserve Israel as a Jewish Republic.

C. CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME.

1. We all know that Israel needs higher caliber, more professional, and more responsible people in government. Personal election of MKs will increase the probability of getting such people. High caliber people are not going to enter politics if they merely serve as party apparatchiks—the prevailing situation in Israel.

2. Today we need a new brand of statesmen. We need statesmen who will stop lying about “peace.” We need statesmen who have the courage to say that we cannot and should not negotiate with people committed to our destruction. Enough lying! We need the fresh air of truth!

3. We need statesmen with the courage to identify the greatest enemy of civilization: Jihadic Islam. We see that England and Europe are becoming Islamized. We see that Iran may soon have nuclear weapons which would enable it to dominate the entire Middle East. Given Europe’s tendency to pacifism, a nuclear Iran with Shahib missiles that can reach Europe would probably put and end to European civilization. But without Europe, the U.S. economy would crash, and so would civilization. To talk about the next Israeli election without this in mind is childish.

4. We therefore need statesmen who recognize the folly of democracies that think they can negotiate reliable and lasting agreements with Islamic despots. Nor is this all.

D. MULTICULTURALISM AND THE END OF THE NATION-STATE?

1. The nations of Europe have succumbed to multiculturalism and are losing their national identity. Multiculturalism, reinforced by the academic doctrine of cultural relativism, is undermining the very existence of the nation-state, of people’s sense of national identity.

2. Along with multiculturalism, there is the phenomenon of “international human rights law”, which is also destroying the sovereign nation-state. The UN, the International Court of Justice, and various non-governmental organizations are seeking to establish a worldwide Courtocracy or judicial oligarchy that would make “transnational human rights law” trump the laws of nations. The rulings of supra-national tribunals are being applied by courts in England, France, the United States and Israel. Democracy is becoming a complete fraud—and not only in Israel.

3. Yet there is not a single party in Israel that talks about this development, even though it threatens Israel’s survival as a Jewish Republic. Remember: Judge Aharon Barak, the High Priest of the Left, followed the false and anti-Jewish ruling of the International Court of Justice, that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are “belligerent occupied territory.” This doomed Gush Katif.

4. I will say more about judicial imperialism and Judge Barak in a sequel. But now we must return to my opening question: What is to be done? Saying that Netanyahu is preferable to Olmert is hardly a compliment. We need a forthright person to be prime minister. Many people have mentioned former IDF Chief of General Staff Moshe Yaalon. At last week’s Herzliya Conference, Yaalon was quoted as saying the following:

    “The fact that Israel was attacked last summer from two areas proves that the root of the conflict is not the occupation of territories”

    “those who talk about a road map or call for pressure on Israel to take a step to solve the problem [are suggesting something that is] irrelevant. Withdrawal will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or solve the jihadi threat.”

    “The basis of our belief, that the other side wants two states, is false.”

5. I suggest that a team of eminent Israelis representing diverse professions and sectors of Israeli society urge Yaalon to run for Prime Minister. We have a strong national program, but it cannot be implemented without strong leadership. Yaalon has to know that he can’t provide strong leadership if his cabinet consists of 5 or more rival parties. He has to be committed to basic institutional reform. If not, then we must look for another candidate.

January 29, 2007 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. Felix,

    You see the Israeli politicians stealing everything in sight and you want to put the country’s resources in their hands? What are you hoping for? To be governed by the New Socialist Man? Let me know when you find him.

  2. BTW Felix does Israel have enough capital? If not capitalism is the way to go. Says Marx.

    So if you are a Marxist you want to see more capitalism until no more generation of capital is possible. Then socialism comes naturally. Says Marx.

    Any one who still falls for socialsm especially revolutionary socialism has not been paying attention.

  3. So which brand of socialism do you like best Felix? The USSR model? Thos nice German National Socialists? Perhaps the European model which has to import Arabs to keep the model going because European women no longer reproduce (why should they? they no longer need children for their old age). Perhaps the Chinese model? Oh, wait, they are on the road to capitalism. Chavez? The Iranian model?

    In any case it looks like disengagement is causing the Palestinians to ethnically cleanse themselves. A fair trade, I’d say.

    Palestinian Civil War Watch – 11

    *

  4. Discarding the 2-state approach is the way to go, but before dismissing the idea of leadership of the great statesman Netanyahu, I’d want to know if Netanyahu has learned from his past compromises and the failures of the reciprocity approach or if Netanyahu is absolutely intransigent in insisting on the 2-state approach. Yaalon’s perspective is correct, and so is the analysis in this well-thought out argument by Eidelberg.

  5. Regardless of whether Eidelberg’s views are broadly accepted or not, there can be little disagreement that Israel, apart from the toll taken on it by the ravages of being manipulated and pressured by America and others to take decisions that are not completley in Israel’s interests, if at all, has suffered from lack of good leadership over a great many years and continues to labor under the oppressive weight of a political system that poorly serves Israel’s interests.

    What is important that these issues impact Israelis on almost a daily basis, yet Israelis for the most part seem unaware of the direct and deleterious impact these problems with Israel are having on them.

    It is first imperative to raise these issues, problems and inherent weaknesses in Israel’s body politic to the forefront of Israelis minds and to open the floor to public debate.

    Thus far it seems that the JP and other right leaning media organizations have one point of view as they brings such issues to the fore as does Ha’aretz and other labelled left wing media outlets, but either the public does not read or listen to the media or both the right and the left media are only contributing to the din of background noise that Israelis just cannot be bothered to listen to or are just too stressed and fearful of day to day existence to take the time to recognize messages, sort it all out and get worked up to demand better of their government.

  6. The stagnation is caused not by the Israeli people who supported the IDF in the war against Hisbullah almost 100 per cent, leaving the Peace Movement collaborators totally isolated.

    I am not sure that what Eidelberg proposes is the answer.

    We need first and foremost a new party, a new leadership, to be started and built.

    I believe it has to be built on the basis of revolutionary socialist theory and practice. This will have to deal with the betrayals of stalinism and of social democracy in the Israeli state since 1948 and before.

    Eidelberg never mentions stalinism and social democracy. To him it is just one potage labelled “The Left” or “Secularism”.

    Eidelberg looks to one man, and if he is not going to do it, to another man etc etc. When will that end!

    I look towards building a party on certain principles.

    Eidelberg takes an essentially bourgeois path, getting good men in parliament etc. Cromwell tried that and look where it got him!

    But the issues are not parliamentary issues, they are issues of revolution and counter revolution. And they are issues of war.

    We need a revolutionary leadership in both the country and in the Diaspora. When I say in the country I mean Israel, and I mean in both the army and in the population.

    It starts from a point that the international capitalist system is going to try to destroy Israel as an independent state. That Islam is going to try to wipe Israel off the map. That these two things are coming together, as happened in Yugoslavia.

    Then there is the existential issue (immediate) of Iran.

    If Olmert will lead a strike against Iran a revolutionary leadership has to stand shoulder to shoulder with Olmert on that issue, just that issue.

    Eidelberg does not specify this. Why does he not specify this?

    Please read carefully what he says about Iran. He leaves out of his thinking completely the possibility that the present leadersd of Israel could lead a war against Iran. Why does he do this and what does his style of politics lead to. I think he is letting Olmert and co completely off the hook on this.

    Eidelberg does not understand the United Front strategy which was developed by Leon Trotsky against Stalinist Popular Front betrayal in the 30s.

    And what is worse like many in the movement as a whole he does not want to know. There is a very large anti-communist bias in the Jewish movement which comes from a number of sources.

    This is so strong as to turn against learning absolutely vital lessons from history. If you doubt this review the almost sullen attitude to my articles on Israpundit which dealt with 30s history.

    Eidelberg also has an agenda and that is to make Israel into a Jewish theocratic state, and that is going to alienate many Israelis who are secular and have a right to their views, as much as does Eidelberg.

    The linking of secularism with disrespect towards Judaism is a product of Stalinism essentially, but note well I dealt also with the responsibility of “Marxists” in this, such as Bolshevik practice in the 1922 Civil War period and situation.

Comments are closed.