By Daniel Pipes, ME FORUM May 21/17
Martin Sherman, executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, has devoted a new column, “Why Palestinian Statehood Obviates Israeli Victory,” to hashing out his and my differences over something we fundamentally agree on, the goal of Israel victory.
This is the idea that the “peace process” has turned into a “war process” and that the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation lies not in more painful concessions by Israel but, to the contrary, in Israel imposing its will on its enemy and crushing the Palestinian dream to eliminate the Jewish state. Washington should encourage its Israeli ally in this. Ironically, losing is the best thing that could happen to the Palestinians, for it liberates from a destructive obsession and allows them to begin constructing their own polity, economy, society, and culture.
To advance this idea, the Middle East Forum, the organization I head, has worked with members of the U.S. House of Representatives to launch a Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CIVC) to lobby the president. Sherman hails CIVC as “an initiative of critical importance with genuine paradigmatic game-changing potential.”
 The Congressional Israel Victory Caucus launch on Apr. 27, 2017. From the left: Gregg Roman, E.J. Kimball, Bill Johnson, Daniel Pipes, Ron DeSantis, Gary Bauer. |
But, as his article title suggests, Sherman takes issue with my view that “when Palestinians do finally give up the fight against Israel, their centrality to the conflict will enfeeble anti-Zionism from Morocco to Indonesia. … A Palestinian defeat marks the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel.”
He dismisses as “unfounded” the argument that Arab and Muslim enmity towards Israel centers “on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinian-Arabs.” He offers four arguments:
1. Anti-Zionism existed long before Palestinians even became a central issue after Israel’s seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. My reply: True, of course. But the forthcoming 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War makes it particularly germane to note how much attitudes have changed over time. No Arab government today calls for the elimination of the Jewish state; all of them focus instead on “Palestine.” That’s already a huge change which an Israel victory will further firm up.
2. There’s no way a demilitarized “micro-mini statelet … established as the result of a humiliating defeat, would defuse the ample Judeophobic frenzy rampant across the Arab/Muslim world today.” My reply: “Judeophobic frenzy” is an apt term for the nearly ubiquitous antisemitism found among Muslims. At the same time, it is mercifully superficial, based less in Islamic doctrine or history than in tactical needs for doing battle with Israel. Under the right circumstances – that is, with the battle ended and Palestinians quiescent – it could well be dropped.
3. Who among the Palestinians, he asks, is “authorized to sign a binding document of surrender” with Israel? My reply: Defeat does not require a signature on a piece of paper: Did the U.S. government sign a surrender document in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan? More importantly, defeat reflects a change of heart that permeates up. Vox populi, not officialdom, is the key.
 How the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not end: The U.S. South’s surrender to the North at Appomattox in 1865. |
4. Pointing to polls that show about 30 percent of West Bankers and about 50 percent of Gazans wishing to emigrate, Sherman concludes that it won’t be hard to convince Palestinians to leave. My reply: Even accepting these high figures as correct, two factors will render this project ineffectual: social pressure/threats of violence and no governments willing to absorb Palestinians. On principle, Arab and Muslim leaders will not take in Palestinians; the rest of the world tends to be wary of mostly unskilled emigrants coming from violence-prone backgrounds. Therefore, Sherman’s “funded emigration paradigm” cannot be central to the Israel Victory Project.
Finally, leaving the door open to a Palestinian state has another benefit in the United States. Sherman acknowledges that the idea of an Israeli victory and Palestinian defeat is “daring,” even “revolutionary.” To some, however, it is shocking; for example, J Street calls it “medieval” and “truly terrifying.” So, to make Israel Victory appealing to a wide swathe of Americans, I wish to make it as palatable as possible. That means including the possibility – when the war is well and truly over – of a Palestinian state. I hasten to add that this is not an immediate prospect, for the conflict must be totally over, something that is at least decades away. But the option is a healthy one.
I thank Martin Sherman for the invigorating debate and suggest that we close it here.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2017 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
@ Bear Klein:
Kahane performed the same experiment with success as well. He wrote about it in “They Must Go”. I like Feiglin’s plan. But, the first thing is to take out the PLO and Hamas and restore Israeli military rule. At some point, the same thing needs to be done with Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah. If Egypt passes back into Jihadist hands, Sinai would be next. That’s not a little thing and our people, at present, just don’t wanna. Perhaps, Israel needs a professional military class, a volunteer army of Jews who want to fight and teach the Arabs their place
“You can call me Sahib or Bwanna” boy.
@ Bear Klein:
This is what we need to return to, closing the loopholes he mentions. There must be no escape for them other than permanent exodus.
“November 8, 1966: Military Rule on Israeli Arabs Lifted
In my mind’s eye I see my parents and grandparents – the Palestinians who survived the destruction of their society following Israel’s creation – in those days as helpless children abandoned to an abusive father.
Odeh Bisharat Jun 16, 2013 4:02 PM
Emile Habibi, with characteristic irony, praised Israeli prisons since the “conditions within the prison aren’t different from the conditions outside it.” GPO
In Emile Habibi’s book “The Secret Life of Saeed the Pessoptimist,” when the protagonist Saeed argues softly with his wife, they are told off by their little son in an even softer voice to keep quiet or the neighbors will hear. The son is called, to be on the safe side, “Wala’a” (“faithful” in Arabic). This is what is deeply etched into our consciousness. We are the generation born around the time of the Nakba (in Arabic, “the catastrophe,” the Palestinians’ term for what happened to them when the state was founded in 1948), for whom even the walls have ears and it’s impossible to trust anyone. And exactly at this difficult moment, the military administration pressed upon the wound with full force to persuade those who had remained – a branch of an uprooted tree – that they were a nation of informers with a traitorous leadership.
My father-in-law, Nimr Rihani, who participated in nationalist groups, told me that in those days a Shin Bet security service agent who was known in the area came to visit him – on a holiday of all days. The Shin Bet man took advantage of the tradition of Arab hospitality that did not allow guests to be thrown out, even if they were enemies. The visit’s purpose was to transmit the message to other residents that even the patriotic Abu Hisham, as my father-in-law was known, was “one of ours.” Several years later, Abu Hisham was sent to prison for two years because he did not reveal information he had about a “hostile” organization that had not carried out any actions, and he was fired from what was then considered a quite prestigious job as school principal.
Click here to return to the slideshow
When I joined the Communist Youth in 10th grade, a collaborator passed along a message to my parents that their son better be careful. And when we met by coincidence in the street, he said to me, with his yellow-toothed grin, that all the party leaders were Shin Bet agents. So sometime later when I received an order forbidding me to visit the West Bank and Gaza, which had been conquered by Israel not long before, I was deluged with messages of encouragement as if I were a national hero. Some even hung their no-entry orders on their living room wall.
The military administration “penetrated all areas of civilian life and became a state instrument for political, economic and social control of the Arab minority,” wrote researcher Sarah Ozacky-Lazar. Indeed, the military administration settled in our homes, nestled between the sheets of our beds, between father and son, man and wife, until everything seemed suspect.
Emile Habibi, with characteristic irony, praised Israeli prisons since the “conditions within the prison aren’t different from the conditions outside it.” This statement stays with me, when I am asked about the military administration, as if it had been a huge detention camp with tall towers to oversee the activities of its inhabitants: love affairs, matchmaking, work, studies. And the Arabs, for their part, described their situation with the harsh phrase “like orphans at the table of the wicked,” and in my mind’s eye I see my parents and grandparents in those days as helpless children abandoned to an abusive father.
The other side of the coin is the staying power of those that remained. The key word was sumud (steadfastness) and it was expressed in the building of homes, most of them without permits. The entire village would join in the construction work. It was also expressed in the exhausting daily struggle to obtain an exit permit to work in Jewish cities, the struggle to pave a road, to connect a village to the water and electricity grids and to build a school.
The new generation that took command at that time was not just brave but also smart. Ben-Gurion was counting on an Arab refusal that would constitute, at a critical moment, the ultimate excuse for expelling the Arabs. Following 1948, and for the first time, the leadership of a large Palestinian group was changing the rules of the game, receiving Israeli citizenship and waging a civil struggle to achieve its goals. And thus the buds of political realism began to blossom, and the battle was decided in favor of staying. Even the 1956 massacre at Kafr Qasem, when 48 Arab civilians were killed by Israeli Border Police, did not change matters. Moreover, the struggle was colored by optimism and was open to the other, so that even a Jewish democrat wouldn’t feel alienated from it.
In December 1966, the military administration was abolished thanks to the Arab-Jewish struggle that shimmered in its beauty. However, it still hasn’t been uprooted within the public discourse and in terms of actual behavior. Ten years later, in 1976, six Arabs were killed during a wave of protests against the expropriation of Arab-owned land. And almost 35 years later, in October 2000, 13 Arab citizens were killed while protesting the killing in the occupied territories.
The military administration may have come to an end, but its spirit still hovers above us.”
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/history/1.530105
SZ: Salad days! It’s a zero sum game. I haven’t researched these allegations, they are most likely blood libels like all the others. No point in even researching now. They are the boy who cried wolf. Anyway, I hope they are true. We should be free to legally commit atrocities against them as they do us. (Only legally, doing so illegally invites a back-lash and is therefore counter-productive (that’s the word Hanan Ashrawi used to describe terror against Jews at one juncture where a cease-fire was called for.) We are not all fellow human beings in the same boat. I rejoice in their pain. I look forward to their humiliation, defeat and permanent departure, feet first, if necessary.
Eidelberg discusses the Hitler/Sadat strategy of psychological warfare and how totalitarians effectively use the language of democracy to defeat and destroy it from within in preparation for invasion. A softening up, as it were.
http://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg%5B1%5D.pdf
Ephraim Kishon brilliantly satirized this:
reposting:
“Sebastien Zorn says:
September 13, 2016 at 6:46 pm
Excerpt: “The Course of Justice” (From “So Sorry We Won – The Story of the Six Day War in Word And Cartoon ” by Ephraim Kishon and Dosh (Kariel Gardosh) Tel Aviv. 1967) (typed from the hardcover)
“September: a member of the El Fatah murder gang named Mahmoud Hejazi is captured wounded on Israeli territory in possession of an automatic rifle, 12 pounds of explosives, three flame-throwers and a couple of howitzers. The examination of the infiltrator proceeds slowly as when captured, the man was in state of coma induced by fright and he is unable to utter coherent sentences. He cowers in a corner, crawls in the dust and keeps mumbling: “Mahmoud good boy…Have pity on me, great effendis…Pity…Poor Mahmoud…”
‘October : Hejazi is tried by a military court and sentenced to death. Upon hearing the sentence, the accused collapses and sobbingly pleads for his miserable life. The Minister of Justice remembers his European heritage and approves the appointment of an Arab lawyer to defend the murderer who appealed the sentence.
‘November : The lawyer arrives from Algeria and is handed a memorandum on what is expected of him in court:
(1) That he should read the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel to an organ accompaniment.
(2) That he should express his gratitude and appreciation for the activities of the Government of Israel.
(3) Hatikvah
The lawyer refuses to co-operate, he happens to root for the Arabs. Out!
‘December : Hejazi stands up for his elementary rights: “I won’t budge without a foreign lawyer,” he announces. The authorities are somewhat perplexed. The Chief-of-Staff’s coaxing of Hejazi falls on deaf ears: “Leave me alone,” says the disappointed infiltrator; “There’s no-one I can talk to in this country.”
January: The trial is resumed without Hejazi’s approval. “You’re a bunch of crooks, the lot of you!” Hejazi declares. “You’re abominable behavior is in complete contradiction to all the tenets of international law and is repugnant to all freedom-loving people.” The defense attorney asks Hejazi not to make superficial generalizations, whereupon he is fired by him. The lawyer lodges an appeal.
February: Hejazi convokes a press conference and demands the resignation of the Government, which has entangled itself in its own web of perfidy. “I cannot negotiate with hooligans.” The infiltrator tells the press. “If my case is not settled within a week from today, I won’t answer for the consequences!” The President of the Court appeals to Hejazi’s nobler feelings in an effort to win his co-operation. Hejazi announces over Kol Israel that he is forced to dismiss the court.
March : Mr. Mahmoud Hejazi’s claim for compensation from the Israeli Army is heard by Mr. Abie Nathan as sole arbitrator. In his defense brief, the Chief-of-Staff claims that the infiltrator’s arrest was carried out without malice. Nor is he willing to accept Hejazi as a war invalid entitled to assistance and a Ministry of Defense pension. A compromise seems to be in the offing. IL.15,000 in cash and a soft drink stand.”
—-”
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63617610
Comment #29
@ Bear Klein:
Do you remember back in the ’80s when painting with the colors of the pal flag was illegal. When pal children who painted graffiti with those colors allegedly had their arms broken for them. When hostile foreign journalists wandering into conflict zones allegedly had their knee caps shot off by Israeli soldiers? I don’t know whether this was just an occasional aberration as I read in an article by one Israeli general from the time recently, but these practices — which I protested at the time, falsely equating them with what was done to my family, are models of ideal behavior for our troops, I say now. For a start. Hey, the UN has no right to criticize. Look what their troops do, and without any good reason!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html
Not to mention their member states.
@ Bear Klein:
In most respects, they have self-government. This will have to stop. We will decide what may be taught in their schools or preached in their mosques or shown on tv or on the internet. We will make their laws for them and we will enforce them. We will need a death penalty and some latitude for military enforcement on the spot.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Militarily routing out all the terrorists will be a steady job just as it today. The IDF and Shin Bet go into the PA nightly and catch terrorists. These terrorists then talk and tell us were more terrorists are and about their plans. This is a cycle that continues steadily.
This was started after we reentered the PA areas and surronded them in the early 2000s intifada. This steady arresting of terrorists, the wall/security fence and deterence has made for very few terror attacks inside of Israel if compared with the regular suicide bombings that were going on in the early 2000s when Israel needed a major painful operation to get control again after vacating these areas post Oslo.
So there are not as many terror cells or weapons available to terrorists in the PA areas today. Unlike Gaza where the IDF does go not accept in time of war, mostly.
Cleaning Gaza will be a massive job that will need to happen at some point in time.
@ Bear Klein:
Semantics. When the courts make the rules, you have civil rule. When the military makes the rules, you have military rule. Arabs living under Israeli military occupation should not vote or have the same degree of civil rights as Jews, who should have all the rights we have behind the green line. If that’s apartheid, I’m fine with that. They had their go at autonomy and they’ve used it to murder our children and old people in their beds. Now, they need to be governed as children. paraphrasing the great humanitarian, Rudyard Kipling, or was it Albert Schweitzer, I call it “The Jewish Man’s Burden.” Ha Ha.
If you to to Palestinian Media Watch, you will see that the latest slogan for the terrorist youth is “So What?”
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=88
Well, what’s good for the geese is good for the gander.
If Edward Said, who I knew personally though only casually, were to call me a racist and an Orientalist, I would reply now: “So What?”
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Should read, “…between military victory on the one hand and an Arab exodus followed by the application of Israeli law, on the other hand,”
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You leave the military in Judea/Samaria always. Applying Israeli Civil Law does not leave out the IDF.
However it is not occupation because it our land. You can not occupy what is yours. As the security issues get less over time the police take over. This how it worked in the 1950s in the Galilee.
When the concept of a PA State because history with no further hope at all for implementation that you will find stability and eventually peace in the long long term. The problem I envision could become like the Basque in Spain. An irritant occasionaly but not a threat.
Feiglin’s Plan has potential merit:
http://www.zehutinternational.com/single-post/2016/08/11/The-Feiglin-Solution
@ Bear Klein:
I understood what you meant and I agree. But. Big but nobody wants to talk about. Between the application of Israeli Law comes enforcement and de-Nazification (Plaut’s term). Protecting those who want to accept help to leave or who otherwise cooperate from being murdered is part of this.
How is this to be accomplished without restoring the military occupation? Minus Jordanian or Ottoman Law, and adding the Plaut’s white and black lists. I know of no other plan that considers the problem of Pal terrorism.
What do you think of the Plaut plan for the intermediate phase?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173597/time-annex-judea-and-samaria-steven-plaut
@ Sebastien Zorn:
What I mean:
1. No PA State Ever
2. Defeat Terrorists and Supporters Militarily
3. Apply Israeli Law to Judea/Samaria (see above plan for implementation).
4. Assist Peaceful Arabs who wish to leave buying their properties and provide other assitance to find home in other countries
5. Peaceful Arabs who wish to be loyal to Israel can stay as residents and even citizens (see above plan for basic minimun requirements for consideration)
@ Bear Klein:
Which means restoring the status quo ante-Oslo minus Jordanian Law but with the addition of Plaut’s white and black lists to de-incentivize violence. See http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173597/time-annex-judea-and-samaria-steven-plaut
@ Bear Klein
:
I think that you and your kids should lead the assault.
Pipes does not get what victory actually would look like. It would be the military demolition of the terrorist groups (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their supporters and support base. They would be killed, jailed or deported with no doubt who lost. No peace treaty needed.
After that the peaceful Arabs that are left who wish to emigrate can be assisted to leave, as Martin Sherman recommends and no one would be threatening those wishing to leave.. In my plan which is a mix of Sherman and Bennett’s. Mine is staged or incremental with the goal of eventual applying Israeli law to all of Judea/Samaria but starting with Area C.
:
I can’t stand this inside-the-beltway crap.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
“Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews”
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm
A commenter on Pipes’ own site to an article of his about Hamas vs. Israel aptly, albeit politely, put him in his place for omitting to mention this or anything like it. Liberals believe words coming from the savages they patronize don’t matter, that they don’t mean exactly what they say. They do. I believe it was Elie Wiesel who pointed that out as the lesson of the Shoah: “If somebody says he wants to kill you, believe him. :
“Why doesn’t the Israeli PR quote the Hamas Charter Article 7, and the Hadith the quote comes from?
Reader comment on item: Reflections on Current Hamas-Israel Hostilities
Submitted by Mladen Andrijasevic (Israel), Nov 17, 2012 at 04:36
‘The real question remains why everyone, the government and the media, refuse to discuss what Hamas sees as their justification in constantly attacking Israel, and clearly expressed in the Hamas Charter itself.
‘Article 7 of the Hamas Charter reads:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.htm
“The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
Article 7 is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 and quotes the Prophet Muhammad:
http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/85/3715-sahih-bukhari-volume-004-book-052-hadith-number-177.html
‘Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/200723
—-
“References to Jews in the Koran
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/references-to-jews-in-the-koran
—
“Ibn Sunayna [Date] Unknown Muhammad reportedly ordered his followers to “kill any Jew that falls into your power”, Muhayissa heard this and went out to kill Ibn Sunayna (a Jew)[114][115]
Ibn Sunayna killed by Muhayissa[114][115]
Sunan Abu Dawud 19:2996
Ibn Hisham & Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah[116]”
2 Abu ‘Afak February 624[7] Kill the Jewish poet Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry[4][6][7][8]
Abu Afak assassinated[7][6][4]
Ibn Hisham & Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah[9]
Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir, Volume 2[10]
Blind Jew Unknown Muhammad’s followers kill a blind Jew for throwing dust at his face[122][123]
Blind Jew killed by Sa’d ibn Zayd[122][123]
Ibn Hisham & Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah[124]
Tabari, Volume 7, The foundation of the community[123]
from: 43 total listed. Many of them he ordered killed for Mocking him through poetry. The Charlie Hebdo murderers were following in his example as are all the proponents of Islamofauxbia. They are the ones who should be outlawed, deported, sued, fined, blacklisted, imprisoned, the violent ones executed, after first being interrogated under torture and publicly shamed, ridiculed and humiliated. Was I the only one who was outraged at Obama’s respectful disposal of Bin Laden’s corpse?
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
1.) It’s just salami tactics. See Eidelberg on Sadat. The Arabs are willing to accept Israel without Yesha like Hitler was willing to accept Czechoslovakia without the Sudetenland.
2) “judeofrenzy” not based in Islamic doctrine? Huh?
3) How does he define defeat? Pals are already leaving to go all over. They are in demand as the most educated Arab population.
I’m surprised at these uninformed arguments by Pipes. He’s slipping.
lets have 2 pally states 1 in texas 1 in Illinois the land is there, post codes are in place, bush could be tex pally pres. obuma ill. pally pres. abbarse could be CEO of the whole *uk*** mess