Perhaps the most disturbing issue, raised by the cloud of doubt, enveloping the Duma-related legal proceedings, is the tangible possibility that the real perpetrators of the gruesome murders may still be roaming around free — secure in the knowledge that someone else will pay for the atrocity they committed

Terror is terror. Whether it comes from Arabs or Jews”. Shai Nitzan, former State Attorney, on the Duma arson, December 31, 2018.

This is a black day for the state of Israel…A day on which an Israeli court set its hand to convicting a man whose innocence cries out to the heavens — The defense team, after the conviction of Amiram Ben-Uliel for murder in the Duma arson case, May 18, 2020.

Imagine a country, in which a Jewish citizen was convicted of brutal murder, despite the fact that his confession was extracted from him by “enhanced interrogation” (aka infliction of physical pain); that his confession contradicted all eyewitness evidence at the scene; that he was denied access to legal counsel for an extended period during his interrogation; that, before and after his alleged crime, numerous similar attacks have been repeatedly perpetrated; and that all reasonable doubt and alternative accounts of the event were totally disregarded in assigning his guilt.

Clearly, such a case of blatant anti-Jewish bias would be expected to elicit dismayed outrage and virulent protest from Israel as the Jewish nation-state, whose very raison d’etre is, largely, to shield Jews from precisely such Judeophobic prejudice and prevent such flagrant cases of anti-Jewish abuse from taking place.

Yet the bitter irony is that it is not really necessary to imagine such blatant Judeophobic disregard of due process. On May 18th, it actually took place! In Israel!

Full disclosure: My natural bias

On that fateful day, the Lod District Court convicted Amiram Ben Uliel, a religious Jew, of the murder of three members of the Dawabsheh family, when, according to the ruling, he set their home ablaze in July 2015

Now, as I have written in the past, I have a strong personal bias in favor of the Israeli security services and the intelligence community, in whose ranks I served for several years. I have the greatest esteem for the dedication, commitment and professional competence of those who serve in them. Perhaps more than many, I have a keen appreciation for the effort, risk and at times, sacrifice their work involves.

In stark contrast, I have little or no affinity for the “hilltop youth” (with whom the defendant was reportedly associated) — neither with regard to their theo-political ideology nor with the practical methods of operation by which they allegedly strive to implement it.

In large measure, my decidedly non-observant socio-cultural milieu is the antithesis of theirs, with its all-encompassing, faith-based fervor.

Yet, despite my natural proclivities, ever since the fatal torching of the Dawabshehs’ dwelling in the ill-fated village of Duma at the end of July 2015, I have felt a growing uneasiness at the handling of the affair — particularly regarding the official response — read “capitulation” — to the (understandable) outcry of public shock and fury that followed the tragedy.

Sadly, this took the form of what can only be described as a knee-jerk reaction, not only by almost immediately attributing blame for the act to Jewish “terrorists” (despite the absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegation), but by adopting extra-judicial measures to contend with it, similar to those employed against Arab terrorist organizations.

Grave misgivings

I articulated my misgiving in a series of almost ten articles, over a period spanning three and half years. In them, I also underscored the absurdity of the attempt to draw any parallels between transgressions of the Jewish “hilltop youth” and the those of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and hence to the totally unjustifiable denial of due process during their incarceration. See:

Jewish hate crimes and vandalism are NOT terrorism; Trivializing ‘terror’; Duma, ‘dirty dancing’ & deeply disturbing detention; Presumption of guilt; Jewish ‘terror’–A guide for the perplexed; Duma-one year (and three arson attacks) later; The forgotten fire? ; and“Terror”, tigers and tabby cats.

Since then — and particularly after the May 18th conviction — those misgivings have only grown more perturbing.

True, the Lod District Court did find that Ben Uliel did not belong to a terrorist organization — but, somewhat paradoxically, that only made the rationale behind the ruling even more difficult to fathom.

After all, it cast grave doubts on the justification for the use of “enhanced interrogation”, without which it is unlikely that any confession would have been extracted from Ben-Uliel. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no information has been released (read “even exists”) on the identity of the organization he was suspected of belonging to; where its headquarters were; what its sources of funding were; what menacing infrastructure it has/had for staging waves of terrorist activity; what its planned attacks were to be and when/where they were to be carried out?

The “ticking bomb” claim

The latter issue is of crucial importance.

For, despite the vigorous legal debate on the justification of “enhanced interrogation”, the courts have only tended to condone the use of “physical pressure” on detainees if the situation is considered a “ticking bomb” one — i.e. when it is imperative to extract information to prevent an impending terror attack and to save lives that otherwise might well be lost.

Clearly then, if a detainee is not a member of a terrorist organization — but acting on his own, as the Court ruled Ben-Uliel was — he is highly unlikely to constitute a “ticking bomb” — as the very fact that he is in custody would imply that he is unable to perpetrate any planned act of terror. In other words, “enhanced interrogation” is not an admissible measure to be used in resolving acts of terror perpetrated in the past, but may be so when used to prevent an impending one, intended to be perpetrated in the future.

Thus, in an otherwise mealy-mouthed editorial, the Jerusalem Post writes: “There is no reason for the Shin Bet to act to extract a confession at any cost; there is every reason for the security agency to act to obtain the intelligence that can thwart planned violent attacks before [it] can take place…”

Of course, given the grave ex post doubts as to whether he committed the Duma arson, one might well be excused for feeling a puzzled concern over what ex ante suspicions Ben-Uliel’s interrogators entertained regarding some future atrocity he was scheming to commit.

Intentionally false pretexts, or unintentionally false assumptions

Indeed, in a 2018 conference on the enhanced interrogation methods of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), even one far-left, pro-Palestinian activist singled out the Duma episode as one, where use was made of “a ‘ticking bomb [claim]as a reason to torture suspects even when, like in the Duma case, the interrogation is dedicated only to solving a past issue.”

Accordingly, there seems little doubt that permission for “enhanced interrogation” was obtained — if not under intentionally false pretexts — then under unintentionally false assumptions.

Indeed, in this case, the “ticking bomb” claim rings increasingly hollow in light of the fact that Ben-Uliel remained un-apprehended for around six months, during which he never engaged in — and was never accused of engaging in — any other terror-affiliated activity — leaving concerned citizens to ponder over just what “bomb” — if at all — was “ticking” anywhere outside the interrogators’ unbending resolve to bring about a conviction.

There is, of course, considerable justification for the adoption of harsh interrogation methods when there is a genuine and well-founded suspicion that a detainee is withholding information that could prevent a planned terror attack and may save lives. However, its abuse, in instances where there is little indication that this is so, will be seized on by the measure’s opponents and can only work to jeopardize its future use in cases where such belief is far more substantial and substantiated.

Significantly, in a recent media interview, the former Deputy Head of the Shin Bet, Yitzhak Ilan, recalled an incident in which a confession to and even a reenactment of terror attack proved to be false, much to chagrin of many in the law enforcement establishment.

Ilan warned: “When you get a false confession from a suspect and imprison him, you cause damage–[as] the actual terrorist in the field keeps carrying out attacks and the security forces’ alertness drops because you supposedly caught the [culprit]”.

Coerced confession

On the day of the conviction, (May 18), the unequivocally Left-wing daily, Haaretz, reported: “Ben-Uliel confessed to the crime three times. Two of Ben-Uliel’s confessions were ruled inadmissible, the first because it was extracted by physical force and the second because it had been given soon after physical force was used. A third confession was eventually accepted.”

Somewhat bafflingly, the Court dismissed Ben-Uliel’s request that his third confession should also be considered inadmissible — on the eminently plausible grounds that it was only made because he feared being subjected to “enhanced interrogation” again, if he refused to confess to his guilt.

Indeed, some of the statements made by the Court, as reported by the media, are — at least to the layman — both puzzlingly and perturbing.

Thus, the Times of Israel quoted the judges as stating: “We cannot rule out the possibility that this was an act of revenge motivated by racist perceptions held by the defendant, even if he wasn’t a member of an organized terrorist infrastructure.” Similarly, Haaretz noted that: “The judges wrote that they could not rule out that the attack was motivated by a desire for revenge or racism without Ben-Uliel actually being a member of an organized group.”

I wonder if it is only me who finds this formulation appalling! Indeed, it appears to be a total inversion of due process, wherein the judges are imparting dastardly motives to the accused — unless he is able to prove otherwise.

Judicial acrobatics: Bridging gaps between evidence & confession

After all, in our justice system it is not for the accused to definitively rule out any conceivable incriminating “possibility”, but for the prosecution to definitively rule it in — at least beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution cannot do so — and judging by the Court’s somewhat circuitous formulation, it has failed to do so — then it must be ruled out.

Indeed, this is the very essence of the presumption of innocence and the corner stone of the Western justice system.

Unsurprisingly, one member of the defense team excoriated this conduct by the Court, declaring: “After the court accepted the confession and recreation [of the crime] which had been extracted under torture, getting to a conviction was just a matter of judicial acrobatics bridging the confessions with the contradictory evidence which was found in the field.” (See also here.)

Indeed, one of the gravest aspects of the conviction is the stark inconsistencies between all the eyewitness accounts of the arson and the acts admitted by Ben Uliel in his confession, which formed the foundation of his conviction.

Moreover, as we shall see, when such contradictions emerged, the Court seemed eager to provide an alternative explanation to override any benefit, which such contradiction might provide the accused.

When several became one?

Significantly, all witnesses reported that at least two assailants were involved, while Ben-Uliel confessed to acting completely on his own.

Moreover, witnesses reported that the assailants arrived and left the village in two motor vehicles. In his confession, Ben-Uliel claimed he entered and exited the village on foot.

Ironically, even members of the Dawabsheh family were at the time highly skeptical as to the veracity of Ben-Uliel’s confession.

In a July 2016 interview, a year after the lethal arson, Hussein Dawabsheh , grandfather of the infant who died in the blaze, expressed his skepticism at the purported confession. Citing the account of his other grandson, five year old Ahmad, the sole survivor of the attack, he stated: “Ahmad said he saw a number of people. He could not say how many but he talked about several men who beat his father.”

Dawabsheh also wondered how only one man could carry out the attack: “I do not believe it. It needs a number of people — not one or two. Who can enter the village and do this alone. People saw two cars leaving the village.” With considerable justification, he asked: “How can it be one man with two cars? It’s not logical.”

Curiouser and Curiouser?

Indeed, on the very day of the arson (July 31, 2015), several mainstream media entities published numerous reports of eyewitness accounts on what transpired just several hours before. All of them mention multiple assailants.

Thus, for example in the international press:

Amy Davidson of The New Yorker, wrote: “The house had been set on fire by men who… are believed to be Jewish settlers.… Eyewitnesses saw FOUR men, who fled to the settlement of Ma’aleh Efraim.”

Jodi Rudoren and Diaa Hadid, reported in the New York Times: “Two witnesses said they saw TWO masked men outside the house watching as the family burned.”

In the local media:

Jack Khoury, Chaim Levinson, and Gili Cohen told Haaretz readers: “According to witnesses… TWO masked men arrived at two homes in the village of Duma… They spray-painted graffiti… in Hebrew, breaking the windows of the homes and throwing two firebombs inside… Local resident Mesalem Daoubasah said he saw FOUR settlers fleeing the scene, with several local residents following in pursuit…”.

Amira Hass, a radical pro-Palestinian journalist, recounted in Haaretz: “A relative of the Dawabsha family, whose house was torched early Friday in a terror attack that killed 18-month-old Ali Sa’ad Dawabsha, has told Haaretz that he saw TWO masked men standing next to the infant’s parents as they lay burning on the ground outside their home.”

Furthermore, expert graphological examination of the Hebrew graffiti on the walls of torched houses in Duma found a “complete lack of similarity” between Ben Uliel’s handwriting and the graffiti, as well clear indications that the graffiti was written by two different people — contradicting both the claim that Ben Uliel sprayed the grafitti and his confession that he acted alone.

However, according to Haaretz, “In their ruling, the judges wrote that it was impossible to know, based on the evidence they saw, whether there was another perpetrator in the crime. ‘The possibility that the accused is concealing another person who was with him is not unfounded’.”

So, in the absence of any evidence to support the confession, the judges simply speculate there might conceivably be such evidence — but the prosecution merely failed to produce it!!!

Hair-raising stuff this!

As before, the principle of assumption of innocence does not mandate that the defendant prove that possibly incriminating conditions are unfounded. To the contrary, it mandates that the prosecution prove that they are well-founded!

Indeed, this would certainly tend to corroborate the defense’s previous claim that — in order to secure a conviction — the judges were engaged in “judicial acrobatics bridging the confessions with the contradictory evidence which was found in the field.”

But the apparent vagaries in judicial conduct are not the only difficulty that arise with the conviction. There is also the “small” matter of common sense.

Indeed, immediately after Ben Uliel was indicted, Chaim Levinson of Haaretz wrote:

“Apart from the difficulty with the admissibility of the confessions, two additional substantial problems arise. The Shin Bet [Israel’s internal security service] were always convinced that the act was committed by a group. Yet Ben Uliel claims he was alone. Prime facie, his version that he arrived on foot alone, then prepared the fire bomb on the spot and [after torching the houses] fled, raises questions.”

Stretching the bounds of credibility

Levinson points out trenchantly: “No such event of this kind has ever been perpetrated by one person alone. The second problem is the question of the car. During the investigation, an 18-year old man was arrested on suspicion that his car was used in the arson attack. Together with him, another 30-year old man was arrested…In any event, if there are indications that a car was involved in the arson, how did Ben Uliel commit the attack on foot?”

Indeed, the confession, the methods by which it was obtained and the discrepancies with all eyewitness accounts, raise deeply disturbing questions.

For, to give credence to the claim that Ben-Uliel is indeed guilty as charged, what do we necessarily have to believe?

We would have to believe that: Ben-Uliel, a then-recently married man and father of an infant girl, without any Special Forces training; (a) had the “cojones” and skill, not only to walk over five kilometers — late at night — undetected and unarmed, to reach the village; (b) he by-passed numerous, more-exposed, alternative targets on the outskirts of the village; © he managed to infiltrate, again, undetected and unarmed, into the center of an unfriendly village; (d) set one uninhabited building ablaze; (e) then, still undetected, sprayed copious amounts of paint to write the incriminating Hebrew graffiti; (f) then torched the Dawabsheh home; and (f) finally, make a phantom-like escape, egressing the village without trace, never mind being apprehended, leaving no clue to indicate where he had vanished to — all this entirely on his own!! Really?

Ominous and onerous misgivings…

Of course, it should be underscored that he did all this, apparently, without arranging for any back-up contingency for extricating himself, should he be discovered and set upon (read “lynched”) by the inhabitants of the village?

But that’s not all. If Ben-Uliel was merely looking for a random Arab target, why would he not choose a house on the outskirts of the village rather than one in the center, making escape easier? And why would he choose Duma –a village in which the Dawabsheh clan’s homes were being regularly targeted anyway? Perhaps under “enhanced interrogation”, he came up with a plausible answer?

These are all deeply troubling questions, which should be a source of grave concern to every fair-minded citizen of Israel and its advocates abroad.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect raised by the cloud of doubt, enveloping the Duma-related legal proceedings, is the very tangible possibility that the real perpetrators of the gruesome 2015 murders are still roaming around free — secure in the knowledge that someone else will be punished for the atrocity they committed.

We can only hope that the planned appeal will help disperse some of these ominous and onerous misgivings.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

By MARTIN SHERMAN

The recent diatribe by Haaretz’s Rogel Alpher against Israel Prize laureate, Miriam Peretz, must have crippling commercial repercussion; not only cancellation of reader subscriptions but dramatic reduction in advertisers/advertising revenues

For Miriam Peretz, there is one goal in life: Sanctification of death — Rogel Alpher, Haaretz, April 28, 2020, (from the Hebrew).

From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life. — Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV,Nov. 18, 2012.

Explode, onward, explode, and let your soul be liberated.…How beautiful the [explosive] belt is on your waist; anyone who faces you as an enemy will be humiliated. Water your land with blood, when your weapon speaks. Smile on the day of your death as a Martyr…Onward to Paradise, and Allah is the one who will remain for your children — Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV, Nov. 12, 2019.

Of course, Haaretz, an allegedly “Israeli” daily, has every right to print whatever depraved drivel and reprehensible rubbish it wishes. It must, however, be prepared to bear the commercial consequences thereof.

A symbol of the ability to rise above personal tragedy

For decades, under the ludicrous — indeed, almost lewd — pretext of being the “paper for thoughtful readers”, it has given a platform for the grotesque garbage, noxious nonsense and preposterous poppycock of the likes of Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, who regularly condone — or at least, express sympathetic understanding for — Palestinian-Arab terror attacks against Israel/Israelis — while demeaning, de-legitimizing and demonizing Israeli punitive and preemptive countermeasures against it.

But this week (April 28) — on National Memorial Day, when Israel remembers its fallen warriors, it might just have carried its caustic crusade against the Jewish state one outrage too far. On what is arguably the most hallowed date on the national calendar, Haaretz chose to publish a toxic tirade by its arrogant and pompous TV critic, one Rogal Alpher, against Miriam Peretz, arguably one of Israel’s more noble public figures. A twice bereaved mother, Peretz lost two of her sons, Uriel and Eliraz, both IDF officers, killed in action, and her husband, Eliezer, who died at the age of 56, shortly after the death of Uriel, his eldest son — reportedly from an illness brought on by the grief over his loss.

For many, Peretz has become a symbol of the ability to rise above personal sorrow and tragedy and to rally the strength to contribute to others and to Israeli society at large, devoting her life to educating youth and young IDF soldiers on Jewish and Zionist values.

Indeed, her endeavor has been a source of inspiration for many and in recognition of her efforts, she was chosen to light a torch at Israel’s 66th Independence Day ceremony (2014); awarded an honorary doctorate from a leading Israeli university (2016); and received the prestigious Israel Prize (Israel’s highest civilian honor) for Lifetime Achievement (2018).

Vulgar & uncouth assault

Yet, despite this, Rogel launched into his usual vulgar and uncouth assault on anything vaguely reminiscent of Israeli patriotism. Referring to a recent television interview, he ranted: “I do not know whether Miriam Peretz was reading from a teleprompter during the interview or whether she simply has a teleprompter in her heart. But as usual, she managed to irritate me with her articulate presidential rhetoric, both pompous and dramatic, all of which was [nothing more] than slogans, sanctifying the Israeli cult of death and grief” (Translated from the Hebrew).

With his usual “gentlemanly aplomb”, Alpher even decided to exploit the COVID-19 crisis, excoriating Peretz for advocating compliance with the government directive not to visit the gravesides of fallen soldiers — intended to reduce the chances of infection.

Scoffing at her response of “I cherish life” when asked about her position on the “stay-at home” directive, Alpher jeered at her statement that she was careful with her health because, “I want to be able to come to Mt Herzl next year to visit my sons’ graves.”

It is here that Alpher’s distorted, deformed — and indeed, borderline demented — “logic” is on full display, interpreting Peretz’s desire to be able to visit her son’s place of burial as…“sanctifying death”. According to his twisted and tortuous rationale: “Peretz sanctifies life — because only the living can sanctify death.”

I kid you not!! You couldn’t make this stuff up!!! But wait! It gets even weirder!

Cherishing life does not mandate forgetting the dead

Thus, the intrepid Alpher continues: “[For Peretz] life’s goal is sanctification of death. The dead cannot sanctify the dead. They cannot visit graves, or gather around them. That, only the living can do…Accordingly, Peretz sanctifies life so as to be able to continue visiting her sons’ graves.”

Apparently devoid of the mental/emotional capacity to distinguish between a cult of sanctifying death and a natural desire to commemorate departed loved ones, Alpher takes the “art” of the non-sequitur to unprecedented heights: “But this is not sanctifying life. It is the diametric opposite. It is the subjugation of life to the sanctification of death.”

I guess one can only puzzle over how Alpher missed the fact that Peretz has done much more with her life than merely visit her sons’ graves — and apparently has unsurmountable difficulty in grasping that cherishing life does not mandate forgetting the dead.

But undaunted, the obsessive Alpher continues to condemn her understanding attitude towards the prohibition on visits to graveyards on Memorial Day this year, as betraying her alleged sanctification of death. Disdainfully, he sneers: “Another reason she gave for imposing the ‘stay-at home’ decree on herself, which allegedly sanctifies life is ‘so I can sit with my grandchildren at the Shabbat table.’ ”
“

Oblivious to the fact that Israel is the Jewish nation-state?

Alpher is ostensibly flabbergasted by this, reprimanding her: “Not to play with them, not even to be able to enjoy some joint activity with them that does not have some nationalistic-Jewish character to it. For her, ideology is everything.”

Heaven forfend!! How morbid of her. Imagine the horror of it! A Jewish grandmother having the macabre desire to sit with her grandkids at a Shabbat table! Just how obsessed with death can you get???

Apparently oblivious of the fact that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, he exclaims with dismay: “She wants to sit with them around the ‘Shabbat table’ — that ‘Shabbat table’, with all its charged nationalistic-Jewish symbolism. To sit with the next generation in a setting that symbolizes traditional Jewish multi-generational continuity. The ‘Shabbat table’. That is not sanctifying life. That is subjugating the individual to the nation, to turn one into an instrument of the preservation of ‘the people’.”

So, apparently for Alpher, “preservation of the people” is the utter negation of the “sanctification of life”. Gee, I guess he missed the Holocaust. And the pogroms. And the Inquisition And the myriad of other Judeocidal episodes of Jew-baiting with which our history is strewn…

Could he be both so arrogant and so ignorant?

But this is not Alpher’s first abusive assault on Miriam Peretz. His derogatory diatribes against her feature frequently in his numerous Haaretz “articles” (for want of a better word).

Venomous anti-Israel vitriol

One particularly illustrative of instance of his venomous vitriol against Israel, Israelis, and the nation’s most venerated institutions, chillingly — or is that creepily — entitled Israeli Army Chief, the High Priest of Human Sacrifice, published on January 20, 2019, just five days after Lt-Gen. Aviv Kochavi was promoted to be the new IDF Chief-of- Staff.

Derisively, he writes “…the chief of staff is the high priest. He is in charge of the sacrificial ritual — with God at his side, the wind of the Holocaust at his back and the spirits of the fallen surrounding him. That is the holy trinity of the Israeli religion: the Israel Defense Forces, the Holocaust, the Blessed Holy One… This religion sanctifies death and feeds it with the living.”

He then goes on to take a slanderous swipe at Peretz: “That is why there is a growing demand for the appointment of bereaved mother Miriam Peretz as president. She has gained the image of the high priestess of the sanctification of death for the sake of God and for the sake of the state, of justifying it and even seeing it as a positive value that grants supreme existential meaning to the lives of young Israelis. In their death they will fulfill their destiny.”

Perplexing, paradoxical — and perverse

Alpher’s obsession with Israel’s purported sanctification of death is perplexing, paradoxical — and perverse.

After all, Alpher is demonstratively supportive of the Palestinian-Arab cause — leaving us to wonder how endorsing the establishment of yet another misogynistic, homophobic Muslim-majority tyranny (aka a Palestinian state) would advance any of the values to which he professes to subscribe. But beyond that, and even more puzzling, if ever there was a death cult, it is in Palestinian-Arab society.

The sharp dichotomy between the ethos of the two societies — Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine was starkly delineated by former Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich, at a conference of bereaved families. (Intriguingly, Alpher himself quotes the speech in Israel tells itself it sanctifies life to dehumanize Palestinians, but of course, predictably, he rejects its validity.) Alsheich told his audience: “It’s impossible not to sense the difference between the bereavement we see in your eyes and that we have seen intensively in recent years in the eyes of some of our neighbors.”

On the divergent perspectives regarding the sanctity of life in each society, he underscored: “It seems that while we have chosen to sanctify life, to give it meaning, to extol the victims’ contribution to society and the eternal legacy they have bequeathed us, our enemies have chosen to sanctify death.”

Alsheich concluded: “Their hidden message is that life is of no importance, and that by pressing a button or pulling out a knife, it’s possible to move on to a better world… This, in my view, is the antithesis of the values of Israeli society.”

Antithetical societal values

There is, of course, much to support this perspective on the opposing societal credos regarding the sanctity of life and of death.

After all, how else are we to account for the exultation of suicide in Palestinian-Arab society, for the idealization of martyrdom, the lionization of the shahid, for the cynical and callous use of “human shields” against the IDF, the remuneration of convicted Judeocidal terrorists…

Indeed, little can convey the Palestinian-Arabs’ macabre cult of death better than their own words — spine-chillingly reflected in the introductory experts from Hamas’s Al-Aqsa television network: “The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life …Explode, onward, explode, and let your soul be liberated.…How beautiful the [explosive] belt is on your waist; anyone who faces you as an enemy will be humiliated. Water your land with blood, when your weapon speaks. Smile on the day of your death as a Martyr…Onward to Paradise, and Allah is the one who will remain for your children.”

Contrast this with Israel’s emphasis on civil defense to minimize its own civilian casualties, its hyper-sensitivity of fatalities both military and civilian, and the huge expense undertaken to protect the life and limb of its citizens

But Israel also makes inordinate — arguably, excessive — efforts to preserve the lives of enemy civilians.

Thus, in a 2014 interview, Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan unequivocally asserted: “I believe that on the basis of everything that I’ve seen, that everything the IDF does to protect civilians and to stop the death of innocent civilians is a great deal more than any other army, and it’s more than the British and the American armies.”

It would seem then that Alpher has his allegiances and his analyses well and truly backwards!

Not merely a boycott by readers.

For decades, Haaretz, and many of its journalists, have thumbed their noses at all — certainly, at most — of what the majority of Israelis hold dear. Time and time again they have demeaned the Zionist endeavor. The flag, the anthem, the sacrifice, the staggering achievements, its commitment to democratic governance — despite it blemishes…

Thus, as I conceded in the opening paragraph of this column, Haaretz, an allegedly “Israeli” daily, has every right to print whatever depraved drivel and reprehensible rubbish it wishes. It must however be prepared to bear the commercial consequences thereof.

The time has come for retribution, for the paper to pay for the outrageous, offensive and obtuse fare it provides the public, both in Israel and abroad, and for the ample “ammunition” with which it supplies Israel’s most vehement detractors.

This, of course, is not a call to impose governmental censorship on the paper, but to cause it to suffer the ramifications of the ire and the insult it inflicts on the Israeli public.

In the past, public anger has led to some cancellation of subscriptions. But this clearly has not been sufficient. Now more robust and resolute action is called for.

Now is the time to adopt — and adapt — strategies used to pressure FoxNews to oust offending media personalities — by threatening to cut advertising revenue via a consumer boycott of the products of commercial companies that run ads in the paper.

This — vox populi — is the only way to bring this deeply detrimental media vehicle back into a position where it advances, rather than undermines, the public interest.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

By MARTIN SHERMAN

By its unflagging support of the establishment of a homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny (a.k.a. a Palestinian state), America’s allegedly “progressive” Jewry reveals that it is, in fact, profoundly regressive

Benjamin Netanyahu is a failed leader. He has led the State of Israel, once a proud example of a tenacious and highly developed democracy, to the threshold of third-world status. He has failed in his domestic policy and his foreign policy. And a substantial percentage of Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says — Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, in Netanyahu is a colossal failure. But against the coronavirus, he is all Israel has, Haaretz, April 2, 2020.

In the midst of this unprecedented health and financial crisis for Israel, we respectfully urge you not to use the need for unity in the face of emergency to create a different crisis for Israel by moving forward on unilateral annexation — From a letter initiated by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) to Blue & White leaders, Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, signed by over 130 left leaning US Jewish leaders, April 6, 2020.

Such a move would make a two-state solution harder — if not impossible to achieve — and would likely have far-reaching negative consequences for the US-Israel alliance…We cannot overstate the long-term damage such a move would have on the US-Israel alliance…The repercussions would be extremely serious and long-lasting. Most Americans will only support that so long as they believe Israel is committed to pursuing peace — A letter from Mark Mellman and Anne Lewis, president and co-chairwoman of the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) to Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, warning against unilateral annexation in Judea-Samaria, circa April 13, 2020.

April was a bad month for common sense — at least as far as declarations from representatives of allegedly “progressive” US Jewry and purportedly pro-Israel organizations associated with the Democratic Party are concerned.

Appalling, asinine & absurd

Arguably, one of the most appallingly asinine instances of the torrent of pompous and pretentiously pious pontification directed at Israel and Israelis was a recent opinion piece in Haaretz by Eric Yoffie (see introductory excerpt), berating Netanyahu as a “colossal failure”. Indeed, virtually every sentence in the article “elevates” the absurd to heights rarely attained in he past.

Yoffie begins his venomous brew of self-contradictions, non-sequiturs and flights of fancy with a toxic tirade against Benjamin Netanyahu and indirectly against Israeli society as a whole.

According to Yoffie: “Benjamin Netanyahu is a failed leader [who] has led the State of Israel, [from being] a proud example of a tenacious and highly developed democracy, to the threshold of third-world status.”

Yoffie rails on: “He has failed in his domestic policy and his foreign policy. And a substantial percentage of Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says.”

However, despite this, Yoffie concedes: “And yet, not only does he remain Israel’s prime minister, but at the moment he is widely seen as the only figure who can lead Israel through the coronavirus crisis… Bibi, after all, is the man who has governed Israel for the past 11 years, (Israel’s longest-serving premier, Bibi was also in office for three years in the 1990s)”.

Yet despite this, he depicts Netanyahu’s long incumbency as “a period of dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic and social well-being.”

Disdainful and derogatory

This, of course, is a grave indictment of Israel and Israelis and by unavoidable implication, displays utter disdain for the Israeli electorate — and for the Israeli population in general.

After all, if Yoffie was right in his assessment (i.e. that “Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says” and Netanyahu has been responsible for “a period of dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic and social well-being”), then surely the Israeli voters must be both masochistic and moronic. For what other reason could there be for them to keep reelecting a leader so “unequivocally” mendacious and incompetent.

Curiously, it was well into Netanyahu’s second incumbency that Israel acceded to the prestigious organization of the world’s most developed countries, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and, despite stiff, opposition the country became a significant energy exporter.

Under his stewardship, Israel has become one of the best performing economies in the world — with GDP per capita breaching the $40,000 mark for the first time ever in 2017, up sharply by over 45% since 2009, when he was first re-elected after losing power in 1999. Indeed, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), today Israel has overtaken France, Britain and Japan in terms of GDP per capita — something unimaginable not many years ago

This is a “dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic …well-being”? Really?

The pot calling the kettle black?

In stark contrast to Yoffie’s glum assessment of Israel’s socio-economic progress after almost a decade under the allegedly “inept” Netanyahu-led governments, the OECD itself describes Israel’s development, in glowing terms: “Israel’s economy continues to register remarkable macroeconomic and fiscal performance. Growth is strong and unemployment low and falling. With low interest rates and price stability, financial policy is prudent, and public debt is comparatively low and declining.”

According to the OECD’s report: “[Israel’s] external position is solid, thanks to a dynamic high-tech sector. The average standard of living is improving, mainly due to higher employment rates. Continued accommodative macro policies and planned investments in the offshore gas fields in the coming years will spur further growth.”

Of course, the dimwitted Israelis, who, by Yoffie’s account are teetering on the brink of a third-world tyranny, are far too dumb to realize in what a perilous situation they are in. Thus, the OECD report concluded: “Against this backdrop, Israelis remain on average more satisfied with their lives than residents of most other OECD countries.”

Significantly, in this regard, Israel was slated number eleven in the 2018 Happiness Survey, released every year by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, coming in just below the top ten, which included (in descending order): Finland Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia — none of which are facing the harrowing existential challenges faced by Israel.

Thus, Israel easily outpaced Yoffie’s own country, the United States, which was in 18th place. Likewise, he berates Israel’s health services as being “near collapse”. However, if one assumes the life expectancy is largely determined by the level of medical services and social support, it is interesting to note the 2019 UN Development Report ranked Israel 9th out of over 200 countries, well above a host of Western European countries and almost thirty (!) places above the United States, in the 38th place.

Could the pot be calling the kettle black??

A truly transformative leader?

Of course, Netanyahu — like every mortal on the planet — is not irreplaceable or unblemished, but his record indicates that he is by far the most capable candidate to lead Israel in these challenging times — as even Yoffie is compelled to concede.

Indeed, in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

This is clearly the case not only in the economic sphere, but in security and diplomacy as well.

He has drastically reduced Palestinian terror from the horrific levels he “inherited” from the Rabin-Peres era — and, despite occasional flare-ups, he has largely managed to contain it to hardly perceptible proportions — certainly nowhere near the grisly scale that prevailed under his predecessors.

In terms of foreign policy, he has produced remarkable success. He managed to wait out the inclement incumbency of Barack Obama, emerging largely unscathed — despite the undisguised antipathy between the two men.

His views on Iran and its perilous nuclear ambitions have been embraced by the Trump administration. He has managed to initiate far-reaching changes in Middle East politics, with increasingly amicable — albeit, as yet, only semi-overt — relations with important Arab states, inconceivable several years ago, while sidelining — or at least, significantly reducing — the centrality of the intractable “Palestinian problem”.

He has overseen Israel’s “pivot” eastwards, and burgeoning relationships with the ascendant economies of India and China, increasingly offsetting Israel’s commercial dependence on the oft less-than-benign EU. He also has scored remarkable diplomatic successes in Africa and South America.

Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe, driving a wedge into the otherwise widespread European animus towards Israel.

Small minded endeavor to diminish achievements

Yet despite Netanyahu’s impressive record of achievement, Yoffie embarks on a smallminded and meanspirited endeavor to dismiss them. Belittling his warm relations with world leaders, his success in getting the US to adopt his perspective on the Iran nuclear issue, his success in reducing the once horrific levels of terror and his developing contacts with the Arab-Sunni worlds, Yoffie sneers: “Bibi has produced a record that is, by any measure, a miserable one.”

Significantly, Yoffie is at a loss to explain why a country, that is on the cutting edge of almost all fields of human endeavor, repeatedly “shoots itself in the foot” by time and again voting into power a leader, whose record is “by any measure, a miserable one”.

He produces a motley mélange of unpersuasive excuses for a lack of realistic competitors from both Right ([Bibi] has destroyed potential rivals on the right by his ruthless control of… the right-wing bloc) and Left (Barak was “…politically inept”, Herzog “…insufficiently tough” ; Gantz “… weak and indecisive…”)

Of course, the real reason for Yoffie’s chronic Bibiphobia is only thinly disguised, something he gives away about halfway through the article: The “Palestinians”.

He laments: “Deal of the Century’ practically forgotten, Bibi has shown no interest in any alternative arrangement — if not peace, then at least separation that would offer the Palestinians a degree of stability and dignity.”

This leaves us to puzzle over just how much “stability and dignity” separation has provided the “Palestinians” in Gaza — with many awash in a untreated sewage, with polluted water supplies, with perennial power outages and under the yoke of the oppressive, dysfunctional Islamist tyranny of Hamas.

As to why separation is likely to produce anything more “stable and dignified” in Judea-Samaria, Yoffie offers nary a clue.

Pursuing a pipe-dream

Significantly, the Trump Plan and the Palestinians constitute the link that brings us to the other “progressive” caveats directed at the Israeli leadership.

The first is a letter (April 6, 2020) initiated by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), an organization that aims to “shape the discourse and mobilize support among American Jewish leaders and U.S. policymakers for the realization of a viable two-state solution.”

Addressed to Blue & White leaders, Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, and signed by over 130 left leaning US Jewish leaders, it proclaims: “We have strongly objected to Israel unilaterally annexing West Bank territory and applying sovereignty to Jewish settlements, whether according to the parameters of the Trump plan or any other similar proposal, at any point in time.”

The IPF letter warns “To unilaterally move forward with such a plan now would be particularly damaging. It will call into question the Israeli government’s priorities during a global and national emergency, shine a spotlight on controversial Israeli policies… and could create a rupture inside of Congress and in the upcoming presidential campaign….”

According to the IPF signatories, such a unilateral initiative “will be viewed as political opportunism by proponents of annexation during the worst possible moment and will make it more challenging for American Jewish leaders as they seek to maintain strong support for Israel and pro-Israel policies at this time.

The second is a letter (circa April 13, 2020) from the president and co-chairwoman of the Democratic Majority for Israel, whose goal is to “Promote a Two-State Solution and Arab-Israeli Peace through Diplomacy and Partnership.”

Addressed to Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, it warns against unilateral annexation in Judea-Samaria: “Such a move would make a two-state solution harder — if not impossible to achieve — and would likely have far-reaching negative consequences for the US-Israel alliance… We cannot overstate the long-term damage such a move would have on the US-Israel alliance…The repercussions would be extremely serious and long-lasting. Most Americans will only support that so long as they believe Israel is committed to pursuing peace .”

When “progressive” means “regressive”

It is of course, a long-standing conundrum why so called “progressives”, who purportedly cherish liberal values of societal pluralism and individual freedoms would cling to support for a Palestinian state. After all, such a state, if it were to emerge, would almost certainly be yet another homophobic misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny and the utter antithesis of all to which they claim to subscribe. Yet impervious to factual precedents and future probabilities they adhere doggedly to their flawed dogma.

This was aptly described by Jonathan Tobin in a recent opinion piece, A disingenuous debate about annexation. He ends it with these words: Living in the past and clinging to the false hopes of the 1990s won’t build support for Israel or nurture the alliance between the two democracies. It’s long past time for liberal American Jews, even the old Oslo-cheering squad, to accept the reality of Palestinian rejectionism and the permanence of the West Bank settlements, whether or not they believed that they were a good idea in the first place.

He points out: Trying to undermine the new Israeli government or setting the stage for a conflict with the Democrats should Trump lose in the fall isn’t consistent with their claim of being ardent supporters of the Jewish state. Nostalgia for the illusions of the past should never be confused with activism that actually helps Israel.

He is of course, quite right. By its unflagging support of the establishment of a homophobic, misogynistic tyrannical political entity (a.k.a. a Palestinian state), America’s allegedly “progressive” Jewry reveals that it is, in fact, profoundly regressive.

That is the real paradox that Eric Yoffie should set about resolving.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

Edelstein drew a much-needed line in the sand against judicial intrusion into the sphere of the legislature and thwarted yet another attempt at the usurpation of both its autonomy and authority

The High Court ruling constitutes crude and arrogant intervention of the judiciary in the matters of the elected legislature. The High Court decision causes unprecedented harm to the people’s sovereignty and the Knesset’s sovereignty. The High Court decision undermines the foundations of Israeli democracy. As a democrat, as a Zionist Jew, as someone who fought against dark regimes, and as the speaker of parliament, I consider the High Court decision to be a grave, mistaken decision demonstrating a dangerous moral breakdown. — From Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein’s resignation statement, March 25, 2020.

The [High] Court is getting into waters that are too deep. Into a treacherous swamp of political opinions and beliefs. And this is dangerous both for the country and for the Court. It is dangerous for the country because it exacerbates social rifts. And it is dangerous for the Court because the Court is losing the principle foundation on which it must base its standing: The belief in its neutrality of the judicial system in public disputes — because when the Court represents a certain opinion, no matter how progressive, it enrages a significant section of the public…However, I must say that the Court contributes to creating this situation in that it inserts itself into areas where it has no place. It takes upon itself to decide on matters…which should be decided in the Knesset. — Justice Moshe Landau, former President of Israel’s High Court, Haaretz, October 6, 2000.

In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded… as political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court. As a result, the court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda… — Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Harvard University Press, 2004.

These three excerpts, spanning two decades, encapsulate precisely the setting of the political drama that unfolded late last week, when then-Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein refused to comply with a High Court decision, compelling him to convene the Knesset plenary for the appointment of a new post-election Speaker to succeed him — and instead chose to resign in protest against what he saw as inappropriate — even malign — encroachment into the sphere of the legislature.

Rage fueled by frustration and envy

In the wake of the delay in convening the Knesset, and under the weight of pressures generated by the COVID-19 outbreak, the main opposition party to PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Blue & White, broke apart. with about half its members opting to join in a Netanyahu-led coalition for 18 months — after which Blue & White’s head, Benny Gantz, would take over the role of Prime Minister.

This abruptly scuttled the Bibiphobic hope of Netanyahu’s many adversaries — which until then, appeared so tantalizingly close to fruition — of prising loose his seemingly iron grip on the premiership. Almost immediately, a commensurate rage, fueled by years of frustration and envy soon erupted.

A veritable maelstrom of frothing-at-the mouth invective was hurled at him from erstwhile colleagues of Benny Gantz.

For example, M.K. Yair Lapid, formerly Gantz’s number two in Blue & White, now head of the remnant Yesh Atid-Telem faction, together with M.K. Moshe (Bogey) Ya’alon, railed: “When the Speaker of the Knesset violates a High Court order that is anarchy. Netanyahu sent Edelstein to burn down democracy…”

Similarly, M.K. Ofer Shelach, ostensibly Lapid’s right hand man, fulminated: “Edelstein demeans the High Court. This is an attempt to obstruct the Knesset…for the basest of political and personal motives…”

Neither capricious nor partisan

Labor M.K. Merav Michaeli accused Edelstein of “humiliating the Supreme Court”, charging that “this constitutional crisis is the bottom of the barrel, which we have reached over ten years of a slippery slope during Netanyahu’s corrupt rule.”

M.K. Eli Avidar of the purportedly “Right-wing” Yisrael Beitenu, headed by the recalcitrant Avigdor Liberman, a bitter Netanyahu foe, joined in the condemnation of Edelstein: “I feel personally angry. I saw what Edelstein said. To claim that the High Court is destroying Israeli democracy is the last nail in the coffin of statehood. Edelstein resigned to give Netanyahu an additional 48 hours. He simply misappropriated the Knesset plenary…”

Indeed, if it is at all possible that the anyone could generate the level of hatred that the Left harbors for PM Benjamin Netanyahu, it would Edelstein, post-resignation.

However, Edelstein’s action was not as capricious or partisan as his opponents tried to portray it.

After all, as the government had not yet been formed, compliance with the Court order could well have precipitated an unprecedented — and intolerable — situation, in which there would have been a parliamentary Speaker opposed to the ruling government coalition.

In his defiance, Speaker Edelstein drew a much-needed line in the sand against judicial intrusion into the sphere of the legislature and thwarted yet another attempt at the usurpation of both its autonomy and authority.

Eroding the notion of parliament as sovereign

Indeed, he could draw on the words of former High Court President, Moshe Landau, for endorsement of his position. In an interview with Haaretz, Landau condemned the process of ongoing judicial overreach: “The judges are taking on a role which they cannot perform and which they have not been trained to fulfill; because they have been trained to adjudicate, not to govern. Moreover, we have here an erosion of the idea of the parliament as sovereign. We have here a setting of the Court above the parliament…”

A similar sentiment was recently articulated by Haaretz columnist, Dr. Gadi Taub, in Israel’s Supreme Court Rigs the Game Again. In it, Taub, a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes: “It’s hard to blame those who think that Israel’s Supreme Court is in reality the left’s legal team. The recent ruling regarding the petition against Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, forcing him to conduct a vote on his own replacement, certainly didn’t do much to diminish the feeling that the game is rigged in the left’s favor.”

He elaborates: “In this case the Supreme Court decided that in the name of ‘the foundations of the structure of our parliamentary system’ and to prevent damage to ‘the fabric of democratic life,’ it can violate the separation of powers and ignore the Basic Law: The Knesset, which states that only the legislature can set its own rules. It has decided to force Speaker Edelstein to call a vote on his replacement — even though according to the Knesset rules he has no obligation to do so before a new government is sworn in.”

Judiciary’s “doomsday weapon”

He goes on to expose the pretext underlying the unrelenting process of judicial overreach: “…when the court wants to impose its progressive judges’ tastes and values and cannot find a hook for it in any Basic Law, it resorts to the mysterious ‘fundamental principles of the system,’ which are said to be implied, though never stated…When these phrases are used, it’s a sure sign that the court is about to violate the principle of the separation of powers or run roughshod over explicit legislation. This is the doomsday weapon in the court’s arsenal, and it is reserved for cases when there is a clear and present danger to the fundamental principles of the left.”

Thus, Taub laments bitterly, echoing a claim I have raised in numerous previous columns (see here, here & here) “…the court has overruled the law repeatedly to permit the Joint List to run on this anti-Zionist platform. So now a majority obtained by deception and reliant on the votes of a party that seeks to dismantle ‘Zionist colonialism’ is going to rig the game in favor of the progressive left.”

Thus, contrary to the outraged howls of indignation of his critics, by his courageous and principled stance, Edelstein has contributed greatly to the defense of Israeli democracy, in general, and to the bed-rock democratic principle of separation of powers, in particular.

Likewise, his actions foiled — at the eleventh hour — an egregious endeavor to set up a minority government dependent on the anti-Zionist, dominantly Arab Joint List, openly dedicated to the dismantling of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and associated with the country’s most virulent enemies.

For this, he deserves the nation’s praise — and gratitude.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

The false façade of Blue & White was even more friable and fragile than anyone imagined; under the assault of recalcitrant reality, even the fast-drying Bibiphobic glue proved unable to hold things together.

Just over a year ago, immediately after the announcement of the union between Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, and the establishment of the Blue & White party (Feb. 21, 2019), I published a column, entitled: Gantz-Lapid’s directionless ad hoc political concoction (Feb. 22, 2019).

Perverse political entity

In it, I predicted that “… it is not easy to envisage great cohesion and sense of purpose in the party ranks regarding multiple issues that are bound to arise after the elections–whether in the security, diplomatic or socio-economic spheres — and whether the Blue & Whites find themselves in government or opposition.”

This of course, was not really a difficult conclusion to draw. Indeed, any mediocre political scientist, with a minimal grasp of the fundamentals of his professional discipline, should not have had any problem arriving at it. After all, as I pointed out, even a cursory “glance at the composition of the Blue & White list reveals it to be a highly anomalous — the less charitable might say “perverse” — political entity”.

Indeed, rather than being a body that “coalesced around some ideo-intellectual credo or consensus — however remote — on some socio-political or strategic agenda, there is now little doubt that the centripetal forces that brought Blue & White’s disparate components together, comprised little more than an anti-Netanyahu sentiment: Some bear him a grudge because of a past affront they felt he had inflicted on them; others appear to harbor an aversion to him, on a personal basis rather than due to any substantive disagreement over policy.”

Thus, within the “same political framework, we find a Labor Union leader alongside a champion of free market competition; hardline hawks as well as left-leaning doves….”

Zionism poised on a knife edge.

As it turns out, the false façade of Blue & White was even more friable and fragile than I thought it to be. For it cracked and crumbled even before any substantive decisions on security or socio-economic policy were called for. Indeed, under the assault of recalcitrant reality, even the fast-drying Bibiphobic glue proved unable to hold things together.

Thus, on Thursday (March 27, 2020), barely thirteen months after its inception, and the great fanfare and Bibiphobic hope that accompanied it, Blue & White ceased to exist as a serious competitor to the Likud. Benny Gantz threw his political lot in with a Netanyahu-led Right-wing coalition.

But until that dramatic and unexpected moment, it would be little exaggeration to say that the entire Zionist endeavor was poised on a knife edge. Indeed, it appeared increasingly likely that the Blue & White leadership was prepared to undertake precisely what it solemnly undertook not to — in repeated pledges to the electorate.

For, there seemed little doubt that the party had crossed the psychological and ideological Rubicon and was prepared to provide the anti-Zionist, dominantly Arab Joint List unprecedented access to positions of governmental power and influence in charting the future of the Jewish nation-state — in ways hitherto unimaginable.

“Disgraceful decision”

Thus, last Tuesday (March 24, 2020), the Joint List was assigned chairmanship of the Knesset Labor, Welfare and Health Committee, the responsibilities of which include a number of security-related matters pertaining to the handling of wounded IDF veterans and victims of terrorism.

The decision to establish the committee was made by the Knesset Arrangements Committee, which was chaired by Blue & White.

In recent years, the committee has overseen the regulation of compensation for wounded Israeli soldiers and veterans, as well as medical and income benefits for soldiers, members of the Israel Police and the Israel Prison Service. The committee also oversees pension funds and savings plans for government institutions, into which the pension funds of everyone who serves in the IDF and Israel’s other security branches are deposited.

The committee also has the authority to revoke the National Insurance benefits and other stipends of convicted terrorists and their families.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision to entrust the work of the committee to representatives of the Joint List, which opposes Israel being defined as a Jewish state and whose members openly identify with its most vehement enemies, a “disgrace.”

“…female soldiers not my issue.”

Making the appointment even more outlandish was the fact that the person selected to head the committee was Joint List MK Aida Touma Suleiman, who not only publicly called for the “Law of Return” to be revoked, but prescribed that the way to reduce Jewish victims of Arab terror would be for Jews to leave their ancient home land — apparently unmindful of how “splendidly” that formula worked in Gaza…Indeed, Suleiman even had the gall to accuse the late Ari Fuld of “executing” his Arab assailant — who fatally stabbed him in the back — when, despite his wounds, managed to shoot his attacker preventing any further victims.

Just what might be expected from Suleiman as the newly appointed chair, can be inferred from her past conduct as chair of the less influential Knesset Committee for the Advancement of the Status of Women and Gender Equality, where she refused to allow a debate on the issues facing female IDF soldiers.

Her “reasoning” for this was, according to Suleiman: “I didn’t serve in the military, there’s no one in my vicinity who is serving in the military, I don’t know what the problems are there and it’s not on my agenda…The issue of female soldiers is not my issue.”

Of course, none of this was unknown to the folks at Blue & White. However, undeterred, they proceeded to appoint Suleiman to the Chair of the influential committee.

Near metamorphosis: From Blue & White to Red & Green

But it is not only the radical views of some of the Joint List MKs that makes Blue & White’s near affiliation with the Red & Green (Leftist-Islamist) alliance of Joint List so puzzling and perverse.

Indeed, as a collective political faction, the official party platform of the Joint List not only blatantly violates the conditions for participation in Knesset elections, as set out in Clause 7A of the Basic Law: The Knesset; but if anything it violates — to an even greater degree — Blue & White’s professed Zionist credentials.

Thus, in Article 1 in the platform, under “Fundamental Principles”, we learn that the Joint List supports (among other things) (a) Israel relinquishing the Golan Heights, (b) the Right of Return; © uprooting all the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria; and (d) the division of Jerusalem. It reads: “The Joint List will fight for a just peace in the region, based on the United Nations’ resolutions, and calling for: an end the occupation of all territories conquered in 1967; the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and the racist separation fence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the release of all political prisoners; the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem; and finding a just solution for the problem of the Palestinian refugees which assures the right of return in accordance with [the] UN General Assembly Resolution 194.”

From Blue & White to Red & Green (cont.)

In Article 2, The Joint List clearly rejects Israel as the nation state of the Jews:

“The Joint List will fight for full national and civic equality for the Arab-Palestinian public in Israel as a native minority with collective and individual rights. The list will demand recognition of the Arab public as a national minority with the right to self-administration in the fields of culture, education, and religion, as part of the Arab-Palestinian people and the Arab nation. [emphasis added — MS.]”

But the Joint List not only rejects the Jewish character of Israel, it also opposes any effort on the part of the Arab sector to contribute to it defense. Thus, Article 2 continues: “[The Joint List] will fight to annul compulsory military service for the Arab-Druze community, and against all programs of military recruitment and national service for young Arab people…”

Yet, astonishingly, despite all this, Blue & White MK Moshe (Bogey) Ya’alon, former IDF Chief-of-Staff, and ostensibly the leader of the hawkish faction in the party, came out with the staggering post-election declaration: “The election results put us in the position of choosing which election promise to break. In this situation, removing Netanyahu is the main goal. We have no choice but to rely on the Joint List.”

Strange political bedfellows

Indeed, arguably, one of the saddest spectacles in Israel’s political theater today is the unravelling of Yaalon’s public image .

Driven by a sense of personal affront at the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, who due to coalition exigencies, replaced him as Defense Minister with Avigdor Liberman, offering him the Foreign Affairs portfolio (which he refused), Yaalon has descended into mire of petulant pique and pettiness, coupled with a vicious vindictiveness — that has lost him the esteem of many who once held him in highest regard.Indeed, today Ya’alon is so infused with a desire to inflict vengeance on Netanyahu that he would rather to collaborate with the anti-Zionist “Red-Green” Joint List, than support a unity government headed by Netanyahu — including a rotation arrangement with his hitherto colleague, Benny Gantz.

Thus, although Netanyahu has guided Israel for over a decade through stormy seas, notching up numerous noteworthy (even remarkable) achievements, Ya’alon apparently sees his continued incumbency as a greater danger to the Jewish state than the Joint List, a faction openly committed to dismantling Israel as a Jewish state. Moreover, some of the Joint List members, such as Mansour Abbas, publicly call for introducing Sharia law in Israel, permitting polygamy for its Muslim citizens and lifting the quarantine on the Hamas ruled Gaza — see also here.

They and Ya’alon certainly make strange — indeed, bizarre — political bedfellows.

The perils — and curse — of “baseless hatred”

Watching the emergence of these astounding political developments, one is inexorably drawn to the words of the Babylonian Talmud, (Yoma 9:B) on the gravity of the perils — and the curse — of baseless hatred among the Jewish people: Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three things which prevailed there: idolatry, illicit sexual relations, bloodshed… But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that in its time they occupied themselves with Torah, mitzvot [religious observance] and acts of charity? Because baseless hatred prevailed. This teaches you that baseless hatred is equal to the three sins of idolatry, illicit sexual relations and murder.

There seems little more to add.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

In stark contrast to Netanyahu, Ehud Olmert was indicted on existing interpretation of the law, no “creative” legal precedents were needed to prosecute him, there were no claims of selective prosecution, or allegations of police investigatory misconduct.

…indictment is not evidence of guilt and does not detract from the presumption that the accused is innocent –Nathan Lewin -a leading US attorney with over 55 years’ experience in trial and appellate litigation in federal courts, March 6, 2020.

…the danger in the novel legal theories introduced by Mandelblit is stark. The criminal charges against the prime minister lack legal substance, and they threaten both the rule of law in Israel and the health of its democracy. — Prof Avi Bell, Tablet Magazine, February 28, 2019.

The coronavirus has largely overshadowed all other topics in the media and almost completely displaced any mention of Netanyahu’s upcoming legal challenges.

Bibi must be complicit in COVID-19 outbreak…

Indeed, upon reflection, perhaps the strangest element of the media coverage of the looming epidemic is that no one has seriously suggested that the entire COVID-19 outbreak is a fiendishly cunning ploy by Netanyahu to deflect public attention from his imminent trial, set to open in the coming weeks.

After all, what better proof could there be that Bibi must be complicit in the global pandemic than the fact that it has eclipsed any almost any and all media coverage of the Prime Minister’s impending trial?

As far-fetched as this tongue-in-cheek barb might appear, it does help convey just how outlandish the proportions to which the “Any-One-but Bibi” syndrome have grown and the unscrupulous lengths to which Netanyahu’s chronically Bibiphobic political adversaries are willing to go in their anti-democratic efforts to remove him from office.

Indeed, flummoxed and infuriated by their inability to dislodge him from power via the ballot box and by their failure to find a candidate capable of displacing him on his/hers electoral merits, his political opponents have embarked on a sustained, seemingly obsessive effort to remove him from office by any other means they can concoct/conjure up.

If they were to succeed in this egregious endeavor, it would inflict a mortal blow on the fabric of Israeli democracy. But more on that somewhat later.

Suffice it to state at this stage that the attempt to disqualify Netanyahu from office, despite the fact that he has been overwhelmingly reaffirmed by members of his party and by the general public as the most favored and suited candidate to lead the nation, is becoming increasingly acute in view of the harrowing challenges facing the country — to which, now, the ominous threat of the COVID-19 scourge must be added..

“…the appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution not met”

At least two features of the “Bag Bibi” saga standout as of particular note.

The first is that charges were made at all — at least in terms of criminal infractions of the law.

The second is that, by the prosecution’s own admission, the charges –at least the most serious one, that of bribery — could not be made on the basis of well-established legal practice and to do so required invoking “innovative” (read “contrived”), hitherto unprecedented interpretations of the law.

As to the former, a battery of prominent legal experts, both in the US and Israel, have not only expressed puzzlement at Netanyahu’s indictment, but have called for Israel’s Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit, to drop the charges!

For example, in an Op-Ed entitled Voters, Not the Police or the Courts, Should Decide Netanyahu’s Future, published in Haaretz shortly before the March, 2019 election, Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University and one of the leading legal authorities in the US, expressed grave reservations as to the merits of the then-proposed indictments of Netanyahu.

He wrote: “The issue at the center of these investigations seems trivial against the background of the existential crises Israel is facing…The first probe, also known as case 1000, involves gifts of cigars and champagne Netanyahu received from close friends…I strongly believe that the appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution have not been met in the cigar and champagne case against Netanyahu… The other investigations (dubbed 2000 and 4000) pose even greater dangers to democratic governance and civil liberties… In both cases, the prime minister is essentially being investigated for allegedly trying to push the media — with long histories of attacking him and his family — to be fairer…”

The dangers to democracy and press freedom

He then went on to warn of the dangers of democracy and press freedom entailed in the then brewing legal action against Netanyahu: “…what we are left with is an exploration of motives… [which] are not the kinds of questions that prosecutors and police should be empowered to ask elected officials and media moguls as a part of a criminal investigation…The relationship between politics and the media — and between politicians and publishers — is too nuanced, subtle and complex to be subject to the heavy hand of criminal law…police and prosecutors should not intrude on this complex, messy and nuanced relationship between politics and the media, except in cases of clear and unambiguous financial corruption well beyond what is alleged in the current cases… to criminalize these political differences is to endanger democracy and freedom of the press.”

Significantly, in an apparent effort to discredit the views it published by Dershowitz, or undermine their professional authority and/or objectivity, Haaretz found it necessary to add to Dershowitz’s credit-line at the end of the article giving his professional/academic credentials, that he had provided legal services to corporations controlled by Sheldon Adelson, who is known to be a strong benefactor of Netanyahu. I cannot recall this practice being employed for any other Op-Ed in the paper. If readers can provide such other examples, I would be more than intrigued to learn of them.

“…compellingly require dismissal of all charges…”

Almost a year later, Dershowitz made the following powerful argument against the Netanyahu indictments: “If somebody were to introduce legislation saying that it is a crime for a politician to seek good coverage and it came for a vote, it wouldn’t get a single vote in the Knesset. And that’s the best proof that it shouldn’t be prosecuted as a crime under today’s law.”

Dershowitz was also one of the members of a high-profile legal team that submitted a comprehensive legal brief to Mandelblit arguing that allowing favorable media coverage to be considered bribery represents a “dangerous threat” that will “cripple freedom of the press, suppress free speech and impair democratic political purposes.”

The brief’s other authors — Nathan Lewin, who has tried numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see opening excerpt) ; Richard Heideman; Joseph Tipograph; and Avi Bell(see opening excerpt) — contend that: “There has never been a single case in the democratic world in which a public figure was prosecuted, let alone convicted, of the “crime” of receiving a requested “bribe” of favorable publicity. Non-defamatory publicity favorable to a candidate or critical of his or her opponent has not, to our knowledge, ever generated a criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, the brief’s authors conclude that “the considerations presented in this Memorandum…in the opinion of undersigned counsel… compellingly require dismissal of all charges asserting “bribery” in any form.”

No precedent in the democratic world

Bolstering this unequivocal conclusion was its ringing endorsement by no less than ten additional prominent academics and practitioners of law. They wrote:

I/We have read the Legal Memorandum/Brief and Comparative Legal Analysis filed by Lewin, Dershowitz, Heideman, Bell and Tipograph, and are of the opinion that viewing positive media coverage as a sufficient “thing of value” to serve as the basis of a criminal charge of bribery threatens to chill protected speech, and constitutes a danger to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and democracy more generally. We are unaware of any precedent in the democratic world in which owners or members of the press have been convicted of bribery for the act of giving positive coverage in expectation of an official act being carried out in exchange.

• Larry Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego
• Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University
• Pascal Markowitz, Attorney at the Paris Bar
• Joel T. Griffith, Esq. DC Chair, Young Jewish Conservatives
• Marc Greendorfer, President, Zachor Legal Institute
• Arthur F. Fergenson, Senior Counsel, Ansa Assuncao LLP
• F.R. Jenkins, Esq., Meridian 361 International Law Group
• Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
• David Schoen, Attorney-at-Law
• Harvey A. Silverglate, lawyer and writer, of counsel to Boston’s Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP

Ironically, another firm endorsement of the Memorandum’s position came from a rather unexpected source, from none other than the then-State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan — the very individual who led the legal action against Netanyahu.

Creating crimes?

This emerges clearly from an interview with Nitzan, in May 2019. In it, he as good as admitted that Netanyahu could not be indicted on the basis of well-established legal practice — and to do so, new legal precedents needed to be invoked. In other words, to indict Netanyahu, it was necessary to criminalize deeds that were never considered criminal in the past.

Thus, during the interview, Nitzan was asked: “The determination that positive media coverage should be considered “bribery” is a legal precedent. Is it appropriate to set such a precedent for the first time in a case against a prime minister?”

His stunning, almost self-contradictory, response was: “Every legal precedent has to begin at some point. For example, in Case 4000 [involving positive coverage in the Walla site], there was no disagreement and everyone agreed that it was right to indict on bribery, despite the fact that it did not involve envelopes filled with cash, but influencing media coverage. So, just because it involves the prime minister, we should delay the precedent for another time? I do not think that this decision involves a widening of the charge of bribery or breach of trust.”

This, of course, leaves one to puzzle over how, if the decision was in fact unprecedented, could it possibly not involve “widening the charges”?

Olmert vs. Netanyahu — the qualitative chasm

In addition to all these deeply disturbing factors, there is perturbing and persuasive evidence of selective prosecution, in which incumbent politicians undertook identical — or at least very similar –pursuit of favorable coverage with nary an indictment being filed against them.

Arguably even more troubling, are persistent reports of police misconduct, mistreatment and extortion of witnesses to obtain incriminating statements against Netanyahu .

All this should be born in mind when comparing the case of Ehud Olmert, and that of Netanyahu. Olmert, who served as Israel’s Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, was imprisoned for 16 months for bribery and obstruction of justice during his terms as mayor of Jerusalem and as trade minister.

Indeed, Netanyahu is often confronted with his 2008 demand from Olmert to resign, claiming that: “a prime minister up to his neck in investigations has no public or moral right to make fateful decisions for the country, because the suspicion exists… that he will make decisions in the interests of his personal political survival and not on the basis of the national interest.”

Understandably, this ostensibly creates an awkward situation for Netanyahu, exposing him to charges of hypocrisy and double standards — and calls for him to step aside putting the country’s national interest before his personal ones.

Both the comparison and calls are misplaced.

For there is a sharp qualitative difference between the two cases.

Olmert, in stark contrast to Netanyahu, was indicted on existing interpretation of the law; no “creative” legal precedents were needed to be invoked to prosecute him; there was no claim of selective prosecution, or allegations of police investigatory misconduct. Olmert was strongly pressured by members of both his party and his coalition partners to resign. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is strongly urged not to…

A mortal blow to Israeli democracy

All these factors lead to one inescapable conclusion.

If Netanyahu is forced to step down under the weight of these “dubious” (to be charitable) indictments, it will be a mortal blow to the fabric of Israeli democracy.

For it will indelibly demonstrate, that any democratically elected leader, no matter how popular or how towering his achievements, can be deposed by the vindictive whims of a politically inimical civil society elite, using its position of power and privilege to circumvent the will of the people.

This an outcome that must be avoided at all costs.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

The tenets of “defensive democracy” require Israel to act against those who would use its democracy to undermine the very foundations on which it is founded.

Clause 7A of Basic Law: Knesset:

a. A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
2. incitement to racism;
3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.

Israel’s declaration of Independence:
On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel…This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State…. Accordingly, we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement… hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

Two recent events underscored just how distorted the democratic practice in the nation-state of the Jews has become, and how detached it has become from the laws that are purported to regulate it.

The sacrosanct taboo?

The first was the unanimous disqualification by the Knesset’s Central Election Committee of the newly formed party of Larissa Trimbobler-Amir, wife of Yigal Amir imprisoned for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

As heinous one might believe the actions for which Amir was convicted may be, questioning the official version is not by any stretch of the imagination an expression of support for a foreign power or a terror organization, a denial of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, nor an incitement to racism.

However, articulating any doubt as to the validity of the official version of the Rabin assassination is a sacrosanct taboo in Israeli society. Violating it almost inevitably imperils both the professional and personal standing of any foolhardy heretic — as the unfortunate Islamic scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar recently discovered. (Indeed, I might be skating on thin ice myself by merely writing these innocuous few lines.)

Significantly, Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit, who last year recommended precluding Right-wing Otzma Yehudit candidate Dr. Michael Ben Ari, from participating in the April 2019 elections, actually suggested that Trimbobler-Amir’s party be permitted to participate in the March 2020 elections. His opinion was, as mentioned, unanimously rejected by the Central Election Committee.

Of course, not all challenges to judicial verdicts (even when underpinned by defendants’ confessions) elicit such apoplectic responses. Thus, for example, the over-a decade of doubt that surrounds the grisly 2006 murder of schoolgirl Tair Rada has been the subject of much public debate and even a four part prime time TV series (now on Netflix), despite a confession of the convicted suspect and a High Court rejection of his appeal.

As usual, the Central Election Committee’s decision will be appealed in the High Court, which will be the ultimate arbiter of Trimbobler- Amir’s candidacy.

“…on the altar of annexation…”

The second event was the ramming attack against IDF soldiers in the early hours of Thursday (Feb. 6, 2020), when a Palestinian-Arab drove his vehicle into the group, injuring at least 12, one seriously.

Ofer Kassif, the sole Jewish Knesset member of the dominantly Arab Joint List, responded to the attack as follows: “The liters of blood that was split last night was not the result of a divine decree but of Balfour (a reference to PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence) with the collaboration of the White House. Netanyahu is heating up the situation and he will sacrifice both Palestinians and Israelis (including soldiers) on the altar of annexation. They are all needless victims of the [Israeli] occupation and repression.”

From this, we are apparently supposed to believe that, on hearing about the “Deal of the Century”, recently aired by the White House, the driver became uncontrollably enraged that he simply had no other option but to hop into his car and drive it headlong into the nearest group of IDF servicemen he came across — all this, of course, after the Palestinians steadfastly refused to engage in any discussion on the US initiative.

But this is not the only instance of naked anti-Israel animosity from the Joint List and its pernicious components. Indeed, only a few days ago in a TV interview, Ayman Odeh, head of the Joint List, reiterated his oft expressed condoning of attacks against IDF soldiers serving across the 1967-Green Line.

Innate & enduring enmity — both individual and collective

In previous columns, I have cataloged the innate and enduring enmity shown by the Knesset members of the Arab parties comprising the Joint List towards the founding ethos of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and their unequivocal identification with Israel’s most vehement enemies–see for example here.

For additional chronicles by others — see here and here.

Such malfeasance included, among other things: Spying for Hezbollah in 2006; smuggling mobile phones to convicted terrorists in prison; consorting with leaders of enemy states; expressing support of terrorist organizations and justifying attacks against IDF personnel and civilians across the 1967 Green line.

However, it is not only individual acts of specific Knesset members that should be cause for concern.

Indeed, even a cursory perusal of the official platforms both of the Joint List itself and its component factions reflect a stark rejection of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people as set out in the Declaration of Independence and an equally stark violation of the letter (and spirit) of the Basic Law: Knesset stipulating the conditions for participating in the national parliamentary elections.

Thus, for example, the Balad platform on the faction’s official site, devotes almost 500 words to the transformation of Israel from a Jewish State to a state-of-all-its-citizens — including a procedure for the acquisition of Israeli citizenship that would ensure an Arab majority, if it were adopted.

Clear contravention of conditions

For example, the Hadash faction platform declares: “…Israel cannot be a democratic state if it continues its policy of discrimination against the Palestinian-Arab population within Israel [i.e. Israel’s Arab citizens — MS]. National and civic equality is the incontrovertible right of the national Arab minority in Israel, based on its right to justice in its homeland.

Perhaps even more perturbing is the platform of the Joint List itself, today the third largest party in the Israeli legislature (!), which promulgates: “..rejection of the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and the exposure of the danger this entails to the standing and the rights of the Arab citizens [of Israel] and the rights of the [Palestinian-Arab] refugees.”

Elsewhere it proclaims: “We will work to enact a Basic Law, whose fundamental principle will be civic equality for all citizens based on individual and group human rights, separation of religion from state and the prohibition of all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender, faith or political affiliation; and will provide the legal basis for egalitarian political participation in a state-of-all-its-citizens.”

In addition, the Joint List commits “to work to annul the Nationality Law [Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People]and all laws intended to provide legal legitimacy to racism and any racist policy.”

Significantly, the Nationality Bill was passed specifically to ensure the status of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people — so the intention to annul it (not modify it) is clearly a repudiation of Israel as such — and thus also a blatant violation of the letter (and spirit) of the Basic Law: Knesset, stipulating the conditions for participating in the national elections for the Knesset.

Undermining national security

But the Joint List’s platform does not only focus on legislation that defines the dominant Jewish nature of Israel. It also promotes actions that would undermine its national security.

hus, for example, its platform declares that: “The Joint List will act to annul all the laws and programs entailing enlistment in the military or for national service”; and elsewhere: “the Joint List will act to annul the law for compulsory service of the Arab-Druze community and oppose any law or program for military or civilian service in Arab society.”

This clearly underscores two perturbing factors.

The first is that, given the range of threats facing Israel (from the surrounding Arab/Muslim world), the IDF, and hence the security of the nation, is critically dependent on compulsory conscription. Accordingly, the call to annul such subscription is tantamount to crippling the Israeli military and exposing the country to existential threats.

The second is by utter rejection of participation of Arab society, not only in any format of collective contribution to the security of the state, but also to the wider civil society of Israel, the Joint List unambiguously endorses the detachment of Arab society, as a whole, from any role in shaping the fate of the country and the eschewing of any partnership in a shared destiny for the future.

Time for defensive democracy to kick in

Commitment to the tenets of democratic governance, societal pluralism and socio-cultural tolerance is not a suicide pact. Indeed, as one prominent philosopher of the last century astutely pointed out: “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”

It is time for defensive democracy to kick in . It is time to apply the letter and the spirit of the laws that are purported to set out the rules for the democratic process in the country. It is time to preclude parties, who would undermine the foundations of Israeli democracy by exploiting the freedoms those foundations afford them.

This of course, does not mean that the Arab citizens of Israel should not be permitted to vote, only that they will not be able to vote for parties that reject the very basis on which the state was founded.

Any further leniency in this regard will lead to disaster — for Jew and Arab alike.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

Assessing the overall long-term merits of the “Deal of the Century” is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target

There was a wedding today. The groom showed up. The bride stayed home and wished the groom dead. And everyone clapped — A caustic assessment of the “Deal of the Century”, attributed to Meir Jolovitz, Middle East Radio, Phoenix, AZ, courtesy of my Facebook friend, Jan Sniderman

Over the years, I have expressed what are generally considered distinctly hardline, hawkish views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I categorically opposed any notion entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state and any withdrawal from territory currently under Israel’s administration, west of the Jordan.

Given my past positions, I should, of course, vigorously reject the “Deal of the Century” as proposed last week by the Trump Administration, which does involve both these elements.

Significant benefits, grave detriments

Indeed, the “Deal of the Century” offers Israel huge benefits that would have been unthinkable barely three years ago, but it also includes grave detriments that seriously undermine both its desirability from a partisan Israeli point of view, and its practicality from a more objective point of view.

So, the crucial consideration must be whether, in the long run, the overall beneficial impact of accumulated positive components outweighs (or is outweighed by) the overall detrimental impact of the accumulated negative components.

Making such an appraisal is, of course, not an easy task — and is getting more complex as time progresses. For what it was initially understood to entail has become shrouded in subsequent “clarifications”, which did little to clarify anything.

Indeed, making a measured assessment of the overall merits (or lack thereof) is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target, just when you think you have it in your sights, it turns out you don’t.

Thus, what originally appeared to be a US endorsement of the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocks, turned out to be a deferred endorsement, contingent on the formation of a committee — and its subsequent deliberations — with eventual sovereignty being delayed until after the March 2020 elections.

This, regrettably, raises several perturbing question marks regarding the practical value of the “Deal” for Israel — as will be detailed a little later.

The basic elements

But putting aside for the moment the admittedly weighty issue of the timing of the application of Israeli sovereignty, in the broadest of brush strokes, the basic elements of the “Deal”, as presented at the White House, were as follows:

Israeli Sovereignty: The US will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the major Jewish settlement blocs and over an undivided Jerusalem, within the present contours of the security barrier, as the undivided capital of Israel. Sovereignty will also be applied to Jewish communities beyond the major blocs, which although accessible by road, would be in the unenviable position of being isolated enclaves surrounded by Palestinian-Arab territory.

Security: Security in the entire area — from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River — will be under the control of the IDF for an indeterminant period of time.

Borders and Airspace: The external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum are to remain under Israeli control.

Refugees: There will be no “Right of Return” and no Palestinian-Arab refugee will be resettled in Israel.

These are all clearly significant and tangible benefits for Israel, planned to accrue to it, if not immediately, then within a relatively short time. Their net value, however, must be weighed against the countervailing returns envisaged for the Palestinian — Arab side.

The basic elements (cont.)

In this regard, the “Deal” envisions any benefits to the Palestinian side as being both deferred and contingent on the fulfilment of a number of onerous conditions.

This, unsurprisingly, has elicited harsh responses from pro-Palestinian sources. Thus, according to Tareq Baconi of the International Crisis Group, cited in a recent NPR article:“…it [the “Deal”] places Palestinians on probation while they prove their worthiness of statehood, using conditions that are malleable and ill-defined; it seeks to induce Palestinian capitulation through economic largesse; and it removes the onus on Israel to make any concessions until Palestinians declare their full surrender.”

It is not difficult grasp why the Palestinian-Arabs take such a dim view of the proposal, which an infuriated Mahmoud Abbas rejected with “a 1000 ‘no’s”.

For although the “Deal” does trace a path to eventual Palestinian statehood on about 70% of Judea-Samaria, including significant portions of Area C, currently under sole Israeli control, this depends on the Palestinian-Arab side complying with several significant provisos over a period of four years.

Among others, these include:

- Recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people

- Ceasing the funding of terrorists and their families

- Ending Judeophobic incitement

- Disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad

- Establishing an orderly civil society by eradicating corruption, respecting human rights and permitting a free press

Only after these conditions are met, will the US recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan — reportedly $50 billion — to assist it. Moreover, some sort of “safe passage” — such as a tunnel — between Gaza and the Palestinian areas in Judea-Samaria is planned.

Is the “Deal” a good deal?

So, on the surface, the “Deal” appears a highly advantageous one for Israel.

It entails immediate — or soon to be realized — enhancement of the standing of Jewish communities, entrenches Israel’s hold over the strategically vital Jordan Valley, ensures the status of Jerusalem as the country’s undivided capital and maintains Israel’s indefinite control over the borders and airspace.

Thus, the former head of Israel’s Internal Security (Shin Bet), Yoram Cohen, summed it up as follows: “From Israel’s point of view, this is a great achievement….We have received almost all of our security requirements we’ve sought for years. Continued counterterrorism in the West Bank, security in the Jordan Valley as well, the request for Gaza disarmament and responsibility for counterterrorism after giving them a state or autonomy. We’ve got everything we want except the safe passage issue, but I’m not sure we’ll really get to it.”

According to Cohen: “The most dramatic things are Jerusalem and the Old City that will remain under Israeli sovereignty, the legitimization of all settlements [by] the US, the abolishment of the right of return and transfer 30% of Judea and Samaria to Israeli sovereignty. In this area I think Israel has great achievements.”

Moreover, some astute analysts have very cogently pointed out that perhaps the greatest merit of the “Deal” is that it has upended the mendacious Palestinian narrative, which hitherto has largely defined international attitudes to the conflict -see here, here, and here.

There are, however, other considerations that could countermand the accumulated advantages that the “Deal” heralds for Israel — or at least, severely erode their value.

Does the “Deal” address Israel’s twin imperatives

In this regard, I have been at pains to underscore that for Israel to endure, in the long run, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, it must adequately address both its Geographic Imperative and its Demographic Imperative — see for example here (2012), here (2015), here (2017), here (2019) and here (2019).

Addressing the former, precludes undertaking perilous territorial concessions that would make Israel untenable geographically; while addressing the later precludes the presence of a large scale, recalcitrant non-Jewish population within the contours of the sovereign Jewish nation-state, that would make Israel untenable demographically.

Given the fact that the “Deal” stipulates that the IDF will remain deployed throughout the territory and Israel will control both the airspace and electromagnetic spectrum above it, it would appear that the Geographic Imperative is largely addressed.

With the Demographic Imperative, the situation is distinctly different. After all, according to the “Deal’s” parameters, the entire Arab population will remain in place west of Jordan. True, they will not have political rights within Israel, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, the demographic danger to the status of Israel is not solely — or even chiefly — dependent on whether or not the inherently hostile Palestinian-Arab population is enfranchised or not. For their impact at the ballot box would hardly be less than their impact on the socio-cultural fabric of the country — see for example here (2019), here (2017), here (2015), here (2014) and here (2013) — inevitably imperiling the ability of Israel to sustain its dominantly Jewish character.

Perpetuates rather than resolves?

So, whether or not the “Deal” is implemented, the reality will be that Israel will be left with a significant, inimical non-Jewish population within the territory, which it is obliged to control — at least militarily for its vital security needs.

After all, if the “Deal” is eventually implemented, the Arab population in Judea and Samaria (and Gaza) will be left with limited, sub-sovereign rights — making the accusations of discrimination on the basis of ethnic origins not only inevitable but difficult to refute. If, on the other hand, the “Deal” is not implemented after the pledged extension of Israeli sovereignty, the Arabs of Judea-Samaria (and Gaza) will remain in their current situation, under the dysfunctional rule of a corrupt kleptocracy in the former and the tyrannical theocracy in the latter .

Of course, if the “Deal” is implemented, one of the major considerations will be the degree of freedom of movement into Israel afforded the Arab residents of “Palestine”. If they have relatively unfettered access to Israeli beaches, shopping malls, entertainment centers and so on, the impact on the socio-cultural fabric will be greatly enhanced; if not, “Palestine “will become a ghetto-like enclave and a lighting rod for anti-Israeli censure…and possible sanctions.

So, whether it is actually implemented or not, the “Deal” cannot effectively address Israel’s demographic menace, but only perpetuate it.

The question of Gaza and succession

The “Deal” also called for the disarming of the terror groups in Gaza — chiefly Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Leaving aside the feasibility of such a worthy objective, let us suppose for a moment that it could be achieved. Then, how would a demilitarized Gaza, which abuts the Sinai, withstand any onslaughts for the Jihadi elements that abound in the peninsula, frustrating Egyptian efforts to subdue them. Would the IDF be redeployed in Gaza? If not, who would be responsible for the external security of the coastal enclave? Would the Palestinian Authority be armed sufficiently to meet impending threats from Sinai, especially if Egyptians find the burden of contending the Jihadi insurgents too onerous — and withdraw from the peninsula to deal with the mounting challenges elsewhere — see for example here and here?

No less grave is the question of the durability of the conditions prescribed by the “Deal”.
After all, even if, against all odds, the current Palestinian-Arab leadership agrees to accept the conditions prescribed for statehood, who can guarantee that it will not be replaced — by bullet or ballot — with far less amenable successors, who repudiate these conditions and revert to a resumption of hostilities against the Jewish state? And if such a scenario came about, could Israel retract its recognition of Palestinian “statehood” and reinstate the status quo ante?

The question of cost & the Humanitarian alternative

Apart from the US$50 billion aid package intended to boost the Palestinian economy, the “Deal” envisages a dizzying array of overpasses and underpasses, bridges and tunnels connecting the various Palestinian allotted territories in Judea-Samaria — as well as an approximately 30 mile long tunnel, linking Gaza with the “West Bank” (Judea-Samaria) — which alone is estimated as costing up to $15 billion.

Indeed, although the true cost of the “Deal” is not only unknown, but almost impossible to assess with any accuracy, one thing is beyond doubt. It will certainly carry a price tag that reaches into the tens of billions — to produce results that, at best, will be tenuous.

The underlying flaws in the “Deal” are inherent in its very essence, and although it is certainly a huge improvement on previous attempts to resolve the conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land, it is still afflicted by the same defects that afflicted its predecessors. It fails to come to terms with the stark reality that there is no way to devise a scheme that can resolve this conflict by a division — however ingenious — of the land from the River to the Sea between two inimical collectives with irreconcilable founding narratives. Thus, there is no way to convert an intrinsically “zero sum” game into a “win-win” “positive sum” game. Any attempt to do so is doomed to inevitable failure.

It is for this reason that, for the last decade and half, I have urged Israel to launch a large-scale initiative for the incentivized emigration of the Arab population of Judea-Samaria and Gaza as the only strategic measure that can adequately address both Israel’s Geographic and Demographic Imperatives. It is toward this end that the billions planned to be invested in the “Deal” should be channeled.

Epilogue: The “Deal” — What to do?

In the final analysis — what should Israel do?

My sense is that Israel should accept the “Deal”, secure in the knowledge it will be rejected by the Palestinians, who will not — indeed, cannot — comply with the conditions required of them — and thus reap, the tangible benefits it bestows on it, with negligible risk of future Palestinian compliance. It should, however, do so before the upcoming March elections: For who knows whether a future coalition headed by Benny Gantz’s Blue & White would, or could, support such far-reaching unilateral moves by Israel?

After all, there is no better time to strike the iron than when it is hot!

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

By Martin Sherman

Whatever the operational efficacy of targeted assassinations may be — or not be — the conscience of every decent individual should rebel at the thought that arch-purveyors of terror should be permitted to pursue their deadly profession with impunity

Destroy the seed of evil, or it will grow up to your ruin — attributed to Aesop, Greek fabulist (circa 620 BCE — circa 584 BC).

Last week’s assassination of the commander of the Quds brigades, the overseas arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) thrust the topic of targeted killings of high-ranking adversaries dramatically to the center of international debate — and ignited the dispute over their use as an instrument of policy, both in terms of their moral justification and their operational efficacy.

Targeted assassinations: A brief overview

Broadly defined, “targeted killing” is a form of assassination carried out by governments against their perceived enemies, typically beyond the borders of their own countries — either for what they are about to perpetrate in the future or what they have perpetrated in the past.

Such targeted killing operations and their underlying rationale span the divide between the view of terrorism as a crime, on the one hand; and the view of terrorism as an act of war on the other. In broad brush strokes, when pursuing a policy of law enforcement, governments are held to punish persons for their individual guilt that must be proven in a court of law, where defendants enjoy the protections of due process. However, when engaged in war, governments often claim the need to suspend certain peacetime constraints on the use of deadly force. Accordingly, enemy combatants may be targeted and killed not because they can be legally proven to be guilty of a specific offense, but because they are potentially lethal agents of an enemy entity. No prior warning is necessary, no attempt to arrest or capture is required.

Targeted assassinations have been used repeatedly by both Israel and the United States (as well as other countries) beyond their borders to eliminate individuals deemed to comprise a threat to the security of the nation or to the safety of their citizens — or for retribution for inflicting harm on national security or civilian safety.

Targeted assassination: Punitive or preemptive?

It would seem that Israel and the US have employed targeted assassination both to preempt planned enemy attacks that are about to be carried out and to punish past ones that have already been committed.

Thus, although he was (unsuccessfully) pursued by the Clinton administration as early as 1998, for the US, the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 was probably far more punitive (for his role in the 9/11 atrocities in 2001), than preemptive — to forestall imminent future attacks by the founder of al-Qaeda. By contrast, the targeted assassination of Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi in October 2019 was — despite the ISIS leader’s grisly record of murder and mayhem — largely preemptive. Indeed, author of “ISIS: A History”, Prof. Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics, who has followed the organization since its inception, asserts: “The killing of al-Baghdadi is a preemptive move that throws ISIS onto the defensive and complicates its efforts to recover…”

Preemption was also advanced as the motivation for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Thus, a statement issued by the Department of Defense, stipulated: “ General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region…This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

Punitive or preemptive? (cont.)

Israel, too has engaged in targeted killing across the globe, for motives both preemptive and punitive.

Thus, in the early 1960s, Israel initiated a campaign of assassination and intimidation against German scientists, engaged to work on the development of a rocket project for Nasser’s Egypt. The campaign, named Operation Damocles, was instrumental in the rocket program being aborted.

Operation Wrath of God was very different, being launched ostensibly to avenge the Munich massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics by the Black September terror organization and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). However, there are claims that the operation, which was conducted from of 1972 to 1988, was also intended to deter future terror attacks — by conveying to potential attackers what their fate would be.

But not only terrorists have been in Israeli sights.

Since Operation Damocles, Israel has allegedly targeted scientists and engineers involved in weapons developments for the enemy — whether this included the manufacture of a “supergun” for Saddam Hussein, the Iranian nuclear program or the production of drones for Hamas.

The 1988 assassination in Belgium of Canadian engineer, Gerald Bull, one of the world’s leading artillery experts, who was working with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, on Project Babylon to develop a massive “supergun” with a planned range of 750 km., has been persistently attributed to Israel. The project was never implemented but some components for the formidable weapon were delivered to Iraq and others intercepted on route to Iraq.

Between 2010–2012, several scientists and engineers working on Iran’s nuclear program were killed, usually by an explosive device attached to their cars, in incidents ascribed to Israel.

More recently, Israel has reportedly targeted Mohamed Zouari in Tunis and Fadi al-Batsh in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, who were said to be working on drone development for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Israeli targeted killings: A brief –and abbreviated — review

Since the 1950s, Israel has engaged in targeted killings of individuals considered to be (or to have been) an unacceptable menace to its security or to the lives of its citizens. The following is a brief — and admittedly arbitrarily abbreviated — list of some of the more noteworthy cases, generally thought to have been executed (no pun intended) by Israel.

On July 27, 1979, Zuheir Mohsein leader of the pro-Syrian a-Sa’iqa faction of the PLO was shot and killed as he left a casino in Cannes.

On April 16, 1988, Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), Yassir Arafat’s deputy, was assassinated in his home in Tunis by a team of Israeli commandos (led by Moshe “Bogey” Yaalon, -later Chief-of-Staff and Defense Minister), which landed from the sea on a nearby beach.

On February 16, 1992, Abbas al Moussawi, co-founder and Secretary General of Hezbollah, was killed by missiles fired by Israeli helicopters in southern Lebanon. His wife, his five-year-old son, and four others also died in the attack. Barely a month later, (March 17,1992), the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was attacked in retaliation, resulting in the death of almost 30 civilians, with over 240 injured. Moussawi was swiftly succeeded as Secretary-General of Hezbollah by Hassan Nasrallah.

On October 26, 1995, Fathi Shaqaqi co-founder and Secretary-General of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (PIJ) was shot and killed in front of his hotel in Malta. He had been travelling under a false identity to his home in Damascus, on his way back from Tripoli after visiting then-Libyan leader, the late Muammar Gaddafi, who promised to help finance Shaqaqi’s organization.

On August 27, 2001, Abu Ali Mustafa (a.k.a .Mustafa Ali Zibri), the Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was killed by an Israeli air strike while he was sitting at his office desk in Ramallah.

Israeli targeted killings: A brief review (cont.)

On March 22, 2004, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, and spiritual leader of the organization, was killed outside a mosque after morning prayers by an Israeli airstrike. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release, stating that: “Yassin, who was the dominant authority of the Hamas leadership, which was directly involved in planning, orchestrating and launching terror attacks carried out by the organization… was personally responsible for numerous murderous terror attacks, resulting in the deaths of many civilians, both Israeli and foreign…”

On February 12, 2008, Imad Mughniyeh (Al-Hajj Radwan), number two in Hezbollah’s leadership, was killed by a car bomb blast in a neighborhood of Damascus, in what was reported to be a joint CIA-Mossad operation. Described as “a brilliant military tactician and very elusive”, Mughniyeh, who was on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorist” list, is believed to have been Hezbollah’s Chief of Staff and to have overseen Hezbollah’s military, intelligence, and security apparatus. In 2015, his son Jihad Mughniyeh, himself a prominent member of Hezbollah, was killed in an airstrike attributed to Israel that also killed another five Hezbollah militants, and a general in the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Allahdadi.

On November 14, 2012, Ahmed al-Jabari ( Abu Mohammad), second-in-command of the Hamas military wing and widely credited as the leader of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, was killed by an Israeli drone strike while driving through Gaza City.

On November 12, 2019, Baha Abu al-Ata, a prominent leader of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (PIJ), was killed in a targeted Israeli air strike. According to the IDF, it carried out the strike on al-Ata as he was planning an “imminent” attack on Israel — at Iran’s behest.

Israeli targeted killings: Assessing the efficacy

How effective have targeted killings been as an instrument of policy for Israel?

There is no unequivocal answer to this question. Indeed, the record is, at best, ambivalent. Operation Damocles seems to have contributed to the termination of Nasser’s attempt to establish domestic rocket production in Egypt, but it did not prevent Cairo from procuring considerable missile capability from external sources including North Korea.

Clearly, the numerous assassinations of prominent members of Hamas, Hezbollah and PIJ have not impeded their development, although the elimination of Shaqaqi in Malta did induce a significant weakening of the organization for some time. However, PIJ is still active today and continues to carry out numerous terror operations.

The assassination of Hezbollah leader, Moussawi, raises particularly challenging questions, especially in view of the ascendance of his charismatic successor and the horrendous results of the reprisal attack on the embassy in Buenos Aires.

Indeed, arguably the only case where a single targeting killing appears to have brought about the end of a terror organization is that of Zuheir Mohsen and the a-Saiqa movement which he headed. Once the second largest faction in the PLO after Fatah, since the demise of Mohsen, a-Saiqa has descended into insignificance and irrelevance.

Overall, however, it does appear that, unless targeted assassinations are part of a sustained, ongoing policy of lethal pursuit of adversaries, the effect of a “stand alone” assassination is, at best, short-lived.

The imponderable “What ifs”

Of course, one of the imponderable questions is that of what would have occurred had targeted assassinations not been undertaken.

After all, one thing is certain. If Israel’s enemies know that they are in danger of losing their lives, their modus operandi will inevitably be more constrained, cumbersome and costly than if they could operate unperturbed, secure in the knowledge that their personal safety was not at risk. With the threat of potential targeted assassination hovering over them, the resources, that need be devoted to their own security, may be considerable and hamper the freedom they might otherwise have.

There is, of course, one other consideration that militates strongly in favor of targeted assassinations. After all, whatever the operational efficacy of targeted assassinations may be — or not be — the conscience of every decent individual should rebel at the thought that arch-purveyors of terror should be permitted to pursue their deadly vocation with impunity.

Indeed, as Pulitzer Prize winner, Bret Stephens recently wrote in the New York Times:
“No U.S. president [or Israeli Prime Minister — MS]…should ever convey to an enemy the impression it can plot attacks against Americans [or Israelis — MS] with impunity. To do otherwise is to invite worse.”

Indeed it is!!

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

Despite his remarkable success, Netanyahu has been ceaselessly assailed by his political adversaries. Indeed, it is perhaps his very success that has generated such raw rancor against him

Israel — “a land that devours its inhabitants. Numbers 13:32.

I would have preferred to have devoted this week’s column to some other topic — such as the ascendance of blatant anti-Semitism around the globe, or the heightening tension between the US and Iran, or the emerging “understanding” with Hamas for “calm” in Gaza. After all, in the recent past, I have focused several times on the topic of the pernicious pursuit and persecution of Benjamin Netanyahu by his political antagonists in a determined — almost desperate — effort to unseat him by means other than the ballot box — which, infuriatingly, has eluded them for over a decade- see: here, here, here, here, here and most recently, here.

Dramatic request

But Netanyahu’s dramatic ten minute address on Wednesday evening (January 1, 2020), in which he announced his intention to request parliamentary immunity from the charges to be brought against him for alleged breach of trust and bribery, is sufficiently significant to put other matters on the backburner — at least temporarily. (Reports on the assassination of Qasem Soleiman were just coming in as this article was being prepared for submission.)

As I have set out, in considerable detail, my own grave reservations as to the indictments against Netanyahu, which largely coincide with those of an impressive array of internationally renowned legal experts, I will attempt to avoid restating them here, while urging readers to peruse them once again by means of the hyperlinks provided in the opening paragraph of this column.

Instead, I will focus on Netanyahu’s assertions as to the injustice of the charges brought against him, and the inherent justice of this request for immunity.

In the opening two minutes of his address, he briefly enumerated the extraordinary achievements Israel had attained in the last decade under his premiership, and outlined future challenges facing the country and, which under his leadership, would be successfully met.

Halfway into the third minute, he turned to the allegations against him, pointing out that the whole rationale behind the idea of granting elected parliamentarians immunity was to protect them from biased politically motivated legal action. In this regard, Netanyahu underscored that he had been true to his pledge not to advance new legislation to provide him immunity, but that his request was based entirely on the existing law.

The rationale for immunity

He explained: The [existing] Immunity Law is meant to protect incumbent representatives, elected by the public, from trumped up charges, and from politically motivated indictments, which are intended to undermine the will of the people. This law is meant to ensure that people’s representatives can serve the people according to the will of the people”.
He paused and added, with emphasis: “I said the will of the people, not the will of the bureaucrats”, promising that, once he had completed his stint as prime minister, he “would appear in court to shatter the baseless allegations against me”.

Netanyahu then invoked the words of the President, Reuven Rivlin, who has had an overtly contentious relationship with Netanyahu, and who, arguably because of that relationship, has become the epitome of moderation and respectability for the Center-Left in Israel.

Citing from an address by Rivlin at a recent conference, Netanyahu read out: “The legislators created far reaching immunity in order to protect representatives elected by the public…If the prosecutors and investigative authorities decided, because of political reasons , to neutralize a Member of Knesset, they could open an investigation against him — and things like that have happed in the past. People were subjected to criminal investigations and indictments were handed down against them — and there is grave concern that this was done by the authorities with the intention of preventing them from serving as ministers….”

Rivlin: Politically biased investigations launched in past

Significantly, Rivlin articulated very similar views, long before the prospect of any indictments against Netanyahu emerged.

Indeed, interviewed while still in his former capacity of Knesset Speaker, he expressed the identical rationale for parliamentary immunity for elected legislators: “We must remember what the logic behind [the idea] of immunity is; what the substantive reason was, which brought the founders of the Knesset…to create over-arching immunity, immunity that is unassailable, for each and every Knesset Member. [It was] the desire to protect publicly elected representatives from the ability of the authorities to bully and intimidate them”.

He explained: “For if someone is elected to the Knesset and an investigation is opened against him, despite the fact that there are no grounds to do so, despite the fact that the suspicions against him are so remote, yet the Prosecutor’s Office or the investigative bodies decide that there is some political need to neutralize him, they will initiate an investigation against him.”

Rivlin declared solemnly: “And things like that have happened here in the State of Israel! Investigations were launched against Knesset Members…”

Here the interviewer interjected: “Despite the fact that there were no ]incriminating] facts or evidence?”

Rivlin responded emphatically: “Indeed! Of course! But beyond that, [unsubstantiated] indictments were handed down or alleged suspects were subjected to criminal investigation under caution in cases where there was grave concern that the authorities did that with the intention of preventing them from becoming government ministers…”

Recriminations resonate

Basing himself on Rivlin’s arguments, Netanyahu declared: “Sadly, this is what happened in my case. Trumped up charges, selective enforcement, extorting state witnesses with threats, witness tampering, a flood of illegal and biased leaks and continual [media] brainwashing to incite against me, and to conduct a kangaroo court by manipulating public opinion.”

I must confess that Netanyahu’s shrill recriminations regarding the odds stacked against him and the motivations of the forces ranged against him resonate strongly with me.

As I have pointed out previously — see for example here — to anyone but a rabid “Bibiphobe”, they appear transparently contrived, indeed, a thinly veiled attempt at a legalistic coup, creating a deep sense of unease that Israel’s legal establishment is being exploited for patent political ends — i.e. that unelected elites are using their positions of influence and authority to bring about political outcomes that do not correspond with — even contradict — the election results…

This, of course, describes exactly the circumstances for which parliamentary immunity was created and in which invoking it is justified.

Indeed, there are plausible reports validating most, if not all, of Netanyahu’s claims of selective prosecutions, extortion of state witnesses and attempted witness tampering –see for example here, here, here, here, here, and here. Indeed, it seems that the police investigation was so flawed and “over-zealous ”that it drew sharp condemnation from the Head of the Israel Bar Association, prompting the Attorney General Mandelblit to order a probe into how the police had conducted the questioning of witnesses. However, it appears that a gag order was placed on the findings of the probe, prompting yet further censure and misgivings from the Head of the Bar Association.

The accumulated picture from all these reports of investigative malfeasance seems to fit exactly the scenario which Rivlin specified to justify invoking parliamentary immunity.

“Appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution not met…”

But it seems that not only the practical conduct of the investigation and the motivations behind it are disturbingly suspect, but so are the very conceptual foundations on which it is founded.

This was powerfully conveyed by prominent legal expert, Professor Alan Dershowitz in a piece written almost exactly a year ago, in the far-left daily, Haaretz, entitled Voters, Not the Police or the Courts, Should Decide Netanyahu’s Future.

According to Dershowitz: “The issue at the center of these investigations seems trivial against the background of the existential crises Israel is facing…The first probe, also known as Case 1000, involves gifts of cigars and champagne Netanyahu received from close friends…I strongly believe that the appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution have not been met in the cigar and champagne case against Netanyahu… The other investigations (dubbed 2000 and 4000) pose even greater dangers to democratic governance and civil liberties… In both cases, the prime minister is essentially being investigated for allegedly trying to push the media — with long histories of attacking him and his family — to be fairer.”

He continued: “…what we are left with is an exploration of motives… [which] are not the kinds of questions that prosecutors and police should be empowered to ask elected officials and media moguls as a part of a criminal investigation…The relationship between politics and the media — and between politicians and publishers — is too nuanced, subtle and complex to be subject to the heavy hand of criminal law…police and prosecutors should not intrude on this complex, messy and nuanced relationship between politics and the media, except in cases of clear and unambiguous financial corruption well beyond what is alleged in the current cases… to criminalize these political differences is to endanger democracy and freedom of the press..”

Flimsy case vs impressive achievements

I disagree with Alan Dershowitz on much regarding Israel, but I identify almost completely with his analysis of the indictments filed against Netanyahu. Indeed, not only do the substance of the indictments appear “trivial” compared to the challenges Israel faces, but also seem trivial against the background of the giant strides with which Israel has progressed under Netanyahu.

As readers of this column will recall, I have had many criticisms of Netanyahu in the past. Indeed, there have been several important things that he did not do, but should have; and things that he did do, but should not have.

As for the former, he has not dealt with the lawlessness of the Bedouin in the South, with the illegal Arab construction across the country; he has not adequately beefed up Israel’s public diplomacy, nor has he sufficiently reformed Israel’s legal establishment, which is now attempting to remove him from office before he can…

With regard to the latter, he unadvisedly froze Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria, released thousands of convicted terrorists and undertook the unfortunate attempt at rapprochement with Erdogan’s Turkey — including paying humiliating compensation to the casualties on the Mavi Marmara, injured when trying to disembowel Israeli commandoes enforcing a legal quarantine of Gaza.

Of course, Netanyahu — like every mortal on the planet — is not irreplaceable or unblemished, but his record indicates that he is by far the most capable candidate to lead Israel in these challenging times.

A transformative leader

Indeed, despite any criticism of him, it is undeniable that, in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

On his watch, Israel joined the prestigious group of OECD countries, and has become a major energy exporter — things almost inconceivable before his incumbency.

Under his stewardship, Israel has become one of the best performing economies in the world — with GDP per capita breaching the $40,000 mark for the first time ever in 2017, up sharply by almost 45% since 2009, when he was first re-elected after losing power in 1999.

He has drastically reduced Palestinian terror from the horrific levels he “inherited” from the Rabin-Peres era — and, despite occasional flare-ups, he has largely managed to contain it to hardly perceptible proportions — certainly nowhere near the grisly scale that prevailed under his predecessors.

In terms of foreign policy, he has produced remarkable success. He managed to wait out the inclement incumbency of Barack Obama, emerging largely unscathed — despite the undisguised antipathy between the two men.

His views on Iran and its perilous nuclear ambitions have been embraced by the Trump administration. He has managed to initiate far-reaching changes in Middle East politics, with increasingly amicable — albeit, as yet, only semi-overt — relations with important Arab states, inconceivable several years ago, while sidelining — or at least, significantly reducing — the centrality of the intractable “Palestinian problem”.

He has overseen Israel’s “pivot” eastwards, and burgeoning relationships with the ascendant economies of India and China, increasingly offsetting Israel’s commercial dependence on the oft less-than-benign EU. He also has scored remarkable diplomatic successes in Africa and South America.

Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe, driving a wedge into the otherwise widespread European animus towards Israel…

“A country that devours its inhabitants?”

Yet, despite his remarkable success, Netanyahu has been ceaselessly assailed by his political adversaries, ever since he was first elected in 1996. Indeed, it is perhaps his very success that has generated such raw rancor against him. Thus, despairing of removing him via the ballot box, his political rivals and adversarial civil society elites have had to turn to the law to do so — mounting what Netanyahu has accurately dubbed a legalistic coup.

It is an initiative that is likely to backfire.

For one thing is beyond doubt: No good result can come out of these indictments.

If Netanyahu is found guilty, roughly half the Israeli public will feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice — and the already tenuous public trust in Israel’s arms of law and order with be undermined even further.

On the other hand, if he is acquitted, roughly half (the other half) of the Israeli public will feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice — and the already tenuous faith in Israel’s system of law and order will be eroded even further.

Among the biggest losers will be those who launched this ill-considered initiative in the first place. The mistrust it will generate in them, will certainly be well merited.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies