The Necessity of Regime Change
[Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 28 August 2006].
Reacting to Israel’s debacle in Lebanon, hundreds of Israeli reservists are demonstrating near the Knesset, calling for the resignations of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen Dan Halutz. Tens of thousands of Israelis should rally to their cause—and they should also call for Regime Change.
Of course, the prime minister is the one most responsible for the debacle in Lebanon. Clearly, the Olmert government was not prepared for the war and failed to achieve its stated objectives. The two reservists captured by Hezbollah were not liberated and Hezbollah remains entrenched in Lebanon. One should add that no state of emergency was called, so that the million and more residents of northern Israel had virtually no government support during Hezbollah’s attack of more than 100 missiles a day.
But let’s not blame only the Olmert government for the military debacle. Ariel Sharon was prime minister from February 2001 until his stroke last year, during which time Hezbollah accumulated most of its missiles, and no one is more responsible for the Lebanese war itself than the man who made Gaza Judenrein.
What amazes me, however, is that hardly anyone goes to the root cause of Israel’s debacle in Lebanon. Henry Kissinger once said that Israel has no foreign policy, that everything is domestic policy. Why is this so?
First, let’s see how Olmert become prime minister.
Step 1. Likud leader Sharon adopts Labor’s disengagement policy, which had been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public in the 2003 election—a marvelous example of “Israeli Democracy.”
Step 2. By political chicanery, Sharon induces 22 Likud MKs to violate their pledge to the nation by voting for the Evacuation Law—another marvelous example of “Israeli Democracy.”
Step 3. The Likud splits, so Sharon deserts his party and forms Kadima. Kadima, which never competed in an election, now controls the government—still another example of “Israeli Democracy.”
Step 4. Enter Ehud Olmert. Even though he was 33rd on the Likud list, he becomes acting prime minister when Sharon has a stroke.
Step 5: Fast forward to the March 2005 election: Kadima wins less than 22% of votes cast in the election, but that’s enough to make Olmert prime minister. Mazel tov! What a marvelous democracy!
Israeli democracy is a disaster—and primarily because it’s not a democracy! It’s really a punctuated oligarchy. Not only does every Israeli government consist of a multiplicity of parties each with its own agenda, but the average duration of Israeli governments is less than two years. This makes strategic, long-term planning impossible.
What produces this irrational system? I’ve said it a thousand times: Israel is the only reputed democracy in which the entire country constitutes a single electoral district in which an absurd array of parties compete for Knesset seats on the basis of proportional representation; and since the electoral threshold is only 2%, no party has ever won even close to a majority of Knesset seats. This is why domestic politics takes precedence over foreign policy.
Israel’s foreign policy has been concerned primarily with the status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Left-wing parties would have us believe that holding on to this land requires a larger defense budget. This would leave smaller slices of the national budget for the five or six or seven parties in the cabinet. So holding on to Gaza was portrayed as a financial liability—a left-wing attitude that has influenced the Haredi parties, which are in dire need of government funds for education and large families. Socio-economic interests compete with territorial and security interests.
If territory is a liability, one can understand why the government used 50,000 soldiers and police to evacuate Jews from Gaza, but deployed only 30,000 soldiers to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet no one to my knowledge explains this grotesque state of affairs as a consequence of Israel’s grotesque parliamentary system.
We know that both Olmert and Peretz still believe that the conflict between Jews and Arabs is over territory, and that the conflict can be resolved by surrendering Judea and Samaria. Olmert and Peretz simply lack the intellectual and moral courage to face the fact that the conflict is a religious or cultural one, and that at stake in this conflict is Israel’s existence.
But what is also operative is the system of government that entrenches these foolish and feckless politicians in power.
Not only is Shimon Peres the architect of Oslo, but he has been an MK for more than four decades despite his having earned a national reputation as “the saboteur.” What has kept him in office—to Israel’s detriment—is nothing but the system.
It’s the system, with its fixed party lists, that has automatically brought Yossi Beilin back to the Knesset—Beilin, who as a private citizen consorted with the PLO! Yes, these politicians lack the intellectual integrity or moral courage to face the truth that Israel’s enemies are committed to Israel’s demise. But it’s the system that keeps such treacherous politicians in power.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu, who knows better, misleads the country about its enemies. Although he verbally rejects “unilateralism” when dealing with the Arabs, he still speaks of “reciprocity”—a term foreign to Arab mentality. “Reciprocity”? What has Israel received since Netanyahu yielded 40% of Judea and Samaria, including most of Hebron, to Arafat’s PLO?
Thanks to such politicians, Israel engages in the deadly charade of peace with an enemy religiously committed to war. Why can’t Netanyahu say, as Churchill said, that “The story of the human race is war.” Why must Israel have to endure timid politicians whose mentality is stultified by “peace” and appeasement?
During the past 2,500 years there have been more 1,000 wars in the western world alone. That’s an average one war every 2.5 years! Hence the norm of international relations is not peace but war. This means that “peace” is little more than a preparation for war, and that peace treaties are worthless.
This is the conclusion of Lawrence Beilenson’s book The Treaty Trap. After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient. Serious research on war and peace yields two basic lessons:
First lesson: There is no such thing as a “peace process” except for fools and scoundrels. Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt is nothing more than a cease-fire, and hardly that, since Egypt has facilitated the smuggling of arms to terrorists in Gaza.
Second lesson: If you want peace, prepare for war; if you want war, make concessions for peace. Menachem Begin gave up the Sinai to Egypt for what Anwar Sadat disdainfully called “a piece of paper.” Given the worthlessness of a piece of paper signed by Arab despots, the policy of “unilateral disengagement” logically follows.
To hide their own timidity, Israel’s political and even military elites repeatedly say that the people of Israel are tired of war. Notice, however, that the people of Israel wanted to win the war against Hezbollah! It was the government that failed—not the people.
In fact, since 1977, one government after another, whether led by the Likud or Labor or Kadima, has betrayed the people. What we need to do is empower the people of Israel by starting a grass roots movement for Regime Change.
Toppling the Olmert government and having new elections will only bring the same crooks and cravens back to power. This is why I have repeatedly urged the formation of a “shadow government,” one that could assume power in a situation comparable to the present one: after a military debacle that has dashed the people’s confidence in the existing regime. Now is the time for Regime Change! This message should be heard by the reservists calling for the resignation of Israel’s three blind mice.
