The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

Benjamin Netanyahu has often been called a clever but unprincipled, indeed, unscrupulous, politician. But his skill as an orator as well as his pleasant demeanor obscures the nature of this political animal—and his oratory sometimes trips him.

Let’s go back to the aftermath of the May 1996 election, when he nosed out Shimon Peres for the premiership by a mere half a percentage point. To both Jewish and Arab audiences he boasted that no one expected him to (1) accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the “peace process”; (2) meet with Yasser Arafat; and (3) withdraw from Hebron. Ponder the significance of this unwittingly self-incriminating statement or confession. If no one, in his own words, expected him to take the three steps just mentioned, it follows that Mt. Netanyahu betrayed those who elected him Israel’s Prime Minister!

That he can boast before the nation about his utterly unexpected adherence to the Oslo Accords reveals his contempt for public opinion. It also reveals, in addition to his moral obtuseness, Israel’s undemocratic political culture. But this is not all.

Mr. Netanyahu employed the same kind political deception in the February 2009 election. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 24, 2009.

To understand why Peace Now is the greatest enemy of the Arab “Palestinians” (other than their own rulers, we must dare ask: “What is in the best long term interests of these Arabs—indeed, of Muslims in general?” Conversely, what are these disciples of Muhammad most in need of?

First, they need to overcome the monopoly of power of the Arab regime that oppresses them. Accordingly, they need a constitution that limits the powers of government. This requires a division and separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government.

Second, they need to develop a civil society. Crucial for developing a civil society among Islamic regimes is the introduction of a market economy. Such an economy would decentralize the corporate power of the regime, generate a middle class, and raise the living standards of Islam’s poverty-stricken masses. A market economy would hasten the development of civil society by creating private and social institutions to counterbalance the power of government. In other words, civil society requires a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that serve as a buffer between the government and the people.

The NGOs would include a variety of professional associations consisting of scientists, teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers as well as various groups such as manufacturers, labor unions, political parties, social service agencies, various news media, etc. These organizations can protect private citizens and private groups from discriminatory legislation or abuses of the bureaucracy. But this is not all. (more…)

Whatever else one may say of the “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is fascinating example of how intelligent men can sacrifice their intellects to a mantra.

Rather than discuss the mentality of men like Benjamin Netanyahu, let’s go back almost twenty years to Mr. Yossi Sarid, then a leader of the Meretz Party with experience on the important Knesset Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs.

Anticipating Netanyahu’s current position, Sarid had long advocated negotiations with the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hence he was taken aback when Yasser Arafat, along with Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, supported Saddam Hussein’s rape of Kuwait. He was all the more discomfited when Israel’s own Arab citizens applauded the Iraqi dictator.

In view of these politically embarrassing developments, Sarid felt compelled to “reassess” his position. (more…)

What does Martin Buber have in common with Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States?

In response to the Obama administration’s objection to settlements, Mr. Oren is reported to have said: “Settlements are not the issue.” “The issue is the recognition of the mutual legitimacy of these two peoples, the legitimate claim to these two states [the Jewish state and the projected Arab state].”

Underlying the words I have emphasized is a mode of thought that has long influenced the mentality of Israel’s political and intellectual elites: historical or cultural relativism. I discuss the pernicious influence of relativism in my book Israel and the Malaise of Democracy, written shortly after the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. Here are some key passages:

“Because it cannot transcend [cultural relativism], the government [of Israel] is psychologically incapable of asserting the preeminence of Jewish [over Arab] rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Note the subtle influence of relativism [and subjectivism] in this statement of Dr. Eliahu Ben-Elissar, [once] Likud chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs committee: ‘In our eyes we have a right to this land’ (The Jerusalem Post, June 5, 1992, p. 5a, emphasis added).

“We see in Ben-Elissar the shallowness of the Likud’s political Zionism…. (more…)

Iran’s fraudulent presidential election of June 12, which kept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power, was enough to trigger a revolution—not civil disobedience Israeli style. Many Iranians lost their lives in violent protests against the fraud. The revolution is not over. Report has it that even Iranian soldiers are helping opponents of the regime.

“No taxation without representation” was the clarion call of the American revolution of 1776. The Americans were fed up with protests and civil disobedience. Ponder these words of the American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; (more…)

It is widely agreed that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government decided to inflict a crushing blow on Hamas to restore Fatah-leader Mahmoud Abbas’ control over Gaza—a precondition for fulfilling the triumvirate’s commitment to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This will obviously be the paramount issue in the February 10 election.

Although right-minded people will want Likud to win more seats than Kadima in that election, it is extremely important that the Likud not win too large a Knesset plurality. Such an outcome would enable the Likud’s questionable leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, to appoint too many Likud MKs to his cabinet, just as Ariel Sharon did after the 2003 elections. This was too many for Israel’s own good.

Right-minded people will therefore want to vote for National Union, which, unlike the Likud, is opposed to any further territorial withdrawal and is unequivocally opposed to a Palestinian state. This non-compromising attitude cannot be ascribed to Netanyahu, whose slogan “reciprocity” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority means yielding more Jewish land to the disciples of Muhammad. Netanyahu’s track record at the Wye Summit and on disengagement from Gaza does not inspire confidence.

To state the matter more simply, Israel will need in its next government a significant number of cabinet ministers who are to the right of Netanyahu and who can block any attempt on his part to betray the nationalist camp, as he has done in the past. (more…)

A Brief Lesson in Political Logic

A question has arisen regarding my December 29 critique of the Yaalon Plan on Israel National Radio. That plan, recall, is based on General Yaalon’s policy paper “Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy.”

Yaalon opposes the Oslo Agreement because its architects favor withdrawal from Judea and Samaria before the Palestinians develop the economic, political, and judicial infrastructure required to make the Palestinian Authority a reliable negotiating peace partner with Israel. But this implies that Yaalon is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state—to put it in negative terms.

It may therefore be logically assumed that anyone who understands and endorses the Yaalon plan is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state.

In contrast, Moshe is opposed in principle to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria for religious reasons. (more…)

The Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 29, 2008.
Dedicated to Tsafir Ronen (z”l).

Binyamin Netanyahu’s plan to elevate the economic well-being of the Palestinians to facilitate the “peace process” coincides with a policy paper written by former Chief of General Staff Moshe Yaalon, now with the Likud Party. The paper is entitled “Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy.”

Yaalon’s paper begins by analyzing the reasons why the Oslo accords failed to bring peace. “Fifteen years ago,” he says, “the signing of the Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) raised hopes that Israel had boarded the ‘peace train.’ Over the years, however, it became clear that the train was not headed for the promised destination.” Nevertheless, Israel’s leadership has foolishly remained on the same train.

However, Yaalon obscures the covert objective of Oslo’s architects, which was the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (Yesha) as the only means of achieving peace. He fails to see or say that only the “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could induce Yasser Arafat to sign a deal with Israel—as Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin surely knew and concealed. Only a sovereign Palestinian state could be legally bound by any peace agreement.

Yaalon does not really oppose a Palestinian state. He simply criticizes the decision of Israel’s leaders to withdraw from Yesha before the Palestinians had achieved the economic, political, and judicial infrastructure required to become a responsible state.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a kleptocracy. (more…)

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Israel is in the grips of a democratically elected dictatorship at war with Jewish nationhood. Driven by the remorseless logic of the Oslo Agreement or “land for peace,” this dictatorship is collaborating with Israel’s enemies.

Oslo has produced a Palestinian Authority consisting of well-armed terrorist organizations. PA leaders wax fat with money from the U.S. and the European Union. Their strategy of stages is designed to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria. Israel’s ruling elites are prepared, if not eager, to sacrifice these Jews on the altar of “peace.” These elites use the illusion of peace to retain power.

Meanwhile, Arab leaders baldly declare that “peace” means the destruction of Israel. The policy of land-for-peace arouses Arab contempt for Jews and incites Arab violence. The “peace process” will explode in a catastrophic war in the very near future.

Can such a war be averted? Not by a Likud-led government, most emphatically not by a Kadima-led government, and not by a government of national unity headed by Binyamin Netanyahu who has yet to overcome the Oslo syndrome.

If catastrophic war is to be averted—or if Israel is to emerge victorious—three basic conditions are in order. (more…)

What territory should we be thinking about? Answer, the Land of Israel in which Jews have lived since the time of Abraham, the teacher of ethical monotheism, hence the true founder of Western civilization.

However, let us only consider the territory west of the River Jordan excluding Gaza, now controlled by the enemies of Western civilization.

What is meant by “occupied” territory? Answer, territory controlled by a foreign force.

What is meant by a “foreign force”? Answer, an illegitimate government, in this case the government of Israel.

What is an “illegitimate government”? Answer, a government committed to the surrender of Jewish land—land for which myriads of Jews have yearned for, fought for, and died for.

To whom is this land being surrendered? Answer, to the implacable enemies of the Jewish people and of Western civilization—people animated by the Ethos of Jihad articulated in the Quran and the Hadith, i.e., the oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad. (more…)

Judea and Samaria activist Yechiel Leiter, a possible candidate on the Likud Party list in the February elections, is promoting a plan that calls for immediate steps that will lead to the annexation of 50% of Judea and Samaria.

Since Leiter has served as an adviser to Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s reasonable to assume that his proposed plan expresses Netanyahu’s position. If so, this plan corresponds to Netanyahu’s policy of “reciprocity” in dealing with the Palestinian Authority.

What is more significant, however, is that Leiter’s plan—he’s religious—may be a political consequence of Netanyahu’s secular mentality, manifested in a statement he made before a joint session of the United States Congress shortly after becoming Israel’s Prime Minister in May 1996. There he baldly denied any “clash of civilizations” between Israel and her Arab-Islamic neighbors.

This denial reflects a widespread inability in the secular democratic world to acknowledge the true nature of Islam. By the “true nature of Islam” I mean the demonstrable fact that Islam is, in the words of Bat Ye’or, a “culture of hate”— (more…)

Edited transcript of he Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 1, 2008.

(Dedicated to the Courageous Rabbis to which this Essay does not Apply).

Why is Israel retreating toward its 1949 armistice lines? Why is it undoing the miracle of the Six-Day War of June 1967?

One reason is the non-Torah orientation of Israeli prime ministers. The trouble with this answer is that in June 1967, a national unity government, which included the National Religious Party, unanimously agreed to relinquish the Temple Mount to the Muslim authority. This is not all.

The ultra-orthodox Shas party, by joining the Rabin-led coalition government after the 1992 elections, enabled that government to initiate the catastrophic Oslo Agreement of 1993. This agreement has undermined Israel’s retention of Judea and Samaria. Similarly, the ultra-orthodox United Torah Judaism party, by joining the Sharon-led coalition government in 2004, enabled that government in 2005 to implement Israel’s “disengagement” or retreat from Gaza, hence to expel 8,000 Jews from their homes, a crime that has no name.

These are wrenching facts. They make us wonder about religious parties and their rabbinical leaders. Is there something inherently wrong with religious parties participating in the formation of secular-led governments? (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 24, 2008.

Shortly after his election as Prime Minister in May 1996, Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. There he denied any clash of civilizations between Israel and its Arab-Islamic neighbors. This denial—disingenuous or not—underlies Netanyahu’s current economic plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By building up the Palestinian economy, which of course will be partly dependent on Israel, peace between Jews and Arabs will eventually follow. Netanyahu has joined Shimon Peres, author of The New Middle East.

Before examining the mode thought of these odd bedfellows, note that Netanyahu and Peres are secularists. I mention this because Abdallah al-Tall, an Egyptian spokesman, has said that “The propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries and is still based on religious and spiritual foundations.”

According to the “propagandists of secularism,” economics trumps religion. This, of course, is indicative of a Marxist mode of thought. This mode thought, we shall see, also underlies capitalism, and that’s what links Bibi to Shimon, the author of the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement which Bibi refused to abrogate. Both are wedded to Oslo. (more…)

An updated version of an article published in 1995.

Countless Jews are appalled or dumbfounded. They cannot understand how a Jewish government, backed the Israel Defense Forces, could give away Judea and Samaria, the sacred heartland of the Jewish people to terrorist thugs.

The Prophets and Sages of Israel predicted that, in the end of days, the Jews would have such a government. They foresaw that Israel would be ruled by “scorners” of the Torah. These scorners, said the Prophet Hosea (12:1-3), will fill Israel with lies and deception. They will strive after wind (“peace”) and make alliances with Israel’s enemies.

The Prophet Isaiah (28:14-18) chastises these insolent Jews. He foretells that they will make a “covenant with death,” but that this pact will not protect them, indeed, that they will be swept away like refuse. Remarkably, the Targum translates this pact with death as a contract with “terrorists” (mechablim)!

Similarly, the Zohar (Exodus 7b) predicts that in the end of days certain Jews in Israel will make an alliance with the enemies of the Jewish people. The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles fits this dire prediction. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 10, 2008.

Contrary to the governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in both countries reject the “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall mention their views while developing five decisive arguments against a Palestinian state: Economic, Demographic, Political, Strategic, and Democratic. Let’s begin with the—

1.  Economic Arguments

a.  A RAND study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically viable. It would require $33 billion for the first ten years of its existence—and this study was made before the economic crisis now confronting the United States and entire world.

b.  Besides, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of the so-called West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another group of Arab clans or thugs parading under the banner of Allah.

c.  Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the “West Bank”—or even half that number—would bankrupt Israel’s government, to say nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord. (more…)

When opinion rules, as it does in democracies, it is only necessary to examine, not its truth, but the number of those who express this opinion. It is not even necessary to examine whether any individual who expresses this opinion is serious or frivolous, whether his opinion is the result of reflection or of impulse, whether it is an abiding conviction or a passing fancy. Consequently, wherever opinions rule, people are less apt to take opinions seriously. Hence they will be less likely to develop the habit of critical thinking or of making logical and moral distinctions. Feelings or the emotions will thus tend to supplant logic. People will then become more susceptible to propaganda, whose target is the emotions.

It is in this light that we are to understand Senator Barack Obama’s use of such slogans as “Change!” and “Yes, we can.”

Since democracies, more than other regimes, are ruled by opinion, and since politicians modulate opinions with emotion, democracies are inherently prone to semantic subversion.. The adepts of semantic subversion use the media of democracy to concentrate public attention on emotionally appealing and simplistic solutions to complex problems. For example, the Arab-Israel conflict is commonly viewed as a territorial one. This is precisely how Senator Obama referred to the conflict when he visited Israel. Lacking a background of serious knowledge, he readily succumbs to the formula “territory for peace” as if it were the key to solving what in essence is a a religious conflict, or what Samuel Huntington calls a “clash of civilizations.” (more…)

The Palestinian Authority, a consortium of terrorist groups that bow to Mecca, has indoctrinated a generation of Arab children to hate Jews and Israel and to emulate suicide bombers. Even before they reach the age of ten, Arab children receive military training. Indeed, their games, their sports, their story books—and of course of their prayers—are designed to reinforce genocidal hatred of Jews and the Jewish State. This being the case—and much more can be said of the pervasiveness of this Islamic indoctrination—I ask the following question: “What would it take, and how long would it take, to undo this deeply engrained hatred?”

Unless this question is faced honestly, one cannot begin to offer any rational or realistic “solution” to the 100-year war that Muslim Arabs have been waging against Jews and Israel. Indeed, I dare say that unless one can answer that question honestly, one does not even have a right to propose any “solution.” Hence, what I see among countless pundits and politicians who speak of a “two state” solution to this conflict is not only the arrogance of ignorance, but a failure to take Islam seriously—an insult to Muslims!

The Torah urges us to seek justice. However, before one can talk intelligently about “justice” from a Western perspective, one has to understand what “justice” requires from an Islamic perspective. In fact, one has to understand the role of speech or reason in the Jewish tradition vis-à-vis the role of speech or reason in the Islamic tradition. Eventually one will have to understand the difference between Jewish monotheism and Islamic monotheism, and few indeed are qualified to enter this domain of knowledge. (more…)

1.  The people of Israel have been mesmerized by the Oslo or Israel-PLO agreement, or what the Prophet Isaiah calls a “covenant of death.” Stated another way, Israel’s government has been paralyzed by the mendacious and suicidal policy of land-for-peace. No matter how much criticism is written about the Oslo Agreement, and no matter how many times the Palestinian Authority violates this agreement, the government, regardless of which party is at the helm, continues to surrender Jewish land to our sworn enemies who teach their children to be suicide bombers.

2.  So, the question is: what can be done to derail the Oslo train, the train that is leading Israel to what Abba Even called the Auschwitz lines?

3.  Here is what I recommend as a political scientist. When you can’t beat the enemy by the direct approach, by simply attacking Oslo, you try the indirect approach. You raise a controversial issue that will grab public attention and distract the government from its lethal Oslovian policy. I recommend that you raise the issue of sedition committed by Arab Knesset members, especially their violation of the Party Law that prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State. (more…)

The formation of a Livni government would be a disaster not only for Jews but also for Christians.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the new leader of the ruling Kadima Party, wants to surrender eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Arabs. She is utterly oblivious of the fact that the Temple is intended for the redemption of all people, not only Jews. If the Arabs control eastern Jerusalem, Christians will be denied access to the Temple Mount.

Strange as it may seem, the Jewish Sages have said that the Temple Mount is of greater significance to the Gentile world than it is to Israel. Listen to the voice of the disparaged Pharisees regarding the sacrifices of seventy calves during the eight days of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, and note their humanitarianism:

From Leviticus Rabbah: “If the nations of the world had known how useful the Temple was to them, they would have surrounded it with fortified camps to protect it, for it was more useful to them than to Israel.” (more…)

Edited Transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 22, 2008.

“Praiseworthy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, and stood not in the path of sinners, and sat not in the sessions of scorners.” Psalms 1:1

Israel’s ruling elites suffer from a pathology clearly manifested in the pages of Exodus describing the behavior of the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Despite one devastating plague after another, the Egyptian despot stubbornly refused to let the Jews go. After the seventh plague, God hardened his obstinate heart to enable him to endure further attacks. Since he was responsible for so much evil, he was deprived of the freedom to repent and desist from his obviously ruinous policy. Clearly, the Pharaoh was driven by egomania, but this egomania was reinforced by God. I call this egomania the Pharoic syndrome.

The Pharoic syndrome afflicts Israel’s political elites. During the past 15 years, six successive Israeli prime ministers—Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert—mindless of the enormity of evil, have tried to make peace with the PLO, an organization whose record of terrorism and murder dates back to its formation in 1964. These politicians were so morally obtuse that they regarded the PLO’s genocidal objective, proclaimed in its Charter, as negotiable. (more…)