What’s behind the “appeasement” kerfluffel?
By Ted Belman
Democrats outraged by Bush “appeasement” remark. Bush said,
“America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
And: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” he said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before.”
“As Nazi tanks crossed in Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
This outrage is without merit.
This issue, namely the different approaches to national security, has been at the forefront of the debate between the GOP and the DEMS throughout Bush’s presidency. It is only natural that Bush defend his approach and record. Obama can’t bash Bush’s approach throughout his campaign and not expect a comeback.
Now today, Obama got more to the point,
-
“If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time, that is a debate that I will win.”
“George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for,”
“That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.”
This debate, and who wins it in the minds of Americans, will be crucial to determining who America’s next President will be.
Obama wants talks with Iran without preconditions and Bush/McCain are totally against such talks. But in point of fact, Bush is already talking to Iran at a lower level. The real issue is not whether to talk but whether to appease.
DEBKA probed deeper.
-
[..] Some of the flak which landed on the senator was directed against his lobbyists, whose arrival to woo Israeli and Jewish support was timed to coincide with the presidential participation in Israel’s anniversary celebrations.
Bush felt that his gesture to honor Israel had been used for internal American political sparring and he struck back.
According to DEBKAfile’s political sources, Bush was furious when he found out that both Obama and Hillary Clinton had sent representatives to the international conference in Jerusalem to solicit campaign supporters in Israel.
Clinton’s was ex-ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and Obama’s were Dennis Ross, formerly of the US state department and ex-special Middle east envoy, and Dan Kurtzer, another former ambassador to Israel.
Whereas Indyk kept a low profile, Ross and Kurtzer were in and out of the offices of Israeli leaders including prime minister Ehud Olmert, They promised that Israel had nothing to fear from Barack Obama as president, or his offer to meet the presidents of Iran and Syria for face to face discussion on the issues outstanding between them and the United States. They insisted that this offer did not apply to Palestinian terrorists like Hamas.
The sensitivity of the Obama campaign to this issue prompted Ross and Kurtzer to leave the Knesset visitors’ gallery before the end of Bush speech to brief the senator on the passages denouncing would-be negotiators with “terrorists and radicals” in the context of those who appeased Hitler in 1939. They urged him to respond strongly without delay else all their lobbying efforts on his behalf would be wasted.
Obama responded in an e-mail to reporters, saying it is sad that president Bush would use Israel’s 60th anniversary to launch a false political attack. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel.”
The word “never” was inserted in the final version when Kurtz and Ross insisted on the statement being strengthened. What Obama left out tellingly was a reference to “radicals,” namely Iran. By leaving “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” out of his response, he allowed the president to underscore his lack of an organized policy position on Iran.
The word “never” was inserted in the final version when Kurtz and Ross insisted on the statement being strengthened. What Obama left out tellingly was a reference to “radicals,” namely Iran. By leaving “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” out of his response, he allowed the president to underscore his lack of an organized policy position on Iran.
Obama’s lobbyists, DEBKAfile’s sources report, made a point of talking to most of the American Jewish leaders attending the international conference and asked them to support the Democratic senator’s bid for the presidency. DEBKAfile’s sources heard from some of them that their chief concern is that, if Obama wins the nomination, Clinton’s Jewish supporters will be lost to the Democrats and drift all the way over to the Republican candidate instead of voting for Obama.
This loss of support was fully set out in The End of Jewish Support for the Democratic Party.
So Dems are running scared.
Obama is starting to sound more like a Republican on defense everyday so as to not lose the Jewish vote. As he explains his policy, it varies little from that of the Republicans.
If the moderate bloggers & talk radio people can keep up the flow of real information to the public & make an end run past the agit/prop guys in the propaganda warrooms of the MSM Obama will sink like the Titanic.Barack O has a ton of bad deeds in his past & the only way he can win in November is if this info is kept from the public by the MSM using smoke & mirrors.What the bloggers & the talk radio guys can do to Obama would be similar to what the SwiftBoat sailors did to Kerry the last time around.In a larger sense what is happening is a bloodless revolution.President Lincoln,more than 140 years ago,claimed that the US gov’t was of the people,by the people,& for the people.By this I assume that the country belongs to it’s citizens & not to selfish elites.Up to this time real democracy has been hobbled by the fact that the public (electorate) had no way of getting accurate info to base decisions on.The mass media controlled the flow of information (as well as mis-information)& were in effect high priced shills who swore for the highest bidder.The MSM did not report the news,they invented it!
Now with the advent of new communication technologies,notably the internet,reliable info is available to the public on demand.This free flow of info,to a free people,will mark a crippling blow to ruling elites & mark a new phase in politics in America!
Bush is an appeaser. He’s just selective about it. He wants Israel to appease Fatah so that he can appease his overlord King Abdullah when he bows down in Riyadh begging for more oil. Israel’s security is the currency used by American administrations to buy Saudi favor.
Bush is a hypocrite. He talks like he values Israel but he wants Israel to evacuate Judea and Samaria. If Bush was really serious about stopping radical Islamists, he would insist to Israel that letting Fatah or Hamas get a state is dangerous to both American and Israeli interests. He would offer full political support to Israel implementing complete annexation of Judea and Samaria so that terrorists would not turn those areas into the next Lebanon or Gaza. Bush, however, is a hypocrite and an appeaser and he will not do it. In fact, I suspect American Jews have been sold a bill of goods with these platitudes about Israel being a valued ally. The Saudis are wagging the American dog and Israel is the biscuit of appeasement.
All of these American politicians are hypocrites. Israel is like the annoying relative they wish would just go away and Israelis and American Jews have been dumb enough to believe the platitudes about being a valuable ally to the point that Israel makes placating Washington the centerpiece of its foreign policy and American Jews are satisfied with Washington continuing to dole out the aid packages that come with nasty strings instead of giving Israel real support for building real security.
That will happen and rightly so. The hussein obama candidacy must be ruthlessly crushed, no waiting for October surprises, he must be taken out early and in a most devastating manner for which he will never be able to recover.
As for kappos such as Ross and Kurtz working on behalf of hussein obama, they can go to hell.
I don’t know what world you guys are living in . It is the Reblicans that are runnung scared.
Laura dear, please pay heed to my words. We all have some concerns regarding Obama becoming president. He might be good for the West and Israel and then again he might be bad.He is very much an unknown factor. No one can say for sure how he will turn out. But what is certain is that it is completely inconceivable that he can be worse then this current bozo. I don’t think it is possible for Obama, as hard as he might try, to achieve the level of incompetence of Bush. How can he possibly fuck things up worse then what occured these last few years?
Laura dear, I know you are very impressionable, and you take Ted’s word as the gospel truth; but the fact is a lot of what he writes is to create controvery and heated discussion. I really don’t think that should Obama become president it will be the end of the world or the sky will fall.
But take it from me, whomever becomes president will be inheriting a holy mess. It will take many months, if not years to clean up the mess.
Pingback: EclectEcon
I have to agree with Peskin, what or who could be worse than Bush except Bill Clinton,Jimmy Carter, Al (Global Warming)Gore, George (Bush the first), Reagan,Johnson, Eisenhower, Kennedy (neutral here) Truman Have I missed anyone? How Bad Bush is will be born out after he is gone. In any event all of these Presidents have had willing accomplices in Israeli PMs. Nixon from hind sight was for reasons of Cold War more positive.
It is incorrect to say that the world learned nothing from Holocaust. It learned a tremendously important thing: murdering millions of Jews is socially acceptable. A handful of Germans were hanged, but most ex-Nazis led respectable lives, worked in government offices. Just years after the Holocaust, Germany opened its embassy in Israel and was welcomed in the community of nations. To talk about the Holocaust to a German is now indecent, as it may offend his sensitive soul. So the nations learned, it is okay to kill Jews.
In 1947, the US originally voted for establishing the Jewish state. When fighting between Arabs and Jews subsequently flared up, the US withdrew its UN vote in favor of Israel, leaving the Jewish state one on one with Arab militias. To add, the US banned American Jews from going to Israel to fight, and embargoed arms shipments to Palestine. That didn’t affect the Arabs who received arms supplies through other ports, notably in Egypt, and from Iraq and Syria. In effect, the arms embargo targeted Israel. The US voted for the UNSC resolution condemning Soviet arms shipments to Israel.
The US reiterated its policy of annihilating Israel in 1956. After Israel, besieged by fedayeen attacks for eight years, cleansed Sinai from the Egyptian militia, the US intervened, ordered Israel to halt, offered military aid to Egypt, and threatened direct intervention on Egypt’s behalf. Eisenhower pressed Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, promising the US would always intervene to keep the Tiran Straits open. He lied; in 1967 America not only refused intervention on Israel’s behalf, but prepared operational plans for landing the US Navy in the Sinai to defend Egypt against the Jewish army. Before the Six-Day War, the US foreign policy was geared toward buying Egypt time to launch an offensive against Israel. The US-led UN withdrew its peacekeeping troops from the Sinai immediately upon Nasser’s demand.
In 1973, the US intervened only to counter the Soviet influence in the Middle East which grew exponentially with Egypt’s early victories and Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in defense of Egypt. The US aid to Israel came too late to be used in the war. European Christian countries – NATO members – refused the US planes the right of overflight, preventing military supplies from reaching the Jewish state.
The US provides massive aid to the PLO, which is nominally intended for the terrorist Palestinian Authority. America sells advanced weapons to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fakes nuclear disarmament of North Korea, and uses Israel as a pawn to placate Arabs with the suicidal peace process.
Bush is touted as the US president most favorable to Israel. Roosevelt, too, was very friendly to Jews – yet did nothing to stop the Holocaust. Truman was very favorable to Jews, yet had almost killed the newborn Israel through arms embargo. Decades later, Jews were surprised to discover anti-Semitic remarks in Truman’s diary.
The current peace process is a historically standard Christian policy against the Jews. Locked into a fourteen-mile-wide state, besieged by the US-armed Arabs from without, watched by the fifth column of 34% Arab population from within, the Jewish state is meant by the Quartet to become the Final Solution.
Ted you like words and overlook actions and deeds when giving Bush credit for putting things in historical context. Just about every move Bush has made since taking office is to ignore history and act according to what he considers is American or just plain G, Bushes interests , they may not be the same?
Peskin:
Peace negotiations lead to peace only when the argument is not essential for the warring parties; both France and Germany would love to annex Alsace-Lorraine, but can also live without it. When the argument is over the essential territory, the soul of the nation, it is not amenable to negotiations. The only way to live in peace is eliminating the threat. This truth is simple, but not nice, and so many imagine that somehow the history has stopped in our time, and all which was true before is false now, and wolves lie with lambs, and nations negotiate the core issues. That mindset is apocalyptic; our days are hardly the last days, and the human mentality does not change. If anything, the wars become bloodier. The extensive media coverage of Arabs similarly turned them from enemies into “people like us.” Few understand that enemies are indeed like us, and their goals are like ours – and that is exactly the reason we fight, because both of us critically want the same tiny piece of land. Each of us wants to be a master of his life rather than depend on the possibly benevolent rule of aliens.
Assimilated Jews know a single line from the Torah: “You shall love the alien.” Many even imagine it runs as in Christianity, “Love your enemy.” But there is Exodus 23:31: “And I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall expel them.” The aliens whom we shall love are those who accepted basic tenets of Judaism. They are either full converts or God-fearers, but in any case we are mandated to love them because they are loyal and strive to be good citizens of Jewish state. Nothing can be farther from Israeli Arabs who identify with Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians – not with Jews or Israelis.
The Torah is practical. We cannot come to an agreement with sworn enemies, or live peacefully with those who consider themselves rightful inhabitants (and therefore sovereigns) of the land. There is no peace process, but there is a process that brings peace: namely, cleansing the land of our enemies.
Yamit, dear friend and esteemed opponent. What is implied again and again in your position is the only solution for Israel to attain peace, is the violent and extremely bloody expulsion of the Arabs in the region. Given the fact that the number of Arabs in the region number hundreds of millions, what you would propose would require a genocide, pure and simple?
Now,who besides yourself would agree to such a strategy? Please name one other person? No family members please.
Ted Belman:
In view of your continued support of Bush despite the latter’s policies having furthered the cause of Iran:
In view of the fact that the status quo will only continue to benefit the Iranian position in the mid east, and McCain is pledged to maintain that status quo. And you are backing McCain:
Because of the above,
I feel compelled to ask you Ted, are you now or have you ever been a paid or unpaid agent of THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN?
This is not a facetious question. Just about everything you have written on the middle east ( the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion to opposing the peace process, etc, etc,) echos the position of Iran, and advances Iranian interests. By focusing almost exclusively on the Arab threat and ignoring the most sinister and potentially most dangerous of Israel’s foes,you are providing a convenient smokesceen..
You know that the Obama question is a red herring used to muddy the waters.A tactic to deflect our attention from the important issues.
Why are you ignoring Iran?
Ted, We are entitled to a response.
re is no question tha Bush’s policies have benefittd Iran. Obama got that right. But that is not to say that the left and Obama have got the answer. When I read his interview with Brooks and read what he has to say, I am sure he doesn’t.
I have always been critical of many things Bush has done and said, key among them is
If you don’t want to surrender you must fight.
HP
Expulsion and Genocide are not synonymous.
I believe in Israel annexing the Westbank and to them work it out. Israel should provide financial inducements to the Arabs to leave and should expel anyone connected to terrorism. Stringent citizenship rules should apply and definitely no right of return to the enlarged Israel.
Peskin, Even if all Muslim countries conclude peace with Israel, we won’t be able to count on their good intentions but will have to maintain the army nonetheless. In practical terms, there is no difference between peace treaty and the absence thereof.
Why give Jewish land in return for elusive peace? Quest for peace is leftist invention. Nations historically cooperated and coexisted without peace treaties. In the sensible world, no one expected a treaty to hold if situation changes. Leftists seek Wilsonian eternal peace, guaranteed by paper treaties. That’s a typical leftists approach, that world’s complexities can be rationalized, studied, agreed upon, settled, and planned. Soviet communists expected the economy to confirm to their prescriptions; Israeli leftists imagine the Arabs will stick to the agreements. They never have why expect differently today? Peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state rather than a beach strip eight miles wide.
Peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the peace process gives to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could as well settle in Uganda or Arizona.
Could Israel conquer the Arab states? Yes, but only with penetrating mobile strikes, not protracted “humane” warfare. The extent of victory made all the difference between the first and the second world wars. After the first war, the Entente did not enter the German capital, devastate the country, or change the government and its constitution. The enemy was humiliated but left to rearm. It did rearm and struck back with vengeance in twenty years. The French and the British occupied Egypt easily, established a local administration, and ruled the country with little opposition. Egypt is unlike Germany in that its people lack a culture of moderation (other Arabs are still wilder), but we also have the example of a Japan that turned its educational system around after the war, taught its children international coexistence, and opened itself to the world. Israel needs to control the occupied Arab states for a decade or so. That will suffice to bring about lasting reforms in education and mentality. An occupation wouldn’t be so hard: Machiavelli taught that totalitarian states are easy to rule because their people are used to unfreedom.
Israel need not worry about hundreds of millions of Muslims only the Arabs occupying our Land and those who Have Israeli citizenship. Those outside our Land can be contained by Nuclear threat and IDF.The Arab problem is not really so big. Israeli government prevents the West Bank Arabs from emigrating. Instead, teach them useful employment, and they would move out. Young Palestinians, educated as doctors or engineers, will move to other Arab countries in search of a better pay. A simple measure of distributing free condoms would considerably reduce the Arab birth rate. Boycotting Arab labor in Israel would push able males to emigrate, and their families will later join them. At least, crack down on the illegal labor market; forced to pay Israeli taxes, economically inefficient Arabs would emigrate. Reining in the theft-based Palestinian economy would cripple the Arab industries dependent on stealing electrical power, building materials, and other goods from Israel.
The number of Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is grossly overstated. Mortality is officially almost non-existent in Palestinian communities: Arabs receive the UN and EU subsidies for their long-dead relatives. For the same reason, the reported infant mortality in refugee camps and Palestinian towns is unusually low, much lower than in the similar places in the Third World. There are many documented cases of fake births, when Palestinian women borrow babies from each other to register more children and receive more subsidies. Many Arabs are counted twice: as Israeli Arab residents and inhabitants of the West Bank, sometimes thrice when a part of their family lives in Gaza. Arabs who moved from one West Bank town to another are often counted in both places. Illegal emigration from the West Bank and Gaza to Arab countries is not accounted for. Realistic estimates put the Arab population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza at 1.5 to 2.5 million. Close to 60% in Judea and Samaria is virtually empty, settled by mere 1% of the total Arab population. Basic enforcement of Israel’s laws on Arabs, such as making them pay taxes, serve in the army, and razing their massive illegal construction would make Israel unattractive to Arabs. Property buyouts at fair value would also induce some Arabs to leave Israel for cheaper neighboring countries. After Israel pushes some Palestinians out by economic policies, induces others to emigrate through compensations, the number left to be expelled won’t be huge.
As you see I do have ans. and do not advocate genocide of the Arabs, Most can be encouraged to leave and or bought out. Deporting Israeli Arabs to Jordan won’t impede peace in the Middle East. A Jewish state amidst the sea of Muslim countries would never see lasting peace anyway. Deportation will normalize Israel and position her as a normal country ready to defend her values by force. A strong and respected Israel will be de facto at peace with Muslims
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama and Appeasement
Yamit: In theory you are quite correct- however in practical terms what you propose just won’t work.The Palestinians view themselves as indigenous to the area that they inhabit and indigeneous people tend to get attached to their territory. It matters little whether they are in Australia, North America,or wherever. Try to bribe a N.A. aboriginal to move and see how far you will get.And the Palestinians are no different in this regard..
Also since you are especially respectful of what is recorded in the old Testament, note that
Both Jews and Arabs trace their origins back to Abraham of the Bible. Jews descended through Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). Arabs descended through Abraham and Hagar the Egyptian, and through their son Ishmael whose daughter Mahalath also married Esau, the brother of Jacob. Thus Jews and Arabs are actually two branches of the same family which have diverged over the centuries. Both Jews and Arabs come to pray at the tomb of Abraham and Sara who are buried in Hebron
The Bible, in the book of Genesis, clearly states that descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will eventually receive their inheritance in the form of the Promised Land, which is later identified to include the general location of present day Israel. But Ishmael and his descendants are also included in this inheritance,
‘…for I will make a great nation of him [i.e. Ishmael]‘ Gen. 21:18
Your theories are great on paper, but if you think you can sell it to the the very best informed and most influential elements of Israel society, you would be dreaming. Now I’m referring to the business elite, university and artistic communities and the media.These people tend to be on the left, with little sympathy for expulsion or ethnic cleansing.
I shall not even refer to the stance of America, E.U or the all of the Asian nations. Ethnic cleaning would be out of the question.
Amit, enjoy your flights of fancy, you are entitled to some simple pleasures in life. Goodness knows, you have paid your dues.
Polls have been taken on the Westbank and 40% of the Palestinians said they would leave if given compensation.
I Understand Canada would be willing to take most of them? Here is the crux of the matter. You are right in that they trace parallel biblical lineage but that is not what keeps them here. Most are no more than 3rd or fourth generation occupants of Palestine from the time of the second aliyah but that is not important most are not land owners and at best own most illegally their own homes thats it. Most do not work in agriculture but are city and town residents. Since over 50% of their population is under 16 yrs, and most can’t find viable work, with no prospects any offer of compensation along with visa to another country that offers them a better life will be jumped at with the under 30 group. The younger to easier. This has less to do with attachment to the land but fears of the unknown future in a foreign environment. Part of the Problem is that the whole of the Arab world hates them and don’t want them in their countries. Canada and Australia, NZ, are Countries receptive to them as are many in EU. The best educated of them can find comfort and good reception in Arab and Muslim countries where they can fit in. Even with out our prodding hundreds of thousands have left over past few years , it is only their high birth rate that keeps their population stats balanced but nobody has really good and reliable stats here.Hundreds of thousands worked in KUwait before Sadam invaded and afterward Kuwait kicked them all out and refused to let them return because they sided with Iraq. Hundreds of thousands worked in Israel and about 50-60 thousand still do. We just bar them from working here and let them fester, they will leave if given the opportunity. These Paragons of Human virtue have already driven 70% of Arab Christians out of the Country with no compensation . They just terrorized them raped their women stole their property and in short made living amongst them a living hell.
It doesn’t matter if what they believe is true or not, what does matter is that they believe it to be true . This is why no peace is possible. This is a conflict where two peoples ea. with their own truths believe they are right and demand sovereignty over a very small piece of territory. It cannot reasonably be divided , separated, or sliced and diced. Problems too great for both sides so only one side can be top banana.
We could have a civil war here where we kill all the leftist appeasers and traitors, or we can find a leader of exceptional charisma that will be able to mobilize the majority here and change the current status quo politically. That would mean most of the country coming closer to my political positions and being acted upon in the directions I have outlined. Keeping in mind that except for war this process of divesting ourselves from the Arabs might be a generational process 20-30 years to complete but in war it could be immediate.
Many Jews, myself included, have positive experience with Arabs and even Arab friends. That seems to imply that Arabs are generally good and peaceful relations with them can be established. But recall that anti-Semites dispel criticism with “I have a Jewish friend” mantra. On the micro-level, an Arab taxi driver or bread seller is decent, hardworking person. He wants to earn money and is nice to Jewish customers. His immediate inclination is to serve Jews, not kill them. Complex systems do not equal the sum of their parts and nations behave differently from individuals. Ideology cements nations, and they are concerned with ideology more than well-being. Palestinian Arab community does not want to sell more pita bread to Jews, but realize Palestinian aspirations by destroying a Zionist state. Early Zionists accepted Arabs in Jewish state, presuming they would follow individual interest. Since then, Palestinian Arabs developed national backbone, and Israel failed to destroy it from village bosses up. Israel lost an ephemeral chance of coexisting with individual Arabs, and has to fight an Arab nation. Game theory presupposes that all people will act in what they believe is their own best interests. The Arabs are an exception to the rule.
Yamit:
There is no country on this globe who is prepared to accept millions of impoverished foreign nationals without the language skills, or ability to easily adapt to a new way of life. Canada is no exception here.
Before you implememt the Yamit middle east plan for peace and salvation, please find some way to sell it to someone, anyone, even a close family member or even a pet.
Peskin you are correct in your narrow rationalist liberal mindset but I have answers that can if implemented change the national and Israeli geopolitical position in may ways but it includes at lest partially how we can expunge All or most of the Arabs from the Land of Israel, increase our Jewish population , stop emigration increase immigration, make the country economically sound and independent, and increase our security deterrent.
I said that short of war removing or expunging the Arabs is a generational process not a mass exodus of millions of people in a day week month or year but a process over many years. This would entail an integrated process of Israeli economic and societal reforms and a rethink of our military situation. Here are the barest bones of some examples of How. In an export-oriented economy such as the Israel’s domestic supply and demand are irrelevant. American software developers which outsource many projects and MOP to Israel have a demand for any realistic number of employees so long as they ask for somewhat lower wages and benefits than their US counterparts. Israelis are much more efficient than, say, Indians, and don’t need to peg their wage requirements to Bangalore. Why, then, the Israelis who work for American corporations receive so low wages? Because the traditional level of wages in Israel, depressed by the decades of socialist rule, is quite low.
Israel needs to break away from her socialist legacy, and develop a free market economy which would make it unfeasible for Jews to emigrate. A few measures are obvious.
The government’s regulatory powers and agencies need not be reformed, but abolished altogether. It is better that Israel goes through a short “Wild West” stage than continues fighting the bureaucracy indefinitely. Insurance companies and liability bonds should take the place of preemptive regulation. Anyone should be able to open a business without any permits as long as he purchases liability insurance.
In order to end the spiraling real estate prices, zoning must be abolished. Anyone should be able to build on his land whatever he wishes. That would legalize the massive Arab illegal construction, but Arabs are not prosecuted for it, anyway.
All the state enterprises except perhaps the military should be privatized. Monopoly and licensing have to be abolished. Trade unions must be recognized for whatever they are: illegal cartels, prosecuted, and dismantled. Nepotism in the few remaining state enterprises should be made a criminal offense.
Banking and corporate law should be streamlined along the Swiss model to make Israeli jurisdiction internationally competitive. Israel can withdraw from unnecessarily tough money-laundering pacts: we have no problem with Columbia’s drug kings or Russian corrupt oligarchs.
Military expenses must reduced by relying on nuclear deterrent. Female conscription should be abolished. Males should be conscripted for six months except in those army branches which require extensive training. Even those branches should try the most condensed courses and conduct training on weekends instead of draining the economy of hyper-productive young Jews.
The compound tax rate, which includes customs duties, should be capped at 30%, and gradually decreased to 15%. Currently, the government adjusts the tax rate to provide for all its desired expenses; on the contrary, the tax rate should be fixed, and the government has to decide which of the programs to abandon.
Welfare should be reduced to the biblical minimum: society provides food for those who positively cannot provide for themselves. The poor can also be offered campus housing and basic medicine. Needy cannot be choosy. Many Jewish charity organizations would add to the state’s basic welfare, but Arabs would be left to their own. Jewish state won’t take care of them except for the very basic aid; recently expired food would do.
All schools and universities should be privatized. First of all, that would reduce the spell of ultra-left Ministry of Education. The government should only set basic rules of education, such as learning math even in yeshivas, and let the schools set their own schedules and parents choose the appropriate schools. The current curriculum is wasteful, students waste their time in schools, most courses lack the real-life relevance. Instead of paying taxes which finance the school system, parents should get long-term tuition loans – here is the trick – repayable by their children. That way, parents would not hesitate to bring up more children, and the children will eventually pay for their own education. In the legal doctrine, parents are entitled to make decisions on their children’s behalf; taking out a tuition loan is just such a decision. The Jewish state now spends tremendously on educating the Arabs who constitute a third of Israel’s young; with tuition loans, that would no longer be the case.
Israel, on one hand, needs to increase family subsidies, but on the other hand, doesn’t want to subsidize Arab families. The solution is tax subsidies: perpetual income tax reductions for working parents. Most Arabs officially lack substantial employment and won’t be able to claim subsidies.
Social security should almost cease. Every person is responsible for saving for his own retirement. If he didn’t, the government can provide him with the minimum charity (food, campus shelter, basic medical aid). Israel can also enforce the biblical commandment that obligates children to provide for their parents. In such a scenario, Jews would love to bear more children, who will be their retirement security.
These suggestions are not chiseled in stone but as an exercise in thinking like Ted has said many times : THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX! I don’t expect our Arabs if they leave gradually to have much difficulty in finding new countries of residence a few million till now have already done so. I am not adverse to paying fair compensation to any who are willing to leave and not look back. The Value of Gazan offshore natural Gas that only Israel can purchase will easily pay compensation to any Arab willing to leave.
Lastly Canada accepted you why not a bunch of Arabs? LoL
I keep seeing references to the left wing media-driven myth that Iraq had no WMDs and that Iraq had no relationship with Al Qaeda. While large stockpiles of WMDs were not found as expected, other evidence of WMDs were, in fact, found in Iraq and not reported by the mainstream media. Evidence of numerous communications between the Saddam regime and Al Qaeda were found in Iraq. Al Qaeda’s Ansar al Islam group had training camps in Iraq. Abu Musab al Zarkawi was treated there after he was injured in Afghanistan. For those interested in the WMDs that were found in Iraq as well as other media-driven myths regarding the war in Iraq, please read the highly documented book written by investigative journalist Richard Miniter, “Disinformation: The 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror.”
Since there were 17 UN Security Council resolutions between 1991 and 2003, most passed unanimously, demanding that the Saddam regime disclose what they had done with the WMDs they acknowledged having in the cease fire agreement of 1991, we know that the entire world believed that Iraq had WMDs, not just the Bush administration.
Can anyone with more than half a brain plausibly suggest that Saddam risked and lost his cushy dictatorship, torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves, which he had previously killed hundreds of thousands of his own people to preserve, by refusing to comply with 17 UN resolutions over 12 years, AFTER HAVING NO WMDs? Showing the UN inspectors he had no WMDs would have removed a major reason that was used for the regime change, though there were several other reasons in the joint US Congressional resolution that authorized the regime change. France, Russia and China could have then pushed for the removal of the UN sanctions, and Saddam could have resumed business as usual once again. BTW, detailed plans were found in Iraq for the resumption of their WMD program once UN sanctions were lifted. Bush’s action saved the world, not to mention the Iraqi Shia and Kurds, from all this.
While Saddam had not yet developed a nuclear WMD he had developed and used chemical and biological WMDs against Iran and his own Kurds and Shia. He had scientists who were known as Dr. Germ and Dr. Anthrax and a General known as Chemical Ali. These chemical and biological weapons do not take up much space and can easily be hidden in a large country like Iraq. Besides, if the Bush administration were as duplicitous as his adversaries allege, he could have easily planted as much evidence as he needed in order to prove his case.
AmericanEagle: What is it you wish-to relaunch the Iraqi invasion. We are looking for a gracefull exit, not a rationale for staying. It is pretty well accepted by all parties that it was an error, a boo-boo of gargantuan portportions that will take years to settle. The only important issue from the American point of view is Iraq’s Link to 9/11. And here we know that Al-Qaeda was assisting Iraqi dissidents.Helping the enemies of Saddam. The Baathists and Jihadis were deadly enemies, not allies. So it makes absolutely no sense to continue to flog the dead horse that the Iraqi invasion was in any way part of the war on terrorism. On the contrary the Iraqi invasion has facilitated the advance of the Jihadi movement.This has been confirmed by just about everyone in the U.S. intelligence community.