In the Aftermath of Defensive Shield - Q & A
Question
Soon after my talk on 5th May 2002 analysing the three problems in Israel and following Operation Defensive Shield by Israel Army in the West Bank, many friends asked me for my reaction and specifically in what way this Operation has changed the dynamics of the conflict and affected the three problems facing Israel outlined by my talk on how to right the wrong in Israel.
Answer
Defensive Shield accentuated all the three problems(Borders Security, Government instability and Negative Image) brought them into focus and made their solutions even more urgent. Otherwise Defensive Shield did not change anything. What it did was to give Israel time-very limited time - to solve all the above three problems. Defensive Shield coupled with external circumstances created a window of opportunity that we have to use while still open. It may not be wide open for long.
Question
What are these external factors or circumstances?
Answer
Initial reaction to Sept.11th was negative for Israel. The Arabs and specially the Palestinian radicals were emboldened. Many voices in the west and mainly in Europe sought to placate the Muslim world on the expense of Israel. Europe continues to do that. However the President’s decisive condemnation of terror and countries harbouring it, the American response and success in Afghanistan and the lack of clear support by the Arabs for that response restored American almost consensual support for Israel by the American Presidency, State Department, Congress and Media. This consensus may not last beyond the November elections for Congress. World media through Arab money and influence and under pressure from Europe is slowly changing tune and under State Department pressure may gain ascendancy.
Question
How to proceed?
Answer
On the 1st problem that of our future security we have to define clear demarcation of the ultimate borders of Israel (not what is desired but what is possible) and to effect complete separation of the two states of Israel and future Palestine along these borders. Israel has to act unilaterally by walking out of Gaza and the West Bank leaving within the borders of Israel only those settlements, which are linked uninterruptedly to Israel and therefore easily defendable. Proposals by Ben-Eliezer and Haim Ramon although come from different directions in actual fact seem to point the same way as far as creating the basis for separate and clearly defined borders with future Palestine. What is imperative is to implement them without waiting or negotiating. In this way we can consolidate the American support and may regain some of the support we have completely lost in Europe. The words “occupation” and “humiliation” in the new jargon of TV spin proved to be the most lethal weapons in the hands of our enemies in the Middle East and in Europe. It is no use talking about right or wrong. We have lost the propaganda war and we need to assert and reassume our moral high ground. We can only achieve this by boldly and openly declaring our acceptance of a State of Palestine. Protracted interim arrangements will work against us by depriving us of any sympathy or support of most of the countries in the world.
Let us also not commit the same mistake again of organising and arming the new state. It is none of our business. We cannot prevent any future state from arming itself having failed to prevent such arming to take place under the Palestine Authority when under agreement with them at least we had the power to do that. Treaties in the hands of terrorists and dictators are merely pieces of paper. We need to establish hard defendable borders on the ground. The utmost we can ask for now is to demilitarise Gaza retaining sovereignty over the sea bordering it. Once we have proper borders with a proper sovereign neighbouring State of Palestine we can regulate the flow of economic workers from there to suit us. This is a real and tangible and effective weapon. That entails visas, work permits, pre-entry research etc. I believe a new situation of good secure fences will bring about support from progressive elements within the new state to seek the assistance of Israel. In fact the new situation will have far reaching consequences both on our relations in the region and our internal relationship with our own Arab Citizens.
Suicidal bombers have introduced a new dimension to the conflict. Post Sept. 11th gives a new definition to what security entails. The balance of casualties, the number game, has swung in the Palestinians favour hugely impacting on their confidence and psychology. They now believe rightly or wrongly that time is on their side. The hurried manner of our withdrawal from Lebanon has encouraged them. We have to remember that the Arab radicals believed and to a degree rightly so that their terror created the internal pressure in Israel which compelled us to withdraw from Lebanon. They are trying to repeat the same tactics and will intensify its use by sending their homicide bombers from all surrounding countries. It is now embedded in their mythology that they have kicked us out of Lebanon and it is only a question of time to kick us first out of the territories followed eventually and over a time by the whole of Israel a la Crusades fashion. Internal pressure in Israel is building up and few concerted suicide bombings co-ordinated simultaneously will cause it to implode and fulfil Arab expectations. We have to act before this happens since if it does it will confirm the efficacy of their strategy and make it impossible to build a peaceful co-existence in the future.
The consequences of Defensive Shield have generated hatred and mistrust on both sides that will take generations to heal. The do-gooders amongst us who rely on goodwill, morality and equity to reach the basis of a settlement with few like-minded individuals on the other side are misreading the mood and the psyche of the streets on both sides. Reading the London Guardian and meeting each other’s counterpart in comfortable English or Norwegian countryside may draw few individuals together but that is a long, long way from solving the problems, pain and hurt of ordinary people. Only clear separate borders can in time rekindle trust between these two peoples of two proud countries through trade, tourism, cultural exchanges and the like. Forget about similarities with other situations. We are not in Northern Ireland and anyway who are the Catholics and who are the Protestants in our conflict. Comparisons are dangerous and misleading. They may be good only for patching up tools in the hands of self-serving mediators. Please beware!
Question
How can we just walk out? What about our economic interests? What about Arab workers whom we need in Israel and the Palestinians need of employment for their livelihood?
Answer
We have to decide our priorities. Closing our borders is a double-edged sword. But economic hardship on both sides is preferable to mutual slaughter. Moreover as it hits all the population it can concentrate the mind on solutions. First things first. We define our ultimate borders then we set out to strengthen and fortify them. And having declared and publicly explained our position and intention to recognise the new state we proceed to close the borders and hand over the territories except for Hebron to the present Palestine Authority reformed or corrupt. It is only then that we engage with them in bilateral negotiations for a series of treaties.
At the start of the negotiation whenever it happens the first and most urgent will be agreeing the borders which Israel would have established unilaterally on the ground. Our starting stage will be the status of Gaza. We insist that any agreement to reopen the borders here will be contingent on declaring Gaza a demilitarised entity with pre verifiable conditions. That will be our starting stage in the bilateral negotiation. Our weapon will be the pressure of closed borders.
Question
This sounds crazy almost giving up what even some Arabs are not contemplating. Is this a solution for Israel or for the Palestinians?
Answer
Any solution has to be good for both sides in the long run. However my proposal is only concerned with the security present and future of Israel. I believe that we are standing at a crossroad with regard not only of the safety of Israel but also with the future survival of our Jewish heritage that is dependent and intertwined with the future of Israel. The recent manifestations of the hostile attitudes of Europe, governments and peoples (U.K. and Denmark excepted) is far more disturbing than that of the Arabs who of course should be predicted. Once we reach a settlement with the Palestinians we would be amazed to find them far more reliable friends than the Europeans especially if we treat them and the Arabs of Israel with dignity as genuine and equal friends. I believe that the Palestinians have over the last twenty years learnt far more about us and about their so-called Arab brothers in the Arab countries than we realise and understand. They have particularly seen how much Jordan had gained in contrast to Syria by being supportive of America and neutral towards Israel. Once peace is established the progressive Palestinians will find more in common with democratic modern western orientated Israel than they have with the dictators and the corrupt regimes of almost every Arab country.
Question
Where do the Arabs of Israel fit into this picture?
Answer
In the same way that we should not lump the Palestinians with other Arabs living elsewhere we should not lump the Arabs of Israel with others. They are content where they are and would like to identify with Israel if given the chance. We must be careful not to see them as the simple villagers of the pre-1948 era. They have progressed since as we have done. We should treat them sensibly honourably and as equal citizens the way Jews and other ethnic groups are treated in, for example, tolerant “Christian” Britain. We should enlist them in the IDF but avoid taking them into sensitive units and the Air Force on account of the understandable justification of avoiding them having to fight their own relatives across the border. Modern Armies depend increasingly on specialised units that can be restricted to Jews. As for their social and political integration the proposed electoral system will help in that direction. Even today given the chance they would have been of immense value if a number of them were to be assigned to our key embassies in the West. They would have been proud to parade themselves as Israelis. I believe they could in time constitute our bridge to the neighbouring Palestinians and to the wider Arab world.
Question
What about the rest of the Arab world?
Answer
Once Israel withdraws from the territories the sting will go out of the propaganda venom of the Arabs and their supporters in Europe. They will try to sabotage any bilateral agreement with the Palestinians. They are not going to like losing the Palestinian card and the Israel bogey to divert the attention of their peoples and their streets away from their corrupt regimes and hopeless governments. We have to counter this by exposing their weaknesses. And of course each country has its own problems so there is no “fix fits all” in our treatment of our future relations with them. For the sake of continuing to receive financial aid from the West at least Egypt and Jordan will heat up their cold peace with Israel. Others will follow which may leave isolated Syria to seek settlement.
Question
What about Jerusalem and Hebron ?
Answer
We separate Jerusalem from East Jerusalem and start to call it Al-Quds. Then again just hand over to the Palestinian Authority those parts which we are prepared to give up as last resort even before any negotiations. These must include the Mosque. Meantime we must literally while it is in our hand erect a wall, a battlement wall in the middle of the courtyard of the Mosque to protect the Kothel-Wall and the Jewish worshippers below. We must assert and declare our sovereignty of this battlement structure and the area on our side of it. This is possible today but will not be so later on. This time let us use the cards we hold. The world would understand us and accept our action in today’s atmosphere of terror and homicide bombers. They will not tolerate this action tomorrow in quieter times.
As for Hebron we declare now that once an arrangement can be made with the new State of Palestine to ensure the safety of the settlers as Israeli citizens living in Palestine as Foreign Residents Israel IDF will withdraw after an agreed period of say one or two years. Only a clear declaration now can diffuse the perilous situation of the settlers, avoid more slaughter, and gain the sympathy of the outside world.
Question
But the Palestinians or Yasser Arafat would not agree to play ball?
Answer
The principle of this scenario is to act unilaterally. Establish facts on the ground as our ultimate concessions and negotiate the details of a treaty with Palestine afterwards. An urgent action is needed while we have the support of the President and Congress. You never know what may happen tomorrow. Let us deploy our army to seal our borders and secure the lives of our people inside those borders instead of using it to demolish few buildings which will be better designed and rebuilt by Western money. And let us do that while discredited Yasser Arafat is there. We will be under far more pressure if say an articulate Saeb Erekat or a moderate replaces him. Let us concentrate on rebuilding our shattered economy. We must abandon the idea of reorganising the Palestine Authority. The dream that Palestinian police or security organ will defend our borders from suicide or rocket bombing is naïve to the point of tragic misunderstanding of the present mood in the “occupied” territories. We will never have security that way. The aftermath of Oslo and later on of Clinton should have taught us some lessons. Let the factions in the territories fight it out between themselves. Eventually they will settle down and they may very well settle down in a confederation with Jordan. While we are interfering we are preventing the progressive elements amongst them from gaining power. Let us keep out of it. In the new scenario they will need Israel. And those in the West who want to help them will need Israel’s goodwill as a neighbour for economic not political reasons. I believe that ultimately our best friends after the Americans will be the Palestinians themselves and certainly not Europe. It will dawn on the Palestinians that their best friend is their western neighbour. We shall both see Europe for what it is and what it is showing itself to be nowadays i.e. anti-Semitic and racist. In this respect at least we have something in common with the Arabs. Jews in Europe should make this common ground to be felt both by Europe and by the many Arabs living there. Let us get to the hearts of the Arabs through co-operation in this area and not through arming or organising the security arms of the new State. We must remember that the enemies of the people in all Arab countries are their own secret services and their armies. We do not want to be associated with them in the eyes of their people in the way for example we did in Iran and lost so much as a consequence. Let us not be the tool of Western interests. We are not even helping anybody that way certainly not our American friends.
Question
What about the refugees and their right of return?
Answer
This is the one question that we should be clear and adamant about. We have taken more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees left what today is Israel. We must make this clear and keep saying it. Whatever are the circumstances of refugee movements on both sides we have to deal with the outcome and not talk of reversing it. For the sake of the ultimate success of any future negotiation and the future survival of Israel we must declare that this is the one question which is out of the question. Anybody in Israel who is prepared to negotiate this subject must have his head examined.
There are some comfortable Jews outside Israel and more importantly there are Israeli Jews who believe Israel should become a secular country of its inhabitants. Let us not volunteer to be the first. Let us follow others may be in 25th century! when may be the Arab and Islamic countries and even Europe not excluding the U.K become secular or at least not identified with any religion. We have to remain the Jewish State that is the refuge of last resort of persecuted Jews. We must not allow Israel to be diluted further. Tolerant Israel yes, un-Jewish Israel no. We must stop being ashamed of our heritage and our identity. Therefore we must resist any further Jewish dilution.
Question
What about the problem of electoral reform and the stability of Israeli Governments i.e. no. 2 problem outlined in the referred discussion?
Answer
This is becoming even more urgent and our divided front vis-à-vis the outside world during Defensive Shield made a change absolutely imperative. The present coalition with its backbone of Shraron/Peres/Ben-Eliezer have 18 months to introduce the new system. It will be a case of historical criminal negligence committed against the Jewish people by Likud/Labour if they do nothing about it. This is a case of putting the country nay the Jewish future survival before party politics. Enough is enough. Our incessant division and political in fighting are exasperating our friends and making us the laughing stock of our enemies. We ask Yasser Arafat to reform his political structure. What about him asking us to do the same to make any peace enduring!? What shall we say to him if he simply ask us the startling question: what is the difference between SheikhYassin in Gaza and Chief Rabbi Ovadiah in Jerusalem!! The case for electoral reform may not sound that urgent or important when viewed against pressing daily dangers facing Israel. In fact it has as much relevance as any outside danger facing us. It is rotting our socio-political structure and driving our best talent away from the Kenesset and government. The new proposals will force future politicians to seek their support in the regions and amongst the people away from the chatty cafes of Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.
Question
What about the third problem highlighted in the synopsis i.e. that of our appalling public relations.
Answer
This is probably the saddest part. Here we are the people who produced the fathers of propaganda and P.R. namely Durkheim Freud and Bernays have failed abysmally in defending Israel’s case before and especially during Defensive Shield. Even now we have not recovered from all the faux pas we have stumbled in or failed to avoid. The only two persons who made any impact were Peres for substance and Nethanyahu for form. Unfortunately Peres was out of place in New York and Nethanyahu was out of place in Trafalgar Square! We could not even get the juxtaposition right! We really should spend time and resources in this area. May be we should find out who the Palestinians are employing and try to hire them! We need urgently to address this problem and highlight the points outlined in the discussion. Let us use the weapons of the Holocaust and the Arab cleansing of their Jews from their countries. We have paid so dearly for these two weapons and they are rusting away.
Question
Some may say that there seem to be so many contradictions and inconsistency in the above arguments i.e. We are enemies and friends of the Arabs. We are strong and we are weak. We want to keep what we can of the territories and we should give up most of it. Are we with Sharon/Ben-Eliezer or with Sarid/Beilin or worse are we the new defeatists?
Answer
We are none of the above. There is no inconsistency. There may be poor presentation of the argument. I concede that but we must be careful not to mix form and content. My point of departure is the future survival of Israel that I believe is synonymous with that of the Jewish People and Jewish heritage. Israel today is facing unprecedented danger. To overcome it we have to think with our heads not our hearts. We have to see the realities of our situation not the wishful thinking of our ambitions. The Palestinians have changed the rules of engagement and the world is unconcerned. They don’t need a huge army any more. They need few daring and punch drunk fanatics not necessarily to carry bombs that we may or may not intercept in time. Biological and chemical weapons can be easily carried in small tubes by beautiful and innocent looking teenagers. The world has not yet experienced this horror yet. Unfortunately innovations seem always to be tried on Israel first – aeroplane hijacking, suicidal bombing and tomorrow biological or chemical warfare. Our urgent response now must be two pronged: close the borders properly and seek an acceptable peace that can prepare the ground for neighbourly friendship. There is no alternative. And remember we have become an endangered species of 12 million squeezed between one thousand million Muslims and similar number of Christians. We cannot afford to play the number game with the Arabs when one suicide bomber kills tens and maims hundreds. This is a game too far.
This is a program based on hard and harsh realities not on ideals and aspirations.
Aharon Nathan, May 2002
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
Monday, 20 May 2002
Tuesday, 5 March 2002
Israel Arab Conflict (Three Problems in Israel)
Solutions to Border Security, Political Stability and Negative Image
The daily news from Israel is getting more and more alarming. It is only natural that we Jews would react emotionally and angrily and try to search for a quick fix. However such quick fixes in the past proved to be short lived and made future permanent solutions more difficult. Successive Israeli Governments worked on the assumption that time was on their side. Recent development, from Oslo onwards, the opposite became true. The Arabs feel today that they have discovered the recipe for success i.e. guerrilla warfare coupled with propaganda onslaught on Western TV’s.
Since the 6-day war Israel has achieved wonders in building a strong economy, an up-to-date technology, an invincible army and above all a real haven in time of need for the Jewish People. Tragically these achievements are being eroded now day by day owing mainly to three dangers which are corroding the future survival and viability of a Jewish State. These are:
Problem No. 1: Security of Borders
In the heart of this problem of the security of Israel’s borders is the cancer of Gaza which sits on the geographical belly of Israel and together with Hebron forms an axis of evil which divides the country in two halves. The fate of the isolated settlements on the West Bank looks precarious and untenable. The heart of Israel becomes vulnerable to attacks by suicide bombers or long distant rockets. A rational solution to resolve these problems has to be perceived and seen by both sides to be logical and in their mutual interest. And above all it has to look to the outside world to be fair in the circumstances.
The solution lies in moving the Capital and therefore the centre of gravity of the new State of Palestine to the West Bank (Ramallah or East-Jerusalem) and endeavour to resettle the refugees living now in the Gaza Refugee Camps outside leaving a demilitarised Gaza with its original inhabitants. All this is to be part of the overall settlement with the Palestinians. And together with realistic arrangements for the Hebron enclave becoming a community of Palestinian Jews or Israeli Residents within and subject to the sovereignty of Palestine and with similar status for some of the existing Settlements will end up with reasonably defendable borders.
Problem No. 2: Reform of the Electoral System
The present electoral system of Israel based on pure proportional representation has over the years pulverised the Jewish population and prevented it from integrating its big Arab minority into the body politic causing the latter to be the fifth column that it is virtually today. More importantly it rendered a stable Government of the country almost impossible. Israeli Jews are nowadays divided culturally and politically. They are diametrically opposed to each other even in their attitudes to security and foreign policy matters. No wonder the Government itself is speaking in so many voices giving mixed messages to friend and foe. The Arabs are taking advantage of this situation and Europe exploits it for their regional interests while venting their pent-up anti-Semitic impulses in the bargain.
The Solution is a new electoral system based on a combined Proportional Representation and Constituency system, which is easy to operate and can be acceptable to the two big Parties:Likud and Labour. With Labour Peres and Likud Sharon co-operating in the present government it will be possible to advocate it. In fact it is an opportunity which may be lost unless introduced in this Kennesset ready for the next general election.
The proposed system is based on dividing the country into 120 constituencies that elect 120 members of the Kenesset. And in addition another 30 members are elected by adding the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates and allocating them on a proportional basis amongst the political parties out of their pre-announced lists of their candidates in the constituencies. Details of this proposal can show that it is simple to operate and practical. This is a completely new and innovative system, which Israel can pioneer and it can be, adapted in other democratic countries e.g. the U.K. where a change of electoral system in the opposite direction is called for. This system can over time cause to integrate the Arabs of Israel into its political life.
Problem No. 3: Israel’s World Image
This is the poor almost pathetic way which Israel’s information organs are presenting and advancing Israel’s case throwing away the two main underlying raisons d’être for the very existence of Israel: i.e. the persecution of the Jews in Europe culminating in the Holocaust and the treatment of the Jews in the Arab countries and the ethnic cleansing by them to Israel. Not only the world has forgotten this because they don’t want to remember but also because we ourselves don’t remind them. So we are left with Israel the aggressor the dispossessing and inhumane. And not only Arabs say this today but almost the whole of Europe and worst of all many Jewish "intellectuals" both inside Israel and outside. Any TV viewer can contrast the articulate and vocal Palestinian spokesmen with the Israeli halting apologetic defensive and almost lost for words in their responses.
The Solution is an offensive on a large scale to take on Arab propaganda European hypocrisy and above all the emerging Jewish intellectualism trying to curry favour in the West disdaining their heritage following their counter-parts in Germany in the twenties and thirties who thought that Goethe and Beethoven could take care of Anti Semitism and Nazism. We should not be abashed or ashamed in reminding the world of what happened to necessitate the existence of Israel. In modern days of spin and emotional appeals we cannot afford in our responses to be the gentle the clinically pure the refined. All Nations know and certainly the Arabs have realised the potency of the propaganda war. Unfortunately for the Jewish People we don’t even need propaganda. We just need to tell historical truths without inhibition or fear. We are at war.
To the Arabs we say: You ethnically-cleansed your old Jewish communities who preceded you in your countries. Why can Arabs live in Israel but not one single Jew can even visit any part of Arabia Iraq Syria let alone contemplate living as a foreign resident even in Jordan or Egypt. The Arabs have succeeded in making their appalling ethnic and religious prejudices acceptable even to the most enlightened and tolerant segments of society in the West. It is shocking how these views are taken for granted. The world forgot or did not know that the number of Jewish refugees taken by Israel far exceeds the Palestinian refugees.
To Europe we say: Please don’t lecture us on morality and human behaviour. You have caused the emergence of Israel. And the best way to help is to try to be friends to both sides, not to sit in judgement on Israel. You cannot choose to be neutral. You were party to the problem. The world and not least the Jews living in security and comfort for the time being in Europe have to know that the Israelis cannot afford to let Israel to be a big Ghetto or a concentration camp waiting for a Final Solution. These are harsh words but they have to be said loud and clear otherwise we may have only ourselves to blame in 10/20 years time.
Aharon Nathan, June 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
The daily news from Israel is getting more and more alarming. It is only natural that we Jews would react emotionally and angrily and try to search for a quick fix. However such quick fixes in the past proved to be short lived and made future permanent solutions more difficult. Successive Israeli Governments worked on the assumption that time was on their side. Recent development, from Oslo onwards, the opposite became true. The Arabs feel today that they have discovered the recipe for success i.e. guerrilla warfare coupled with propaganda onslaught on Western TV’s.
Since the 6-day war Israel has achieved wonders in building a strong economy, an up-to-date technology, an invincible army and above all a real haven in time of need for the Jewish People. Tragically these achievements are being eroded now day by day owing mainly to three dangers which are corroding the future survival and viability of a Jewish State. These are:
Problem No. 1: Security of Borders
In the heart of this problem of the security of Israel’s borders is the cancer of Gaza which sits on the geographical belly of Israel and together with Hebron forms an axis of evil which divides the country in two halves. The fate of the isolated settlements on the West Bank looks precarious and untenable. The heart of Israel becomes vulnerable to attacks by suicide bombers or long distant rockets. A rational solution to resolve these problems has to be perceived and seen by both sides to be logical and in their mutual interest. And above all it has to look to the outside world to be fair in the circumstances.
The solution lies in moving the Capital and therefore the centre of gravity of the new State of Palestine to the West Bank (Ramallah or East-Jerusalem) and endeavour to resettle the refugees living now in the Gaza Refugee Camps outside leaving a demilitarised Gaza with its original inhabitants. All this is to be part of the overall settlement with the Palestinians. And together with realistic arrangements for the Hebron enclave becoming a community of Palestinian Jews or Israeli Residents within and subject to the sovereignty of Palestine and with similar status for some of the existing Settlements will end up with reasonably defendable borders.
Problem No. 2: Reform of the Electoral System
The present electoral system of Israel based on pure proportional representation has over the years pulverised the Jewish population and prevented it from integrating its big Arab minority into the body politic causing the latter to be the fifth column that it is virtually today. More importantly it rendered a stable Government of the country almost impossible. Israeli Jews are nowadays divided culturally and politically. They are diametrically opposed to each other even in their attitudes to security and foreign policy matters. No wonder the Government itself is speaking in so many voices giving mixed messages to friend and foe. The Arabs are taking advantage of this situation and Europe exploits it for their regional interests while venting their pent-up anti-Semitic impulses in the bargain.
The Solution is a new electoral system based on a combined Proportional Representation and Constituency system, which is easy to operate and can be acceptable to the two big Parties:Likud and Labour. With Labour Peres and Likud Sharon co-operating in the present government it will be possible to advocate it. In fact it is an opportunity which may be lost unless introduced in this Kennesset ready for the next general election.
The proposed system is based on dividing the country into 120 constituencies that elect 120 members of the Kenesset. And in addition another 30 members are elected by adding the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates and allocating them on a proportional basis amongst the political parties out of their pre-announced lists of their candidates in the constituencies. Details of this proposal can show that it is simple to operate and practical. This is a completely new and innovative system, which Israel can pioneer and it can be, adapted in other democratic countries e.g. the U.K. where a change of electoral system in the opposite direction is called for. This system can over time cause to integrate the Arabs of Israel into its political life.
Problem No. 3: Israel’s World Image
This is the poor almost pathetic way which Israel’s information organs are presenting and advancing Israel’s case throwing away the two main underlying raisons d’être for the very existence of Israel: i.e. the persecution of the Jews in Europe culminating in the Holocaust and the treatment of the Jews in the Arab countries and the ethnic cleansing by them to Israel. Not only the world has forgotten this because they don’t want to remember but also because we ourselves don’t remind them. So we are left with Israel the aggressor the dispossessing and inhumane. And not only Arabs say this today but almost the whole of Europe and worst of all many Jewish "intellectuals" both inside Israel and outside. Any TV viewer can contrast the articulate and vocal Palestinian spokesmen with the Israeli halting apologetic defensive and almost lost for words in their responses.
The Solution is an offensive on a large scale to take on Arab propaganda European hypocrisy and above all the emerging Jewish intellectualism trying to curry favour in the West disdaining their heritage following their counter-parts in Germany in the twenties and thirties who thought that Goethe and Beethoven could take care of Anti Semitism and Nazism. We should not be abashed or ashamed in reminding the world of what happened to necessitate the existence of Israel. In modern days of spin and emotional appeals we cannot afford in our responses to be the gentle the clinically pure the refined. All Nations know and certainly the Arabs have realised the potency of the propaganda war. Unfortunately for the Jewish People we don’t even need propaganda. We just need to tell historical truths without inhibition or fear. We are at war.
To the Arabs we say: You ethnically-cleansed your old Jewish communities who preceded you in your countries. Why can Arabs live in Israel but not one single Jew can even visit any part of Arabia Iraq Syria let alone contemplate living as a foreign resident even in Jordan or Egypt. The Arabs have succeeded in making their appalling ethnic and religious prejudices acceptable even to the most enlightened and tolerant segments of society in the West. It is shocking how these views are taken for granted. The world forgot or did not know that the number of Jewish refugees taken by Israel far exceeds the Palestinian refugees.
To Europe we say: Please don’t lecture us on morality and human behaviour. You have caused the emergence of Israel. And the best way to help is to try to be friends to both sides, not to sit in judgement on Israel. You cannot choose to be neutral. You were party to the problem. The world and not least the Jews living in security and comfort for the time being in Europe have to know that the Israelis cannot afford to let Israel to be a big Ghetto or a concentration camp waiting for a Final Solution. These are harsh words but they have to be said loud and clear otherwise we may have only ourselves to blame in 10/20 years time.
Aharon Nathan, June 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
Monday, 1 October 2001
Representation in Democracy (Total Representation ‘TR’)
A New Electoral System for Modern Times.
Total Representation (‘TR’) is based on the premise that every single vote cast in elections has to end up with some representation in parliament, whether directly or indirectly.
It avoids the most serious defect of the First-Past-the-Post System, under which votes cast for the successful candidate are represented in parliament, while all the rest of the votes i.e. those cast for the unsuccessful candidates (which may be more than 50 per cent of the total in some constituencies) are left unrepresented.
The Proportional Representation System “PR” on the other hand does allow representation to all votes cast and gives them equal weight, but it encourages small political parties and splinter groups, resulting in weak coalition governments, where factional rather than national interests take over.
‘TR’ offers a solution, by combining the positive elements of both systems, PR and first-past-the-post.
In order to implement ‘TR’, parliaments would have two classes of MPs who would be equal in every way save for the manner by which they were elected. One class would be the Constituency MPs (CMPs) who would be elected on a constituency, first-past-the-post basis, exactly as they are today in the UK. They would continue to fulfil their duties and obligations towards all their constituents, dealing with individual problems and grievances at meetings and surgeries. The other class, Party MPs (PMPs) would be elected by pooling all the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates in the constituencies and dividing them proportionally among the parties, who would announce before the election the lists of all their constituency candidates in order of priority.
For ‘TR’ to succeed in its objective, the ratio between the number of Constituency MPs (CMPs) and the Party MPs (PMPs) is crucial. I believe this ratio should be around 80:20 (or 75:25) in favour of the CMPs. This numerical ratio ensures the strength of the CMPs in parliament and consequently a degree of government stability, backed by the majority party in parliament. And, just as important, it keeps the direct bond between individual MPs and their constituencies. The 20 per cent of PMPs on the other hand ensure the existence of a built-in opposition in parliament backed by representation, so that the voices of minority interests are heard speaking with authority on the floor of parliament.
This would be the case even if one party were to win all the constituencies: the majority party would secure 80 per cent of the seats, but that would still leave 20 per cent of the seats for the opposition parties. This built-in opposition, which lies at the heart of any democratic, open society, based on real representative democracy, should help to counter to some extent the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that John Stuart Mill warned against. Once this built-in opposition is safeguarded, the more the ratio is moved towards, say, 60:40 the more the system tilts towards PR with all its disadvantages.
It is important when talking about rights, freedoms and justice in an open society to bear in mind that all these concepts revolve around the idea of vibrant social dissent or opposition of one kind or another, whose existence is essential and whose legitimacy has to be recognized and respected by all sections of the community.
The concept of opposition in general, and political opposition in particular, is the kernel at the core of an ‘Open Society’. It is the door through which changes find their way to transform society. Its absence renders a society ‘closed’ and backward looking. Political structures therefore should contain such a kernel, institutionalized as an integral part of their structure. This kernel must have the freedom to grow or wither away within its wider social context. This is what the ‘Open Society’ is about. And yet this does not mean automatically that ‘opposition’ is there merely as a permanent obstacle to the way the majority of a community wants to govern itself. Permanent representation for the opposition must be, and traditionally has been in the UK, at the heart of representative democracy in order to fulfil its function. Hence the concept of ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ in the Westminster parliament, which to outsiders looks like a quaint, contradictory expression of British eccentricity, is in fact an essential ingredient of the UK’s tolerant constitutional arrangement. We should therefore not visualize the concepts of majority and minority as two inherently static, adversarial sections of the political structure. Rather we should see them as parts of the same community, stimulating each other in a permanent ebb and flow of movement and change.
How ‘TR’ Works?
To implement ‘TR’, the country would be divided into electoral constituencies, as is the case in the UK today. Candidates would be fielded within the constituencies either as party nominees or as independents. The votes cast for the successful first-past-the-post candidates would gain their representation through the newly elected CMPs. The votes cast for all the unsuccessful candidates in all the constituencies would be pooled together and distributed proportionally among the unsuccessful candidates to elect the PMPs of the various Parties (Lists) that have fielded or sponsored them as candidates in the constituencies in the first place. Therefore all MPs (CMPs and PMPs) would have started as candidates in the constituencies whether sponsored by national parties or by independent groups.
This is a crucial element of ‘TR’. Unlike pure PR (Proportional Representation), in ‘TR’ the bond between the constituency voters and their chosen candidates are preserved and would probably survive even when a candidate failed to secure a CMP seat. Such unsuccessful constituency candidates would be heartened by the knowledge that they might end up as PMPs, if not in that very general election then in a future one. So ‘TR’ would encourage high calibre candidates to offer themselves in what today are considered un-winnable constituencies.
The merits of ‘TR’ are clear: the system is simple to operate and easy to understand. Voters continue to vote for a single candidate in their local constituency. But, most importantly, ‘TR’ modifies the first-past-the-post element of the constituency system with its failed candidates and wasted votes that have contributed to the apathy among UK voters.
‘TR’ as outlined above can be adapted and modified for any democracy but especially for emerging democracies or old democracies with changed circumstances. In fact, when examined closely it is a system which can be applied in any country and to any democracy. It is a ‘fits all’ system.
I have written separately brief proposals on the practical applications of ‘TR’ to the prevailing political circumstances in the UK (especially with regard to the House of Lords) and Israel (with regard to its parliament, the Knesset). These are the two countries I know well and whose political developments I have been watching closely for half a century. It is especially interesting to examine these two applications, as they would be approaching ‘TR’ from opposite directions – the UK moving from constituency-based, First-Past-the-Post System to ‘TR’ and Israel from Proportional Representation “PR” to ‘TR’.
Aharon Nathan, October 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
Total Representation (‘TR’) is based on the premise that every single vote cast in elections has to end up with some representation in parliament, whether directly or indirectly.
It avoids the most serious defect of the First-Past-the-Post System, under which votes cast for the successful candidate are represented in parliament, while all the rest of the votes i.e. those cast for the unsuccessful candidates (which may be more than 50 per cent of the total in some constituencies) are left unrepresented.
The Proportional Representation System “PR” on the other hand does allow representation to all votes cast and gives them equal weight, but it encourages small political parties and splinter groups, resulting in weak coalition governments, where factional rather than national interests take over.
‘TR’ offers a solution, by combining the positive elements of both systems, PR and first-past-the-post.
In order to implement ‘TR’, parliaments would have two classes of MPs who would be equal in every way save for the manner by which they were elected. One class would be the Constituency MPs (CMPs) who would be elected on a constituency, first-past-the-post basis, exactly as they are today in the UK. They would continue to fulfil their duties and obligations towards all their constituents, dealing with individual problems and grievances at meetings and surgeries. The other class, Party MPs (PMPs) would be elected by pooling all the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates in the constituencies and dividing them proportionally among the parties, who would announce before the election the lists of all their constituency candidates in order of priority.
For ‘TR’ to succeed in its objective, the ratio between the number of Constituency MPs (CMPs) and the Party MPs (PMPs) is crucial. I believe this ratio should be around 80:20 (or 75:25) in favour of the CMPs. This numerical ratio ensures the strength of the CMPs in parliament and consequently a degree of government stability, backed by the majority party in parliament. And, just as important, it keeps the direct bond between individual MPs and their constituencies. The 20 per cent of PMPs on the other hand ensure the existence of a built-in opposition in parliament backed by representation, so that the voices of minority interests are heard speaking with authority on the floor of parliament.
This would be the case even if one party were to win all the constituencies: the majority party would secure 80 per cent of the seats, but that would still leave 20 per cent of the seats for the opposition parties. This built-in opposition, which lies at the heart of any democratic, open society, based on real representative democracy, should help to counter to some extent the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that John Stuart Mill warned against. Once this built-in opposition is safeguarded, the more the ratio is moved towards, say, 60:40 the more the system tilts towards PR with all its disadvantages.
It is important when talking about rights, freedoms and justice in an open society to bear in mind that all these concepts revolve around the idea of vibrant social dissent or opposition of one kind or another, whose existence is essential and whose legitimacy has to be recognized and respected by all sections of the community.
The concept of opposition in general, and political opposition in particular, is the kernel at the core of an ‘Open Society’. It is the door through which changes find their way to transform society. Its absence renders a society ‘closed’ and backward looking. Political structures therefore should contain such a kernel, institutionalized as an integral part of their structure. This kernel must have the freedom to grow or wither away within its wider social context. This is what the ‘Open Society’ is about. And yet this does not mean automatically that ‘opposition’ is there merely as a permanent obstacle to the way the majority of a community wants to govern itself. Permanent representation for the opposition must be, and traditionally has been in the UK, at the heart of representative democracy in order to fulfil its function. Hence the concept of ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ in the Westminster parliament, which to outsiders looks like a quaint, contradictory expression of British eccentricity, is in fact an essential ingredient of the UK’s tolerant constitutional arrangement. We should therefore not visualize the concepts of majority and minority as two inherently static, adversarial sections of the political structure. Rather we should see them as parts of the same community, stimulating each other in a permanent ebb and flow of movement and change.
How ‘TR’ Works?
To implement ‘TR’, the country would be divided into electoral constituencies, as is the case in the UK today. Candidates would be fielded within the constituencies either as party nominees or as independents. The votes cast for the successful first-past-the-post candidates would gain their representation through the newly elected CMPs. The votes cast for all the unsuccessful candidates in all the constituencies would be pooled together and distributed proportionally among the unsuccessful candidates to elect the PMPs of the various Parties (Lists) that have fielded or sponsored them as candidates in the constituencies in the first place. Therefore all MPs (CMPs and PMPs) would have started as candidates in the constituencies whether sponsored by national parties or by independent groups.
This is a crucial element of ‘TR’. Unlike pure PR (Proportional Representation), in ‘TR’ the bond between the constituency voters and their chosen candidates are preserved and would probably survive even when a candidate failed to secure a CMP seat. Such unsuccessful constituency candidates would be heartened by the knowledge that they might end up as PMPs, if not in that very general election then in a future one. So ‘TR’ would encourage high calibre candidates to offer themselves in what today are considered un-winnable constituencies.
The merits of ‘TR’ are clear: the system is simple to operate and easy to understand. Voters continue to vote for a single candidate in their local constituency. But, most importantly, ‘TR’ modifies the first-past-the-post element of the constituency system with its failed candidates and wasted votes that have contributed to the apathy among UK voters.
‘TR’ as outlined above can be adapted and modified for any democracy but especially for emerging democracies or old democracies with changed circumstances. In fact, when examined closely it is a system which can be applied in any country and to any democracy. It is a ‘fits all’ system.
I have written separately brief proposals on the practical applications of ‘TR’ to the prevailing political circumstances in the UK (especially with regard to the House of Lords) and Israel (with regard to its parliament, the Knesset). These are the two countries I know well and whose political developments I have been watching closely for half a century. It is especially interesting to examine these two applications, as they would be approaching ‘TR’ from opposite directions – the UK moving from constituency-based, First-Past-the-Post System to ‘TR’ and Israel from Proportional Representation “PR” to ‘TR’.
Aharon Nathan, October 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
Friday, 1 June 2001
Israel Arab Conflict (Peace Objectives)
Peace - Objectives and the means to achieve them.
1. Time to think the unthinkable and come up with a bold approach based on fundamentals and not on preconceived prejudices and entrenched positions.
2. Unlike Christian or Muslim countries Israel can not be treated in isolation from the Jewish people worldwide. After what happened in Europe, Jews believe that defeat of Israel means annihilation. Israel is all the Jewish People’s refuge of last resort.
3. Lasting Peace is not a matter of goodwill. It lasts only if it is based on absence of potential future conflicts on the ground.
4. Only maximum defensible real SEPARATION of Israel and Palestine on the ground will work. Last 8 months killings and the recent outrages make separation mandatory.
5. GAZA is the core of the problem. Its population has to be reduced to its original inhabitants to be a viable entity. Its refugees have to be resettled in the West Bank, in Arab Countries including sparsely populated labour hungry Gulf and in Continental Europe. Otherwise it will always be a pressure cooker waiting to explode.
6. Jerusalem has to be divided into Jerusalem Capital of Israel and Al - Quds Capital of New Palestine - Twin Cities with clear SEPARATION between the two. Without this no peace will survive.
7. Arab inhabitants in Jerusalem (those who were annexed after 6 Day War) should revert to Palestine citizenship but can live as residents in Jerusalem if their residence falls within Israeli Jerusalem.
8. Likewise Jews who choose to stay in Al - Quds can retain their Israeli citizenship but continue to live as residents in Palestine subject to its laws after a period of protection by Israel.
9. Similar status should apply (after a period of protection by Israel army) to all Israelis who choose to stay in New Palestine. This includes the Jewish enclave in Hebron. The same arrangement should be accorded to any Jewish settlement which falls within the borders of Palestine.
10. Media/TV wars are nowadays taking precedence to Diplomacy and conventional wars. Israel is failing to use its many cards and moral weapons in this field to the dismay and utter frustration of its friends in the World.
11. Above suggested solutions lead to stability on the ground and are to the mutual benefit and future advantage of Israel, Palestine the Middle East and beyond. They have to be portrayed and CAN BE portrayed with sincerity and conviction as such.
12. Yasser Arafat is not in control. Hamas has to be brought directly into any negotiation for an enduring settlement. If either or both do not accept this scheme Israel should unilaterally implement it.
Aharon Nathan, June 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
1. Time to think the unthinkable and come up with a bold approach based on fundamentals and not on preconceived prejudices and entrenched positions.
2. Unlike Christian or Muslim countries Israel can not be treated in isolation from the Jewish people worldwide. After what happened in Europe, Jews believe that defeat of Israel means annihilation. Israel is all the Jewish People’s refuge of last resort.
3. Lasting Peace is not a matter of goodwill. It lasts only if it is based on absence of potential future conflicts on the ground.
4. Only maximum defensible real SEPARATION of Israel and Palestine on the ground will work. Last 8 months killings and the recent outrages make separation mandatory.
5. GAZA is the core of the problem. Its population has to be reduced to its original inhabitants to be a viable entity. Its refugees have to be resettled in the West Bank, in Arab Countries including sparsely populated labour hungry Gulf and in Continental Europe. Otherwise it will always be a pressure cooker waiting to explode.
6. Jerusalem has to be divided into Jerusalem Capital of Israel and Al - Quds Capital of New Palestine - Twin Cities with clear SEPARATION between the two. Without this no peace will survive.
7. Arab inhabitants in Jerusalem (those who were annexed after 6 Day War) should revert to Palestine citizenship but can live as residents in Jerusalem if their residence falls within Israeli Jerusalem.
8. Likewise Jews who choose to stay in Al - Quds can retain their Israeli citizenship but continue to live as residents in Palestine subject to its laws after a period of protection by Israel.
9. Similar status should apply (after a period of protection by Israel army) to all Israelis who choose to stay in New Palestine. This includes the Jewish enclave in Hebron. The same arrangement should be accorded to any Jewish settlement which falls within the borders of Palestine.
10. Media/TV wars are nowadays taking precedence to Diplomacy and conventional wars. Israel is failing to use its many cards and moral weapons in this field to the dismay and utter frustration of its friends in the World.
11. Above suggested solutions lead to stability on the ground and are to the mutual benefit and future advantage of Israel, Palestine the Middle East and beyond. They have to be portrayed and CAN BE portrayed with sincerity and conviction as such.
12. Yasser Arafat is not in control. Hamas has to be brought directly into any negotiation for an enduring settlement. If either or both do not accept this scheme Israel should unilaterally implement it.
Aharon Nathan, June 2001
http://www.aharonnathan.com/
Thursday, 31 May 2001
About Aharon Nathan
Aharon Nathan was born in Iraq in 1931 and moved to Israel in 1949. In 1953 he was appointed Senior Assistant Advisor both under Prime Ministers, Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In that capacity he was secretary to the standing committee of the security services in the Arab sector under the chairmanship of the Chief Advisor Shmuel Divon.
In 1955 he was appointed by Ben Gurion to the Yohanan Rattner’s Commission on Military Government which laid the basis of future administrations of Arab areas in Israel, and post 1967, in the occupied territories. In 1956 he was Secretary to Judge Azulai’s fact finding Commission on Kafr Qasim which drew the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders for future engagement rules of the Israel Defence Forces.
In the Suez War (1956) he was Deputy Military Governor (to Brig. Mati Peled). He set up and headed the first civil administration in the Gaza Strip. In the 60's he was in charge of integrating the Arab workers as full members of the Histadrut Trade Union. In the 6-Day War (1967) he served in the Golan Heights. In 1970 he left the civil service to pursue a career in business and travelled extensively in the Far East and East Europe. In 2005 he was appointed by the President of Israel to the Commission to examine the government and governance of the country. At the same time he joined the board of governors of CECI (the Centre of the Empowerment of the Citizens in Israel) He holds degrees from the Hebrew University and Oxford.
In 1955 he was appointed by Ben Gurion to the Yohanan Rattner’s Commission on Military Government which laid the basis of future administrations of Arab areas in Israel, and post 1967, in the occupied territories. In 1956 he was Secretary to Judge Azulai’s fact finding Commission on Kafr Qasim which drew the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders for future engagement rules of the Israel Defence Forces.
In the Suez War (1956) he was Deputy Military Governor (to Brig. Mati Peled). He set up and headed the first civil administration in the Gaza Strip. In the 60's he was in charge of integrating the Arab workers as full members of the Histadrut Trade Union. In the 6-Day War (1967) he served in the Golan Heights. In 1970 he left the civil service to pursue a career in business and travelled extensively in the Far East and East Europe. In 2005 he was appointed by the President of Israel to the Commission to examine the government and governance of the country. At the same time he joined the board of governors of CECI (the Centre of the Empowerment of the Citizens in Israel) He holds degrees from the Hebrew University and Oxford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)