Many of Israel's influentials, politicians and pundits, have declared that last week's exchange of murderers for corpses was some sort of moral victory for Israel. Some declare that the decision was "uniquely Israeli" because of some convoluted connection to our responsibility to our soldiers. What utterly hollow euphemisms.
The deal mortgaged the future safety and lives of soldiers and civilians, who will be the targets of kidnapping and slaughter by an unrepentant Samir Kuntar, his sponsors, his colleagues in terror, and perhaps generations of jihadist-indoctrinated youth. We ruined the processes of deligitimizing and neutralizing of Hizbullah which were necessary to reduce the group's popularity and to help Lebanon break free of Syrian-Iranian hegemony. We greatly reduced the chances that the abducted soldier Gilad Schalit will return home alive. So, which moral values did Israel serve?
Did the deal value human life? Not for Israel. Hizbullah chief Hassan Nassrallah demonstrated more respect for the lives of his fighters. When Israel negotiated without insisting on "proof of life," the lives of the kidnapped stopped being the crucial element in the negotiation. When we made kidnapping a profitable enterprise for our enemies, returning their able, motivated fighters for Israeli corpses, we declared that Israeli blood – past, present, and future - is cheap; on the other hand, we'll pay handsomely for the bones.
Did Israel honor her soldiers? Some senior commanders asserted that they could not turn down the Hizbullah deal and still ask solders to follow them into battle. If conscripts didn't feel that Israel would pay any price, including terrorist demands, to retrieve them dead or alive, went the argument, conscripts wouldn't serve with the dedication they do now. Such a statement is an insulting libel to the young men and women who who declare their willingness to endanger their lives for Israel's safety. The terrible sacrifices paid by Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were not honored by freeing the willing confederates of those who killed them. No; this deal had nothing to do with patriotism or with honoring military service.
One concept highlighted by the exchange was Israeli (i.e., Jewish) victimhood. Commentators remarked on the asymmetric stakes: the sympathetic lever that brought strong Israel to her knees. However, while Israel might enjoy some short-lived sympathy, Hizbullah was the winner of greater respect and legitimacy. Living things perceive differences between healthy organisms and sick ones. While Hizbullah is reviled as a torch-bearer for oppressive, Jihadist Islam, steeped in misogyny and totalitarianism, this deal arguably served its nefarious interests. Israel's sanctimony of superior civility doesn't garner much admiration when our actions are so self-damaging. Before long, most of the world, except for the Jihadists, will forget the images of Nasrallah and the Lebanese celebrating the release of a monster. It will refocus on the convenient scapegoat to ingratiate itself with the provider of the next barrel of oil.
Israel couldn't turn the deal down, remarked analysts, because if they did Hizbullah would not allow "closure" from the Second Lebanese War. Some closure. Hizbullah's arsenal of missiles is larger than ever and includes Iranian missiles capable of reaching the Negev. "No price is to great," declared Israel's elites of demagoguery. "We must do this for the families of the kidnapped, even if it's just to give them something to bury." And what of the families of kidnapped soldiers to come? "We'll deal with the future in the future," they replied, ignoring rational, burning concerns.
Therein lies the real root of Israel's problems. As long as the empowered reap political gains, Israel's political system is designed to provide instant gratification. Our officials are not chosen for long-term solutions; they are not chosen for integrity; they are not even chosen for their experience. They are chosen for short term remediation, for championing trendy causes celebre, for reciting simple catch-phrases that Israelis are told by their media that they want now. Ehud Olmert was desperate for the kind of headlines that helped him at least postpone a denouement from his scandals, the fallout from which is very close to terminating his political career.
We needed a leader to tell Karnit Goldwasser, gently, that while we sympathized with her we could not exchange bloodthirsty terrorists for what we confidently believed were corpses. The strength to act in this way has its roots in integrity, a quality our officials won't have until we are able to select them for it. We have to stop empowering patronizing demagogues; we must institute a system of elections with direct representation that lets us select talented, accountable individuals.
There was no moral victory here, no "uniquely Israeli" resolution that strengthened us through some dilemma of higher conscience. A combination of shameless demagoguery and moral bankruptcy on the part of Israel's political elite prostrated the country before one of its most brutal and evil foes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Reaction to Michael Jaffe’s article Demoguerry’s Terrible Deal
A gem of an article, clearly written, based on what to this reader at least, seems plain common sense. One can’t help wondering at the obtuseness of our leaders, or the media’s general failure to address this obtuseness. Also, the public at large seems unable to realize the mad folly of these pathetic deals and the future implications, as you so well describe.
Either we must be one of the stupidest people on earth or our pandering to terror is part of a shrewd plan on our part to encourage further outrages on Israel, so as to eventually sanction that massive, crushing reaction to our enemies’ quest to destroy us – a thrashing that we should have handed out a generation ago. Or maybe it’s something cosmic that defies mortal understanding.
But our failure to institute a sensible system of governance after 60 years of statehood has nothing to do with shrewd plans for the future treatment of our enemies, or some cosmic plan devised by God or Allah or whatever one chooses to call the inexplicable. It has to do with crass, national stupidity and personal greed.
But I’m an optimist. I still believe that Israel has marvelous resources of human intelligence and dedication. But it won’t be adequately tapped unless people who fully realize the core issues to Israel’s survival, become very much more active in making necessary changes to our political system and norms and attitudes of society. Actually both these issues have to be tackled simultaneously. Israel’s survival, whether there is a Messiah waiting in the wings for his cue or not, will mean going out into the streets and waging massive, ongoing, sensibly planned demonstrations. This seems to be the only way we’ll be able to prevail.
Rafi Dobrin
Reaction to Michael Jaffe’s article Demoguerry’s Terrible Deal
A gem of an article, clearly written, based on what to this reader at least, seems plain common sense. One can’t help wondering at the obtuseness of our leaders, or the media’s general failure to address this obtuseness. Also, the public at large seems unable to realize the mad folly of these pathetic deals and the future implications, as you so well describe.
Either we must be one of the stupidest people on earth or our pandering to terror is part of a shrewd plan on our part to encourage further outrages on Israel, so as to eventually sanction that massive, crushing reaction to our enemies’ quest to destroy us – a thrashing that we should have handed out a generation ago. Or maybe it’s something cosmic that defies mortal understanding.
But our failure to institute a sensible system of governance after 60 years of statehood has nothing to do with shrewd plans for the future treatment of our enemies, or some cosmic plan devised by God or Allah or whatever one chooses to call the inexplicable. It has to do with crass, national stupidity and personal greed.
But I’m an optimist. I still believe that Israel has marvelous resources of human intelligence and dedication. But it won’t be adequately tapped unless people who fully realize the core issues to Israel’s survival, become very much more active in making necessary changes to our political system and norms and attitudes of society. Actually both these issues have to be tackled simultaneously. Israel’s survival, whether there is a Messiah waiting in the wings for his cue or not, will mean going out into the streets and waging massive, ongoing, sensibly planned demonstrations. This seems to be the only way we’ll be able to prevail.
Rafi Dobrin
The way I se it, Democracy is not somthing absolute, that is either there or is not. Democracy is a set of rules by which a a nation rules itself and which embodies also the will of the people. However, these rules may vary from place to place and culture to culture and end up to be the rules evolving after, in some cases, generations of refinement and adaptation to local neds an conditions. No one Democracy is the same as another and flaws viewed in the set of rules do not mean that the rules negate the local democracy. As part of the rules any Democracy must also appoint a Judiciary to watch over the executives in power. Theoretically, we the people have one say once in 4-years, so who watches over the empowerd excutives not to divert frm the right path? only the judiciary. That is why I accept the complete separation between the political and the judiciary. I think Friedman is overdoing it by trying to prevent the courts from interfering in political decisions. The issue with it is that without a watchdog we are compltely in th hands of politicians whose scrupulous have often been questioned. So what is needed is a correct balance betwen judiciary powers and political powers but without the judiciary being dependent on the political for nominations and career advancement. I am not trying to dfnd the existing system at all and I agree with many of the flaw being pointd out in this forum
The way I see it, democracy is not something absolute, that is either there or is not. Democracy is a set of rules by which a a nation manages its affairs and which embody also the will of the people. However, these rules may vary from place to place and culture to culture. Changing over time these rules may end up to be set by an evolutionary process following generations ,in some cases, of refinement and adaptation to local needs and conditions. No one Democracy is the same as another and any flaws perceived in any set of rules does not mean that the flawed rules negate the existing democracy. One has to build on that which exists and not destroy it first. No Democracy can be said to be absolutely democratic or perfect and regardless of imperfections no Democracy can be exposed to misuse. Therfore, as part of its rules any Democracy must also appoint an independent judiciary to watch over the political executives in power. Even a Parliament, like the Knesset, may legislate laws that restrict or counter democracy, if the political majority will happens to be there. It is then only up to the judiciary, that has to be empowered accordingly, to have its say. Theoretically, we, the people, have one say once in 4-years, so who will watch over the politically empowerd excutives not to divert from the right path of democracy? only the judiciary can. That is why I accept the complete separation between the political and the judiciary. I think Friedman is overdoing it by trying to totally reduce the power of the courts from interfering in political decisions or legislation and in trying to increase th poilitical intervention in judge nomination. The issue with it is that without a watchdog we are compltely in the hands of politicians whose scrupulous have often been questioned. So what is needed is a correct balance betwen judiciary powers and political powers but without the judiciary being dependent on the political for nominations and career advancement. I am not trying to defend the existing system at all and I agree with many of the flaws pointd out in this forum but the way forward is to build on the existing democracy and improve it and make it more just and representative of the will of the people. There is no easy answer to it and indeed no one solution exists that will take us out of darkness and into light. In the 60 years of statehood we have made great progress from an almost autocratic rule by one leader and one party, in those days if you were not 'one of us' your chances to get govrnment employment were nill, to a much more law governed state with equal opportunity enforced. Many things have changed in the last 60 years and made us more a State rather than the Jewish small village we started at. But this evolution never ceases. Even Britain the mother of Parliments and Democracy is still refining its political system and cannot claim perfection. I think that with this in mind we need a bit of humility when we come to judge and out right condemn our achievemnts so far.
You cut to the quick in this piece; how refreshing to hear the sad truth.
Post a Comment