My college classmate, Donald Trump's Israel adviser, eviscerates Reform leader Jacobs
A while back, someone told me that 'Dave Friedman' who went to Columbia was Donald Trump's adviser on Israel.
There were (at least) two Dave Friedman's who started Columbia with me who eventually became lawyers. One, with whom I have been in touch over the years through friends, is a partner at a Manhattan law firm. The other, who actually overlapped with me for a year at NYU law (I took two years off between college and law school to study in yeshiva in Israel) was someone I had not seen since he graduated law school in 1981. I googled and found the picture above. Unmistakable. Definitely the wisecracking Dave Friedman who went to college and law school with me.
Dave has come under attack by rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the Union of Reform Judaism, a member of J Street's rabbinic council, a board member of the New Israel Fund, and someone who has participated in demonstrations against Jerusalem's Jews in Israel. Why? Because of remarks Dave made to CNN last week.
"It ought to be time to at least take a
fresh look at this," Friedman said, adding that he believes even many
Arabs in the West Bank may prefer Israeli rule to a Palestinian state.
"The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don't think it's the
only answer anymore."
Friedman was the Trump adviser who told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz two weeks ago that Trump may be open to Israel annexing part of the West Bank, which is counter to stated U.S. policy.
Friedman told CNN this week that he was
responding to a hypothetical situation and saying there may be
circumstances where that is true, rather than putting it forward as a
policy position.
But he also
indicated to CNN that Trump could be amenable to the changes the Iron
Dome Alliance is seeking, though he didn't comment on specific language.
He
said the mogul would support a policy of not "imposing" U.S. will on
Israel. Other policy positions would include an undivided Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, regional military and technological superiority
for the nation and showing "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel in
public.
For the record, the Iron Dome Alliance is a group started by Jeff Ballaboon, who follows me on Twitter and likely reads this blog from time to time.
These reports raise a number of significant concerns and more than a few questions, such as:
Under what circumstances can you imagine another “answer” would be preferable?
What would another “answer” look like? How would it be developed? Implemented?
How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for Israel?
How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for the Palestinians?
Do you believe Israel can have peace and security without the Palestinians having the same?
I ask these questions because it seems axiomatic that the
alternative to two states is one state. Such a state would either be a
Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise
millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to
be Jewish. It would put the fate of the Jewish State of Israel in the
hands of extremists on all sides, exposing the region to an endless
cycle of violence. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to you?
They are not acceptable to us, and that is why the Reform Movement has a
longstanding position in support of a two-state solution.
I write with a sense of deep concern. As I hope and trust you know, a
two-state solution has been a bedrock of American foreign policy for
decades, supported by every American President – Democratic and
Republican alike – since at least President George W. Bush in 2002. It
is also the policy of the Israeli government, and has been the policy of
every Israeli government since Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo
Accords at the White House in 1993.
Only two states for two people can end the conflict and offer hope and
security to a part of the world that needs and deserves them, a region
that is of vital interest to the United States in all of our nation’s
foreign policy concerns.
No one familiar with the current reality can doubt that there remain
significant obstacles to achieving a two-state solution, but that
doesn’t mean it is no longer the preferred solution. Any comments
suggesting otherwise undermine responsible Middle East policy.
For all these reasons and more, I was taken aback to read Mr. Friedman’s
suggestion that another “answer” might make more sense, especially
because he did not offer any ideas about what such an alternative might
be. To talk about discarding such a fundamental tenet of both U.S. and
Israeli policy, without offering any alternative, suggests either a lack
of understanding or a lack of seriousness. Either way, the statement
calls for your urgent clarification.
In your letter earlier today to Donald J. Trump and me, you
state that you were “taken aback” by my comment that a “two state
solution was an answer, but not the only answer,” to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am happy to engage in a discussion with
you on the subject, which I believe is more detailed and complex than
either your letter, or my response below, can do justice. Nonetheless, I
am happy to offer some brief summaries of my views.
That a two-state solution has been a part of American foreign
policy for some length of time – something you place great weight upon
-- is, to me, entirely irrelevant. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq were
also part of American foreign policy and I have no doubt that these were
policies you opposed. As I’m sure you recognize, and as we witnessed
this past week with the brutal murder of Hallel Ariel as she lay
sleeping in her bed, followed the next day by the murder of Rabbi
Michael Mark, a father of 10, the numerous proposals and initiatives for
a two-state solution over the years have brought neither peace nor
security to the State of Israel.
The issue confronting both the Israelis and the Palestinians is
fundamentally humanitarian in nature. It is not political and it is not
geographic. Both peoples are entitled to live in peace and dignity, and
both peoples are being deprived of those fundamental rights because of
one thing and one thing only – radical Islamic jihadism, a cancer that
infects Israel and much of the rest of the world. No re-allocation of
land will cure this scourge, and, indeed, Israel knew no peace from 1948
to 1967 when it did not even control Judea and Samaria.
So what should we do? Should we continue to force a square peg
into a round hole and demand that Israel cede land to Palestinians in
exchange for a naked promise that the Palestinians will change their
behavior? Are you not concerned that Mahmoud Abbas has no electoral
mandate (his term expired six years ago), and that his justification for
not calling for new elections is that he will be replaced by an even
more violent jihadist? Are you not concerned that Mr. Abbas presides
over ceremonies honoring Palestinian terrorists or that he has been
accused of massive fiscal corruption? Are you not concerned that
Palestinians teach their children to hate and murder Jews, even putting
on school plays enacting such despicable behavior? Are you not concerned
that the Palestinian Authority has no ability to control the Hamas
factions in Hebron, Jenin and Nablus, which continuously assault and
kill Jewish people? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority
pays generous stipends to the families of terrorists who are jailed or
killed after murdering Jews? Are you not concerned, after seeing the
disastrous results of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, that a Palestinian
state on the West Bank will bring missile attacks to the entire
population of Israel?
I know that you have no doubt that the People of Israel want
peace and that they are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, well-informed,
and non-hateful. Given that, are you not concerned that your desire to
divide Israel in two, leaving it without defensible borders, is solidly
rejected by a super-majority of Israelis? Indeed, even many Palestinians
now sensibly prefer Israeli rule to a nascent Palestinian state. Where
but in Israel do Arabs have educational opportunity, first class
healthcare, social and religious freedom and civil rights for women?
There are – and there must be -- other “answers” to a two-state
solution, some short term, some longer. I would begin by making
appropriate demands upon the Palestinians to end terror, incitement and
hateful indoctrination. I would condition further US funding on
meaningful progress in this regard. I would also encourage significant
economic investment in Palestinian communities – a challenge given the
difficulty of identifying non-corrupt leaders but still worth pursuing –
to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. I would improve
infrastructure and commit resources to enhance the quality of life for
every inhabitant of the region. Simply put, I would focus on what most
Palestinians and Israelis care the most about – better living conditions
and better opportunities. If and when those initiatives bear fruit and
tensions are reduced, talks could continue about long term solutions.
But, even then, I must reject categorically your statement that
Israel must either be a democratic state or a Jewish state. The numbers
simply do not support that conclusion. The Jewish population of
pre-1967 Israel is now about 6.3 million out of 8.4 million people –
about 75%. The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is
another 700,000 people out of about 2.4 million people (it may be lower
as many think the Arab population is overstated). Thus, the Jewish
population of the entire region is about 7.0 million out of 10.8 million
– still a solid 65% majority. (By the way, many people quote all kinds
of numbers for the West Bank population – these are, I believe, the most
accurate)
I’m not saying, one way or the other, that a “one state
solution” is the correct path. That is a decision for the Israeli people
to make in consultation with the Palestinians. But it is simply not
true that Jews will become a minority in their own land if a two-state
solution is not implemented. Indeed, given the demands of the
Palestinians for a return of so-called “refugees,” even the two-state
solution they envision would provide no demographic certainty to Israeli
Jews.
Let’s not grandstand this issue any more with “open letters”
that I can’t help but feel have more to do with American politics than
doing what’s best for Israel. Let’s have a cup of coffee (or some
Israeli wine) and continue the dialogue.
Respectfully, David Friedman
Sounds like Dave has been reading CarolineGlick and YoramEttinger, while Jacobs is still living under the two-state delusion. Zeir gut gezogt (very well said).
I frequently post here about the work of Yoram Ettinger in proving that the demographic doomsayers are wrong. But who are the demographic doomsayers and what do they say? Meet Arnon Sofer. The picture above is the front page of Yediot Aharonot magazine from July 1987. The prediction? "In 2000: Israel will not be Jewish."
In an interview that's way too long to excerpt, former Israeli consul general to Houston Yoram Ettinger likens John Kerry's 'peace mission' to driving through a Texas sandstorm while focusing on the tumbleweeds.
Ettinger talks about the 'peace process,' the demographic lie, and how the United States can stop the 'Palestinians' from running to the United Nations.
Livni: Kerry first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena
Israeli Justice Minister and chief negotiatorbottle washer Tzipi Livni has gone all-in with the American 'peace plan' calling those in the government who disagree with her 'hypocrites.'
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni blasted on Thursday Israeli "hypocrites"
whose actions could threaten to derail the ongoing peace process with
the Palestinians, Israel Radio cited her as saying Thursday at a
conference at Bar-Ilan University.
There are critics in the
government who claim to support peace, but in actuality use the argument
of security as a cover for ideological opposition to a peace agreement,
the chief Israeli negotiator said.
"I am ready to fight with the world on the important issues for all
of us, to convince of the righteousness of Zionism, and Israel's
security needs and preservation of the settlement in Israeli territory,"
Livini said.
However, she added that she was "not ready for us
to pay the price for the ideological minority that prefers isolated
settlement blocks."
Who is talking about 'isolated settlement blocks'? Forget for just one minute that none of the 'settlement blocks' is isolated.... Has anyone heard the 'Palestinians' concede one iota on the status of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem? On their self-proclaimed 'right of return'? On recognizing that Israel is a Jewish state and that any deal made now will be the end of the conflict? No, no, no and no.
But if you want to see how big a fool Livni is....
Firing back at critics, Livni lauded Kerry as the first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena.
Perhaps she never heard of Daniel Patrick Moynihan or John Bolton.
Without naming names, Livni said that ministers who are not prepared
to concede land are “hypocrites” – and, if they get their way, will
ultimately destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
“We all want peace. But there is a price that whoever really wants
peace must pay,” she declared, speaking at an event at the Bar Ilan
University Law Department.
“This is the choice we have: if we want to protect the Jewish,
democratic state - or the entire land of Israel, which will not be
Jewish, and will not be democratic,” she argued. The only way to keep
Israel both Jewish and democratic is through negotiations for the
creation of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, she said.
“If we don’t come to a decision, the world will decide for us,” warned Livni, who heads the Israeli negotiating team.
Sorry Tzipi, but your beloved demographic time bomb has long since been disproved. Here's Caroline Glick.
Still today, Kerry, Livni, Lapid and their fellow travelers seek to
intimidate us by constantly telling us that continued Israeli control
over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will bring about Israel’s demographic
demise.
But the lie at the heart of their argument is no longer possible to ignore.
As demographic expert Yoram Ettinger wrote last week in Yisrael Hayom,
Jewish Israeli fertility rates are higher than Palestinian fertility
rates in Judea and Samaria. In 2013, the Palestinian fertility rate was
2.91 children per woman and the Israeli Jewish fertility rate was 3.04
children per woman.
Today Jews make up 62-66 percent of the population in Judea, Samaria and
sovereign Israel. With a two to one majority, a higher birthrate, and
positive immigration rates, far from being a strategic threat to
Israel’s national viability, demographics are one of Israel’s strategic
assets.
The only threat to Israel’s demographic stability is the two-state
formula. A Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would
permit the unlimited immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into its
territory. Rather than securing Israel’s Jewish majority, a Palestinian
state would place millions of hostile Arabs on the outskirts of a rump
Israel’s major cities.
With their threat of demographic ruin losing its traction with the
public, purveyors of the two-state plan now raise the threat of economic
strangulation and ruin at every opportunity.
Indeed.
There is one Israeli hypocrite and only one in this process. His name is Binyamin Netanyahu and he's still having trouble making up his mind which side he supports. He should never have put Livni in charge of negotiations. It's time to cut her loose even if it means her party leaves the coalition.
Here's former Israeli Consul General Yoram Ettinger talking about that $4 billion that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry wants to provide to the 'Palestinians.' He asks some really good questions that ought to concern both Israelis and Americans.
The one (Jewish) state solution: An idea that can be discussed in public
There was a conference in Hebron last Thursday, attended by more than 500 people, at which the only viable long-term solution to the Middle East dispute was discussed: The one Jewish state solution.
It's an idea that until recently was not politically correct to discuss (and still isn't politically correct in some circles). But here in Israel, many people aren't just whispering it. They're saying it out loud. There’s nothing new about far-right groups holding events in which speakers fantasize about “Greater Israel.” But Thursday’s conference was different: It indicated that the idea of the one-state solution has become respectable within a larger segment of society, including the ranks of Israel’s ruling party.
[Likud MK Tzipi] Hotovely was right: For years, moderate right-wingers tiptoed around the question of what they envision for the future of the territories Israel captured in 1967. Only hardliners openly admitted what perhaps many others secretly desired, but knew to be politically too incorrect to openly demand.
...
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on record saying that he does not want to rule over the Palestinians and is ready to accept a Palestinian state. But that no longer prevents some members of his party from openly demanding a one-state solution. MK Miri Regev, speaking on a recorded video clip, boasted that she recently founded the Knesset Lobby for the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judean and Samarian Communities. The Likud constitution requires the application of sovereignty over the settlements, she said.
“It’s time to change the discourse in the State of Israel about Judea and Samaria,” said MK Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the coalition, also in a prerecorded statement. “For 20 years, we talked about what to give and why. Now the time has come for an entirely different discourse. This is our land, and it’s our right to apply sovereignty over it. Regardless of the world’s opposition, it’s time to do in Judea and Samaria what we did in [East] Jerusalem and the Golan. It’s time to end this system in which the Palestinians take and take and we give and give.”
Most speakers focused on Israel’s right to The Land — all of it — and tried to reassure the audience that they need not fear the so-called demographic threat. Israel would not lose its Jewish majority if it annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to the Arabs living there, nearly all the speakers promised.
...
Former Israeli ambassador Yoram Ettinger used his 15 minutes — the organizers strictly enforced every speaker’s time limit — for a slideshow in which he presented a lot of data ostensibly proving that there are a million fewer Palestinians in the West Bank than generally assumed. How come? Because the Palestinian officials dealing with statistics are either incompetent or lying, he said.
Ettinger’s graphs made it easier for subsequent speakers to dismiss the demographic argument against a one-state solution as left-wing demagoguery. Gershon Mesika, the head of the Samaria Regional Council, for instance, called the demographic threat a “big bluff.” Even most Arabs don’t believe the idea of two states for two people would work, he added.
And so the evening went by, with speaker after speaker preaching to the choir, rarely challenging the audience with provocative questions about, for example, Palestinian national aspirations. “This is not Arab land. This is the holy land of God,” said Hebron Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf, adding that it was “absolutely forbidden” by Jewish law to retreat from any centimeter of the Promised Land.
My guess is that if we actually annexed Judea and Samaria, a lot of the 'Palestinians' would leave (and whine about being refugees and demand international assistance). In any event, the idea ought to be publicly discussed, and if enough conferences like this take place, it will be discussed more and more.
Some of you may be surprised to see me refer to the one Jewish state solution as the only viable long-term solution. Aside from the Jewish right to the entire land conveyed in the Bible, please allow me to explain why I believe that the one Jewish state solution is the only one that is viable in the long term.
1. The 'Palestinians' have proven that they will never make peace with a Jewish state.
2. The 'Palestinians' insist that a 'Palestinian state' be Judenrein.
3. Therefore, anything other than a one Jewish state solution will result, God forbid, in a mass slaughter of Jews.
4. On the other hand, Israel's Jews have proven for the last 64 years that they are willing and able to allow an Arab minority to coexist among us.
Simple enough? Anyone who wants to disagree is invited to challenge those four assertions, with proof. That, I believe, is an impossible task.
Any response to terrorism that falls short of devastating the ideological, political, financial, logistic and operational terrorist infrastructures only serves to reassure terrorists that they are immune to annihilation. Moreover, it nurtures their hope-driven terrorism. They hope to destroy Israel’s defiance, wreck Israel’s steadfastness, and sustain the momentum of sweeping Israeli ideological and territorial retreats between the years 1993-2011.
Furthermore, a limited response to terrorism exacerbates wars of attrition – the terrorists' dream and the nightmare of democratic societies. The limited-retaliation response to terrorism adds fuel to the fire of terrorism, feeding the self-defeating assumption that there is no military solution to terrorism, thus eroding Israel’s deterrence.
Contrary to that self-defeating assumption, Palestinian terrorism was curtailed by 90 percent when, in 2002, Israel's military took over the Palestinian breeding grounds of terrorism in Beit Jallah, Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus and other major towns in Judea and Samaria. Israeli military re-engagement with these areas – rather than the security fence or wall – reasserted Israel's steadfastness in the battle against Palestinian terrorism.
The more defensive and retaliation-driven the Israeli response to terrorism, the more emboldened Palestinian terrorists become, and the less confidence Israelis have in their government’s ability to safeguard personal and national security. As a result, the country's mental fatigue becomes more taxing, and Israelis become less convinced of their cause.
The addiction to a defensive posture and limited response has been embraced by Israel since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accord, in an effort to resuscitate the “peace” process, which has triggered far more hate-education, terrorism and non-compliance than the pre-Oslo reality. Two-hundred and fifty Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorism in the 15 years prior to Oslo, but over 2,000 have been murdered in the 18 years since.
Limited response has also been implemented in order to soothe international public opinion - which is never satisfied with Israeli concessions - thus recklessly subordinating national security to public diplomacy considerations. Sometimes it yields a false sense of security and enhances short-term tactical popularity. However, limited response always undermines long-term strategic interests and international respect towards Israel, unleashing more pressure on Israel, radicalizing Palestinian terrorism and distancing the region from peace.
Here's an interview with Yoram Ettinger, which appeared on Israel's Channel 10 this past week. Yoram is a former Israeli consul general in Houston (which is how I met him - a client in Houston made the introduction), and is an expert on Israel's relations with the United States and on Israel's 'demographic threat.'
This interview is in Hebrew. There is an English translation below the fold. Yoram is the first person interviewed. The interview starts at 2:24 and ends at 18:00.
Let's go to the videotape.
Q. When was the last time you visited the United States?
A. Two weeks ago, in Midland, Texas, the Texas capital - and possibly the US capital - of the independent oil producers. I held two days meetings with independent oil producers, who support the enhancement of strategic relations between the USA and Israel, mostly as a result of the current seismic developments in all Arab countries. These developments clarify that while the USA cannot rely on any of the Arab countries, Israel is highlighted as the most reliable, stable, capable, democratic and unconditional ally of the USA.
Q. How long did you live in Texas?
A. I did my undergraduate studies in Texas and I also served as Israel's Consul General in Houston, Texas. In my current work I often visit Washington, DC and Texas, which has become a key State in the USA in general and in the overall increasing American support for the Jewish State in particular.
Q. Why Texas in particular?
A. Texas, because of its historical and cultural background. Texas is the only state in the US that joined the Union not through acquisition or conquest, but rather joined willingly. As a result, its rights are superior to all other states. For example, Texas is the only state that can secede, or even split to 5 states. But more importantly, Texas is a state that greatly appreciates tradition, patriotism, religion, independence and can-do mentality, defiance of odds and roots.
Q. Do Texans/Americans support Israel because of the influence of the Jewish community?
A. The support, by Texans in particular and Americans in general, of Judaism and the concept of a Jewish State dates back to the early Pilgrims who landed in America in 1620. They left England, "the modern-day Egypt," sailed through the Atlantic Ocean, "the modern-day Red Sea" and arrived to America, "the modern-day Promised Land" or New Canaan. Since then until today, American appreciation of Judaism and of the idea of the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel constitute key issues in the American ethos, American justice and as of lately, USA national security.
Q. Who was the most pro-Israel American president?
A. In my opinion, the leading one was Ronald Reagan and in another way Richard Nixon, in spite of the fact that Nixon was received only 12% of the Jewish votes, so he had no political IOUs to the Jewish community. But, in 1970, he witnessed Israel forcing the rolling back of the Syrian invasion of Jordan - that threatened through a Domino Syndrome Saudi Arabia and other oil producing Arab states in the Gulf. The Jewish state - which until then was not considered by Nixon a strategic asset - demonstrated its capability to snatch the hottest chestnuts out of the fire with no requirement of a single American soldier, while the US was bogged down in Vietnam. President Nixon became a supporter of Israel. It was Nixon who, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War - despite his Secretaries of State and Defense - decided to replenish Israel with significant military systems, in order to bolster the only effective ally of the US in the Middle East.
Q. And who is the least American President appreciative of Israel?
A. President Bush 41st and his Secretary of State, Baker. Jimmy Carter is in the same league and perhaps even worse. President Obama "threatens" to join them, but he is not there yet.
Q. Why Obama?
A. Because of his ideology and his view of the world, irrespective of Israel. For instance, an American president who does not believe in American moral, political and military Exceptionalism is less effective for Israel and the Free World. Israel and the Free World do not need a local American policeman; they needs an American Marshal. Obama believes that the U.N - which is not the home court of the US or Israel - is the playmaker of international relations. He does not believe in the existence of international Islamic terrorism, only in local Islamic terrorism - Taliban and al- Qaeda. He does not believe in the existence of Jihadist terrorism, because - according to his advisor on countering terrorism - "Jihad is a process which purifies the soul." Obama wants to be more European than the Europeans. He subordinates unilateral US policy to multilateral coalition considerations. Finally, he believes that the Palestinian issue is the root cause of Middle East instability and anti-American terrorism, and that the Palestinian issue is the crown-jewel of intra-Arab policy-making. All of which has no relevance to Middle Eastern reality.
Q. Maybe an American president who is not so pro-Israel can be more neutral and help bring the conflict to an end?
A. We need to comprehend that the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict does not depend on Israel or on the Americans. It is a derivative of the Middle East as it has been for 14 centuries. One shouldn't ignore the fact that for 1,400 years, since the appearance of Islam, there has not been intra-Arab/Moslem peace, intra-Arab/Moslem compliance with intra- Arab/Moslem agreements, intra-Arab/Moslem ratification of all borders and not a single Arab/Moslem democracy. Terror has been an integral key element of intra-Arab/Moslem policy. In defiance of such an entrenched reality, some of us wish that the Arabs would bestow upon the Jewish State that which they have yet to accord to one another. I wish that it would be a logical expectation, but it is not. Moreover, the less involved is the USA in the Arab-Israel conflict, the lower are Arab expectations, and the less strained are US-Israel relations. The US involvement has added fuel to the fire of Arab expectations and radicalism and undermined US-Israel relations. US-Israel relations are based on shared values, threats and interests and not on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Q. What will happen in September when there will be a unilateral declaration of a "Palestinian state"?
A. The sun will rise and the moon will appear, just as they did following the 1988 UN General Assembly recommendation - supported by 132 countries - to recognize a Palestinian state and the 1975 UN General Assembly declaration of Zionism as Racism. Since then, Israel has surged economically and otherwise. The U.N General Assembly is an ineffective body, and in the U.N Security Council there is a US veto. The anti-Israel UN proceedings, in September 2011, will constitute another bump on the way of the Jewish State to further achievements.
Q. You are refuting many myths. There is an assumption that the US may curtail/stop aid to Israel if Israel would not comply with US policy. Is that also a myth?
A. It is a myth, but in a different way. I was very involved in Benjamin Netanyahu's decision - during his first term as Prime Minister - to end US non-military aid. The non-military aid was eliminated over 10 years, half of which was transferred to the military aid. The decision paid off economically and diplomatically, in defiance of naysayers. Israel will thrive and prosper even more upon phasing out, over 10 years, of the $3BN in US military aid, rededicating each year 10% of the aid to the establishment of an additional bi-national employment and export driven fund.
Q. But the military aid sustains Israel's ability to hold its own militarily!
A. That is what the naysayers told Netanyahu in 1996, but the sun rose and it was much warmer and friendlier for Israel following the gradual phase out of the Economic Support Fund (non-military foreign aid). Israel incurs high cost for the USA aid. The Israeli defense industry prefers, sometimes, to operate in the USA because Israel's Ministry of Defense has more dollars, and therefore it is easier to purchase from an Israeli company that operates in Florida, Alabama, California or Texas. Moreover, the US aid limits Israel's defense exports, occasionally undermines Israel's R & D, accelerates the regional arms race and the resulting burden on Israel's economy (Egypt receives military foreign aid in correlation with aid to Israel) and portrays Israel - unjustifiably - as a member of under-privileged countries which require "foreign" "aid." If those $3BN will be gradually reduced, at 10% each year, expanding cooperation between the defense industries of both countries - which would then benefit from a similar tailwind currently available to the commercial industries - it would create more jobs, exports and research & development in the USA and in Israel. A year later, the 10% of the reduced military foreign aid would be directed at an employment-driven collaboration between their water-related industries, which would advance the effort to overcome the water crisis, leveraging each other's technological edge. Then, a year later, collaboration between alternative energy industries, and so on. Mutually-beneficial joint ventures and trade are always preferable to foreign aid.
Q. USA aid does not go to Israel only.
A. USA relations with Israel are unique among recipients of foreign aid. They are not a one way street; they constitute a two way, bottom up, mutually-beneficial street, where both give and receive. For example, the intelligence the USA receives from Israel exceeds that which the USA receives from all NATO countries combined. The late General Alexander Haig who was the Supreme Commander of NATO and US Secretary of State considered Israel the largest USA aircraft carrier which did not require a single American on board, that couldn't be sunk, that saved the US tax payer $20-$30Billion per year and was deployed in a most vital region to critical American interests.
Q. Finally, what would you suggest to Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding Israel relations with the USA?
A. First and foremost Israel needs to understand that an American President is not The American Government, but one of three branches of government, which are equal in power to one another. The US Congress and the Courts are the other 2/3rds. Prime Minister Netanyahu should recognize Congress - a systematic bastion of support - as a co-equal and a co-determining player in setting US foreign policy in general and US-Israel relations in particular. In fact, until November 2012, Congress could potentially be even stronger than the President, who needs Congress in order to be reelected. Finally, Netanyahu should rid Israel of the dependency on US military aid.
Sorry about the obnoxious ads in the middle.
I found his comments about giving up American aid most interesting.
An assessment of US - Israel relations in 2011 to the theme of Dayeinu
Yoram Ettinger has an assessment of US-Israeli relations to the theme of Dayeinu.
Passover Hymn, Da'ye'nu: "How many degree of beneficence hath the Almighty conferred upon us?! If He had brought us forth from Egypt, and had not executed judgment upon the Egyptians, it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu)… If He had inflicted justice upon them…, it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu')…"
If Israel were merely the most effective battle-tested laboratory available to the USA, the source for over 600 modifications of the F-16, and thousands of cutting-edge modifications in hundreds additional US military systems, enhancing US national security, while providing the US defense industries a unique mega-billion dollars competitive edge in the global market, expanding US employment, research & development and export infrastructures - Da’ye’nu (it would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA);
If Israel were merely the source of breakthrough battle tactics, which were the first to penetrate/jam/destroy the most sophisticated Soviet/Russian surface-to-air missile batteries and radar systems, in addition to transferring to the US the first Soviet MIG-21 and 23 and other Soviet military systems, which tilted global balance of power in favor of the USA, providing the US defense industries with mega-billion dollars bonanza - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely the source of intelligence – shared with the USA - which exceeds the scope of intelligence received by the US from all NATO countries combined (according to Senator Daniel Inouye, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and current Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee) and is equal to five CIAs (according to retired General George Keegan, former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence) - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely the country which destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 (in defiance of global opposition), thus providing the USA a conventional option in the 1991 Gulf War, sparing the US a potential traumatic nuclear confrontation - Da’ye’nu;
If Israel were merely a source of battle-proven experience and military systems – combating IEDs, car bombs, suicide bombers and generic terrorism – shared with US Special Operations units, which battle Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus minimizing US losses - Da’ye’nu;
3. "According to the UN Population Division, the overall Middle East fertility rate peaked during the 1950s (6.33 births per woman) and declined gradually to 2.95 births in 2010."
4. "The Jewish fertility rate has risen since 1995, reaching 2.9 in 2010."
5. "In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon's, 53% higher than Iran's, 33% higher than Turkey's and Kuwait's, 23% higher than Saudi Arabia's, slightly higher than Egypt's and only 7% and 4% lower than Jordan's and Syria's respectively."
6. "The growth in Jewish fertility is driven by secular and not by religious or ultra-religious Jews. Since 2003, there has been a decline in ultra-religious fertility…The surge in secular fertility is driven mainly by the Olim (immigrants) from the former USSR…Their children and grandchildren has adopted typical Israeli fertility rates. According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli-born Jewish fertility rate was over 3 births in 2009."
7. "Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment, finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per woman in 2009…By 2009 only 8.4% of 15 year old Arab women did not enroll in school."
8. "In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10, there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth."
9. "The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births in 2010...lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish fertility rate in the Jerusalem region."
10. "Net-emigration from the Palestinian Authority was 321,239 during 2007-1994, averaging about 23,000 annually."
11. "Mustafa Khawaja of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics: Net-emigration in 2007 reached about 60,000…Jordan recorded 44,000 and 63,000 net-emigration, during the first eight months in 2009 and 2008 respectively, through its-controlled international passages along the Jordan River."
A brief history of the demographic debate in Israel
The 'Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics' released a report last month, in which they claimed that by 2014, Arabs will be a majority between the [Jordan] River and the [Mediterranean] Sea. Israel's chattering classes rushed to use the new report as evidence that we must immediately relinquish Judea and Samaria.
The report was wrong. Yoram Ettinger explains why the report was wrong.
In December 2010, the PCBS published its most recent population estimate, inflating the number of Judea and Samaria Arabs by 66% (almost 1.6 million and not 2.5 million) and the number of Gaza Arabs by 23% (almost 1.3 million and not 1.6 million). The PCBS estimate includes over 400,000 overseas residents, a "double count" of 240,000 Jerusalem Arabs, ignores the sustained annual net-emigration of well over 10,000 Arabs and misrepresents the number of births by some 30,000 annually.
He also explains the legacy of the Israeli Left's worship at the altar of 'Palestinian' statistics.
Reality has refuted "Demographers of Doom," at least since the end of the 19th century. In March 1898, Shimon Dubnov, the leading Jewish demographer-historian, contended that Herzl's Zionism was devoid of demographic infrastructure, since no more than 500,000 Jews could be expected in the Land of Israel by the year 2000. He was off by 5 million Jews!
On the eve of the establishment of the Jewish State, Professor Roberto Bacchi, the founder of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and the guru of Israel's demographers and statisticians, warned that Jews were eventually doomed to become a minority within the Partition Plan. He pressured Ben Gurion to delay declaration of independence and projected that – under the best case scenario – there will be 2.3 million Jews in the Land of Israel, a 34% minority. He was off by 3 million Jews!
Since 1967, Bacchi's students have attempted to convince Israeli prime ministers to subordinate national security considerations to the "Demographic Scare." They have urged Israeli leaders to sacrifice the irreplaceable geography and topography of the over-towering Judea's and Samaria’s mountain ridges – historically and militarily – on the altar of demography.
In 2010, they adhere to Professor Bacchi's legacy. Thus, they underrate Jewish fertility, which is higher than most Arab countries (2.9 and trending upward versus 2.8 in Jordan, 2.5 in Egypt, 2.5 in the Gulf States and trending downward.) They idolize Arab fertility ignoring its sharp collapse. And, they ignore annual net-Arab emigration from Judea, Samaria and Gaza since 1950 (other than six years), while downplaying the prospect of aliyah.
During the 1980s – as they do today - they underestimated the number of Soviet Jews by 50% and stated that no massive aliyah was expected even if Moscow would open its gates. In defiance of Israel's demographic establishment, over one million olim arrived, catapulting the Jewish State to unprecedented heights technologically, medically, economically, culturally and demographically.
A Hebrew University professor claims that Jews are now a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
“If people ask when Jews will lose their majority, then it’s already happened,” DellaPergola said. “If one combines the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, includes foreign workers and refugees, whose numbers have grown rapidly in recent years, and omits Israelis who made aliya under the Law of Return but are not recognized as Jews by the Interior Ministry, then Jews are slightly less than 50% of the population.”
Well, maybe. The Gaza Strip is no longer part of Israel, and with respect to the 'Palestinians,' DellaPergola relies on the 'Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics,' whose numbers have been wildly inflated in the past.
The 2008 Palestinian census found 3.76 million Palestinians living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, up 30% from 2.89 million a decade earlier.
Within Israel, according to Central Bureau of Statistics figures issued last year, there were 5,569,200 Jews – 75.5 percent of the population.
While DellaPergola says that Jews are already a minority between the River and the Sea, some critics charge that figures for the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank are exaggerated by hundreds of thousands due to double counting of the population of east Jerusalem, who appear in both the Israeli and the Palestinian census, and by including people living abroad who possess local identification cards.
In 2010, there is a 66% Jewish majority in 98.5% of the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean (without Gaza) – and a 58% Jewish majority with Gaza. That Jewish majority benefits from a demographic tailwind and from a high potential of aliyah (Jewish immigration) and of returning Israeli expatriates.
In comparison, in 1900 and 1947 there was an 8% and a 33% Jewish minority, deprived of economic, technological and military infrastructures. In 2010, the number of Arabs in Judea and Samaria is inflated by 900,000 (1.6 million and not 2.5 million) through the inclusion of 400,000 overseas residents, a double-count of 200,000 Jerusalem Arabs (who are counted as Israeli Arabs by Israel and as West Bank Arabs by the Palestinian Authority), and by ignoring annual net-emigration since 1950 (e.g. 17,000 in 2009), etc. Meanwhile, a World Bank study documents a 32% “inflation” in Palestinian birth numbers.
Since the appearance of modern-day Zionism, the demographic establishment has contended that Jews are doomed to be a minority west of the Jordan River. It asserts that Jews must relinquish geography in order to secure demography. But, what if demographic fatalism is based on dramatically erroneous assumptions and numbers? What if the demographic establishment has adopted Palestinian numbers without auditing, although such numbers are refuted annually by an examination of birth, death, migration and 1st grade registration records?
What if the contended Palestinian numbers require a population growth rate almost double the highest population growth rate in the world, while Gaza and Judea and Samaria are ranked 5th and 38th in global population growth rate? What if the demographic establishment failed to realize that the Arab demographic surge of 1949-1969 (in pre-1967 Israel) and 1967-1990 (in Judea and Samaria and Gaza) had to be succeeded by a sharp demographic decline?
Contrary to demographic projections, the first half of 2010 sustains the growth of the Jewish fertility rate and the sharp and rapid fall of the Arab fertility rate throughout the Muslim World, as well as west of the Jordan River. The decline in Arab fertility results from accelerated urbanization and modernization processes, such as education, health, employment, family planning, reduced teen pregnancy, enhanced career mentality among women, in addition to domestic security concerns.
I'm not jumping to change anything based on DellaPergola's numbers and you shouldn't either. The picture is the beach off Gaza City.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
