Category Archives: Israel

    (This article was first published as an op-ed in this week’s Jewish Press.)

     The atrocity in Itamar, in which two parents and three young children were brutally murdered by believers in the “religion of peace,” has shocked and dismayed all civilized people. Blame is always ascribed to the perpetrators, whose inhumanity and animalistic instincts know no bounds. But it is foolhardy to ignore the effects of the Netanyahu policies that have facilitated both terror and the further deterioration of Israel’s strategic position.

     Certainly, the passion with which PM Netanyahu denounced the murderers and the PA was welcome, even if his “demands” on them were risible. For the umpteenth time in the last 18 years, angry Israeli spokesmen condemned the unchecked incitement emanating from official Palestinian organs – media, schools, etc. – and demanded its immediate cessation. Undoubtedly, the same Israelis will deplore the same incitement after the next terrorist attack, and the one after that as well. Perhaps it is too much to ask, but when will official Israel admit that “incitement” is not a Palestinian tactic or an aberration but a way of life and a genuine and natural expression of their intense hatred of Jews?

     If and when that happens, it can only come after official Israel admits that it is foolish and counterproductive to continue to “negotiate” with a Palestinian Authority that is both unauthorized and duplicitous. To even request that they begin “educating their people for peace” shows that Netanyahu participates in the charade. If he knows that the Arabs engage in double talk and that they are uninterested in negotiations leading to a peace treaty, then why would he even contemplate more concessions, including the rumored dramatic initiative of Israel’s acceptance of a Palestinian State of undefined borders? This returns us to the insanities of the last two decades.

     Did the removal of military checkpoints outside Shechem facilitate the monsters’ movements? Perhaps, but in any event, it is ludicrous to remove checkpoints during a war. As the scientist Gerald Schroeder pointed out in our shul on Shabbat, every American passes through several checkpoints on the way to an airplane. Those Americans who insist on the removal of Israeli checkpoints should demand first the removal of American checkpoints at airports.

      Nevertheless, PM Netanyahu is responsible for an ongoing failure, an epic blunder that both undercuts his leadership and sows the seeds for such heinous crimes as occurred in Itamar.

     Simply put, Netanyahu may not be able to influence events on the ground in Israel’s turbulent neighborhood, but he should be able to capitalize on them in order to advance Israel’s strategic interests. Instead, he is locked into an old paradigm that has been discredited. Apparently, Netanyahu remains committed to the “land for peace” formula that has never worked and is still unworkable. To plan for new territorial concessions to more unstable despots when the previous ones have brought instability and mayhem is folly. So why would an MIT graduate like Netanyahu do that?

    The answer is an incapacity to look at the conflict through anything but secular lenses. He is trapped in a rigid world-view in which Israel’s interests and narrative are dominated by “historical” claims and security concerns. Both have failed to capture the public mind, and have left Israelis wondering why their pain, the justice of their cause and their willingness to make concessions leave the world unmoved and indifferent to their plight. Israelis are also troubled that the world does not the world distinguish between Israel’s claims of 3500 years and the “claims” of the Palestinians, a “people” that is a 20^th century invention concocted solely to thwart the nascent Jewish national movement.

    This disconnect exists because Israel itself doesn’t distinguish between the two narratives, but has embraced the “two peoples for one land” distortion of history. “History” cuts both ways. Jews historically resided in the land, but so did other nations, and Jews did not reside en masse in the land of Israel for centuries at a time. For a world with short memories, it makes no difference how old – or how valid – the claims are, as long as claims are made that pre-date its living memory. And the “security” argument is increasingly hollow. The Arab contention is superior to the Israeli one: “you stole my house. Give it back and we will not bother you.” To which the Israeli responds: “Well, give me proof that you won’t bother me.” And the Arab replies: “That is crazy. Get out of my house!”

     No wonder the world is deaf to Israel’s claims; they are as illogical as they are immoral. We don’t respond: “Wrong, this is our house!”

     Every concession that Israel makes or even entertains simply reinforces the Arab narrative. When Israel releases terrorists from prison as a good-will gesture, it sends the message that the terrorists were not justly imprisoned in the first place. When Israel removes security checkpoints, it sends the message that the checkpoints had no real security dimension but were simply a means to harass Arabs. When the government of Israel freezes construction in settlements, it sends the message that building in the heartland of Israel is illegal and unjustifiable. (Then it wonders why the UN wants to declare settlements illegal!) When Israel destroys outposts in Samaria, it broadcasts that the land of Israel does not belong to the people of Israel. When Israel allows building only in response to terror, it shouts that settlement is not a natural right but a vengeful tool. Those messages are received by audiences across the world.
     The cardinal sin of the Netanyahu tenure is that he and his minions repeatedly fail to utilize the only narrative that carries real substance and can transform the entire debate: that the Jewish people’s claim to the land of Israel is not based on history, security, or the Holocaust but on the biblical fact that the Creator of the Universe bequeathed it to our forefathers, and through them to us, as an “everlasting possession.” It should not require a great leap of imagination to embrace this concept; after all, it is the very reason why the idea of a return to Zion animated generations of Jews dwelling in far-flung exiles. It is the very reason why Jews sacrificed to return, build and defend the land of Israel. The problem is that Netanyahu, a secular person like almost all of his predecessors, does not believe it. It plays no role in his policy formulations.

    That itself is foolish and counterproductive because the world today is riveted by religious ideas that are in both ideological competition and armed conflict with each other. Radical Islam is at war with the Christian West and with Jewish Israel. These are fundamentally religious disputes, even if the seculars among us – Jews and Christians – abhor the notion and eschew its applicability. That is why radical Muslims regular threaten the “Crusaders and the Zionists” (i.e., Christians and Jews) and that is why Jews – not only Israelis – are targets of Islamic hatred throughout the world, and not only in Israel. And Israel’s keenest supporters in America today are the tens of millions of Bible-believing Christian evangelicals, who are often puzzled that they embrace the Biblical narrative far more enthusiastically than do Israel’s leaders. By adopting a religious perspective, at least we will have joined the debate instead of standing on the sidelines uttering irrelevancies.

     Israel has suffered enormously over the years because its leaders have been secular Jews who have shorn the history of Israel of its religious dimension, and who have rooted Israel’s right to existence in amorphous and unpersuasive arguments relating to the Holocaust and security matters. Israel deserves to have a believing Jew as its prime minister, and Israel’s large religious Jewish community needs to have the self-confidence that a Torah Jew can infuse policy with faith, and support such individuals as leaders (and not recycle other failed, secular leaders as has been the pattern for decades).

      The new paradigm would transform the debate overnight. Territorial concessions would be ruled out, because “this land is our land, given to us by G-d.” Building and development would take place throughout the land of Israel, as this is the Torah’s mandate as Ramban explained. “Settlements” would no longer be an excuse for terror but a natural part of nation-building. Non-Jews would be welcomed as residents of this land as long as they embraced basic norms of morality and acceded to the sovereignty of the Jewish people. Israel would not feel guilty about fighting and defeating a brutal and merciless enemy. It would no longer be on the defensive before international tribunals. Israel’s Prime Minister would no longer be the only world leader who bends to President Obama’s commands. Indeed, the word “concession” could be retired from Israel’s diplomatic lexicon.

     Imagine if an Israeli prime minister said: “World, we are here because the Almighty, in Whom we trust, gave us this land so that we should serve Him and observe His Torah therein. Without the promises of the Torah, we have no reason to be here. And we are here to stay, in the land of our history and our destiny.” Such would end the days of defensiveness, awkwardness, guilt and recriminations. World leaders (and many Jews) would be apoplectic – in the short term. But they would recover – and Israel’s case would be persuasive and winnable, and have the added advantage of being true and holy.

      It is about time that the people of Israel were governed by Jewish leaders steeped in Jewish history and values and faith. In a region that is being swept by less savory revolutions, that would be a revolution that would inspire our nation and perhaps even lead the world to a bright and peaceful era of untold good.   

     The bar has been so lowered regarding President Obama’s support for Israel (and most other traditional American allies) that there was palpable relief in Democratic circles when the US administration vetoed a UN Security Council resolution last week that would have declared Israeli settlements “illegal,” to be followed inevitably by sanctions and the like. Nevertheless, even that high point of “support” for Israel (taken for granted in American diplomacy since the Reagan administration) was marred by an accompanying statement in which the American UN Representative apologized, in effect, for the veto, denouncing Israeli settlements in the heartland of Israel as “illegitimate” and as “undermining” the possibility of peace in the region.

    Typical for the United Nations, the debate centered on Israel – on whether Jews can add a room to a home in Bet El – when seemingly weightier matters (oh, the riots sweeping the Arab world, involving the murder of thousands of civilians in several countries by government forces) have been completely ignored. The Security Council has not yet entertained any motion to denounce Libya, Iran, Bahrain et al for their repressive crackdowns. That is why UN actions and statements deserve no attention at all.

    But what would induce the Obama administration to embrace the narrative of the Arab world, which places the Israel dispute at the center of all Mideast strife to deflect attention from its own corruption? Why would Obama believe that the Arab world can somehow be mollified, i.e., reach some accommodation with Israel that will ensure peace, stability and prosperity for all? To the extent that Obama has articulated a world view, it has been based on fantasy, wishful thinking and a reflexive antagonism to traditional American values. It might be incompetence, but it is not animus; the appeasement reflex generally follows from a particular world view and set of core values. Appeasers are often true believers and not simply naïve dreamers.

    A recent book entitled “Munich 1938” by the historian David Faber probes the late 1930s mindset and actions of those who gave “appeasement” a bad name, in particular British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Faber’s accounts are so richly detailed it is as if he were an eyewitness to the proceedings. He vividly describes rooms, views, menus, moods, and conversations – all drawn from diaries and records of the participants, both British and German – as well as the goals and objectives of the participants to the protracted negotiations. In short order – less than a year – the British abandoned Austria to Hitler (the Anschluss that the Austrian government had opposed, until it was deposed), the Sudetenland (a part of Czechoslovakia that abutted Germany and had a majority German-speaking population, and then Czechoslovakia itself. Chamberlain himself made three trips to Germany (the first time he had ever flown on a plane; he managed by drinking himself into a mild stupor) to appease Hitler, and each time he succumbed to ever greater demands.

      What is less known or appreciated is that Chamberlain, rather than being the target of ridicule as he became later, was extolled by his peers with each succeeding trip – as a man of vision and peace, and a moral beacon to warmongers such as Churchill, his most bitter adversary. The media trumpeted: “One of the finest, most inspiring acts of all history… of course, some Jews…are furious.” The church, the media, and the society elites were all enthusiastically supportive even if it meant betraying an ally like Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was a hero – although not to his own Foreign Office who mocked his naiveté and repeated travels. (A skeptical Foreign office ditty: “If at first you don’t concede, fly, fly again” – responding to Chamberlain’s own statement, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”)

       There was opposition, but it was a distinct minority. Perhaps the bravest – although he was not outspoken at all – was Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden who resigned in protest even before the Anschluss was settled.  Each summed up their respective opinions of policies, process and personalities in a very telling way. Chamberlain: “I fear the difference between Anthony and me is more fundamental than he realizes. At bottom he is really dead against making terms with the dictators.”  Eden – “Neville believes that he is a man with a mission to come to terms with the dictators.” (Interestingly, the German Chief of Staff Ludwig Beck also resigned in protest of Hitler’s constant threats to invade Austria if he did not get his way.) Only Churchill and a handful of others were outraged, and bitingly critical of Chamberlain’s weaknesses – for which they were pilloried by the media and the public.

     Hitler knew precisely how to take advantage of Chamberlain, who was desperate for peace, and he used threats of war, and repeated mobilizations, to wear down all his interlocutors.  He was an evil master of psychological pressure, keeping negotiators waiting for hours and then greeting them warmly, or meeting them right away in full fury and contempt. Hitler would up the ante every time an agreement seemed near, pretending that Chamberlain had misunderstood, even once preventing Chamberlain from having an aide or interpreter present so the protocol would be based on Hitler’s (and his interpreter’s) recollection. Hitler also spiced the negotiations with mass rallies at which hundreds of thousands of Germans gathered in public squares to hear of the historic injustices done to Germany that he would rectify, and how the great German race could not abide having Germans disunited (hence, Anschluss) or living under foreign rule (hence, Sudetenland), thus demonstrating to the British the widespread public support for his policies. Hitler was alternately callous and unyielding, and then malleable. Hitler said to his commanders while planning the invasion, later aborted by surrender, of Austria : “I don’t want men of intelligence, I want men of brutality.” Later, Hitler’s minions told Chamberlain that Hitler did not want to have to bomb Prague into submission: “he hated the thought of little babies being killed by gas bombs.” Eerie, and sinister, in light of subsequent events – the murder of more than one million Jewish children in the Nazi Holocaust.

     The final Hitler-Chamberlain meeting took place in Munich, and an agreement was signed on September 30, 1938, giving Germany the right to annex the Sudetenland within one week. Non-Germans would have to leave without compensation for their property. German troops had already amassed along the Czech-German border. In his mind, Chamberlain had saved Prague and Czechoslovakia’s independence:  “I am sure that someday the Czechs will see that what we did was to save them for a happier future.”  Upon his arrival back at 10 Downing Street, Chamberlain reluctantly said a few words (his wife pushed him) that would become his pathetic legacy, saying that he came back from Germany with “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”  (Hitler had signed a side paper pledging that their agreement is “symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.” Questioned by his aides, Hitler mocked it – saying that he was just giving the “nice old gentleman…my autograph as a souvenir.” )

     After Munich, two ministers resigned from the British Cabinet, but Churchill was the most strident voice in opposition: “we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat. All is over… Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken Czechoslovakia recedes into darkness. Hitler, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.” 

     The Czechs had not even been allowed to participate in the negotiations over their fate, with Chamberlain lying in stating that there was no time to invite them; in reality, Hitler refused to participate if the Czechs were present. A motion in Parliament in support of Chamberlain’s efforts carried overwhelmingly, 366-144. The Western world was euphoric. The London Times editorialized: “No conqueror returning from a victory on the battlefield has come adorned with nobler laurels than Mr. Chamberlain from Munich yesterday.” FDR pronounced Chamberlain a “good man.” The overwhelming sensation, said Isaiah Berlin, was “shame and relief” – shame at abandoning democratic Czechoslovakia and relief at the avoidance of war. The ecstasy lasted only a few weeks, until the violence of Kristallnacht on November 9, 1938 pricked the illusory bubble of Hitler’s moderation.

       Hitler perceived Chamberlain as a patsy, rendered spineless by Western decadence. In October 1938 – just a week after the agreement was trumpeted – Hitler told his cabinet “I shall not occupy Prague for six months or so. I can’t bring myself to do such a thing to the old fellow at the moment.” Five months later, Hitler invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia with little resistance.  In August 1939, persuading his generals that neither Britain nor France would hasten to defend Poland if attacked, Hitler said: “Our enemies are small worms. I saw them at Munich.”

       The Oslo process carried with it the same delusions and willful disregard of reality as did Munich, with one major difference. In September 1993, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Itamar Rabinovitch, came to Queens to try to enlist the support of the Jewish community for the peace process (at the forum, he was regrettably pelted with tomatoes and eggs – and in a shul, no less.) I recall that one questioner directly compared Israel’s concessions and Rabinovitch’s enthusiasm for them (he later wrote a book called “The Brink of Peace,” about Israel and Syria) to Chamberlain’s appeasement at Munich, a loaded comparison to be sure. No one objected to placing Arafat in the Hitler role. But I interjected that comparing Oslo to Munich, and by extension Yitzchak Rabin to Neville Chamberlain, was unfair – to Chamberlain. Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler over Czechoslovakia, someone else’s land; he didn’t surrender Scotland and agree to negotiate in the future over rights to London.

     But the allure of appeasement will always exist, with peace just around the corner, if only… The good-hearted but naïve will always be exploited by the diabolical, clever evildoer. The wicked always have the advantage in the short term as they are unencumbered by morality, decency and the need for public support. But to be good-hearted and clear-headed are not incompatible. It requires the clear articulation of core values and non-negotiable principles, and a backbone capable of withstanding pressure from adversaries and rosy-eyed optimists alike. Israel has not fully recovered from the Oslo debacle, nor has it held accountable its perpetrators. Most importantly, Israel has not yet enunciated a coherent vision of its red-lines or its objectives, and as such remains subject to the whims of an American president whose view of the world is so fanciful, and whose concept of American interests so tenuous, that his statecraft is muddled and uncertain and his reliability as an ally in doubt.

     The turmoil in the Muslim world is both shocking and familiar. It is shocking because dictatorships usually engender stability – even if the stability is coerced – and because the media drumbeats always portray the fearless leader as a national symbol of glory and strength, beloved by the masses. Tunisia and Egypt – now with changes of government, albeit uncertain ones – have already succumbed to mass protests. Now, discontent is boiling over in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Iran and elsewhere. And these scenes are familiar because they are depicted as following a narrative – even a template – that Americans recognize: the yearnings for freedom and liberty that animated the American Revolution 235 years ago and the anti-Communist rebellion in Eastern Europe just two decades ago. That the narrative is familiar does not make it accurate, and thus the need for caution and guarded pessimism.

     We are not dealing here with Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison has yet to be resurrected. There is not the slightest indication that true democracy is a desideratum of the protesters, who are faceless and without an obvious cause or banner. That the military rulers, for example, have maintained that the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty will be honored, was to be expected. What was concealed, though, was the antipathy to the treaty by others who are being touted as presidential material – one, the Western hero Ayman Nour, who was imprisoned by Mubarak for running against him in the last “election,” has already announced both his candidacy and the “irrelevance” of the treaty, which, to his mind, needs to be re-negotiated. Others range from lukewarm to hostile, and the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously antagonistic, having assassinated Anwar Sadat almost 30 years ago for, among other sins, his treaty with Israel.

     Winston Churchill said it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” The cuteness of the remark obscures the insight. The strength of democracy is that it allows a majority of people to chart their own destiny, and allows the governed to regularly give their consent to those who govern. The underlying assumption of democracy (as we know it) is that people can be trusted to make cogent, intelligent, rational and sophisticated decisions about the type of society, laws, and rulers they want. Unfortunately, that assumption reflects the great flaw of democracy: sometimes the people don’t know – or care – what they’re doing; sometimes the people will sacrifice stability, common sense and long-term goals for the appeal of oleaginous demagogues, insincere promises, and short-term lucre. In an American context – in the world’s greatest democracy – we are not unfamiliar with mobs voting for poor choices – crooks, thieves, knaves and thugs who make outlandish promises they have no intention of fulfilling. What can we then say about the rest of the world ?

    It needs to be remembered that Adolf Hitler ran in democratic elections, and although his party never won a majority of the votes, he did eventually win a plurality that led to his appointment as Chancellor. However we look at it, with all possible caveats, democratic elections brought a Hitler to power. We would like to think that a Stalin, a Mao, a Tito, et al would not have been elected by free people; don’t be too sure. Stalin and Mao, murderers of more than 100,000,000 of their own countrymen, are still enormously popular in their countries. (Mao’s portrait “graces” every Chinese bill in circulation.) What has become a modern-day mantra – the fear of “one man, one vote, one time” – is not far from reality. There are many people who will vote to be enslaved, as long as it is not presented as enslavement. For that reason, Aristotle deprecated democracy as “mob rule.”

    In that sense, the Muslim Middle East represents a particular muddle. Americans and Westerners may fantasize that Egyptians, Tunisians – and perhaps Bahrainis, Yemenis, Syrians, etc. – will overthrow their autocrats and implement parliamentary or republican democracies, in which authorized representatives accountable to the people enact laws, minority rights are protected, basic civil rights are preserved, liberty and free enterprise are guaranteed, and power changes hands through orderly elections whose outcomes are heeded. But that is a pipedream, as likely as a candidate in any of those elections running on a pro-Zionist platform.

          It is almost impossible to conjure a scenario in which a democracy will be established and sustained in any of those countries. Three possibilities are much more likely, each fraught with potential danger. In Egypt, for example, the army has seized power, after orchestrating an overthrow of Mubarak, and military control of government is a common phenomenon. Mubarak, Sadat and Nasser all had military backgrounds that assisted them in their drive for power. The army might also appoint a strong-man, essentially a replacement for the previous autocrat, but perhaps someone with a kinder face and more pleasing disposition. That strong-man might be from the military, or even a civilian who rules but owes his power to the military. Both those possibilities are washes, in which nothing really changes on the ground, but with two consequences. Stability is restored, but the seeds are planted for future discontent, and statecraft is again the domain of one person instead of a government. So, for example, Egypt-Israel relations could deteriorate further if the strong-man is so inclined, or revert to the coldness of the Mubarak era. All follows the whim of the ruler.

     Both those possibilities – in Egypt and elsewhere – are preferable to the third possibility: the encroachment by radical Islam on the organs of government and their eventual takeover. Unfortunately, the history of the Muslim world points to this as the most likely outcome except in those states in which there is a powerful, explicit and countervailing military presence. In Islam, power often flows to the lowest common denominator – to the most radical elements that are less hesitant about using force to sustain their power. (Khomeini’s secret police rivaled the Shah’s in their brutality.)And the lure of Islam as a simplistic answer to every problem that afflicts Muslim society is compelling enough to carry elections – along with the promise of paradise for voters and purgatory for opponents. They could easily win – just look at the electoral success of Hezbollah in Lebanon, now the controlling force in that country.

    The sands are shifting in the Middle East, and the unease in Israel is warranted. To date, the statements emanating from the Arab world are predictable. That two Iranian warships are sailing through the Suez Canal in the next few days en route to Syria – a clear provocation to Israel – is worrisome, and the sort of endeavor that Mubarak – an adversary of Iran – would not have permitted. Israel’s best hope for the short term rests in Arab strong men holding power, ameliorating the people’s economic woes, and ensuring stability and the maintenance of ties and interests. It also has to re-calibrate its diplomacy and realize the futility of exchanging real assets for the personal commitments of tenuous dictators.

    Indeed, its best strategy is one that was articulated years ago by Natan Sharansky (who greatly influenced President Bush): insist on real democratization in the Arab world as a pre-condition to diplomatic progress. That should guarantee a long and endless process that allows Israel sufficient time and opportunity to put facts on the ground that make Jewish settlement in Israel permanent and attractive and Arab residence temporary and unappealing.     

     What it should not do is look to the superficial aspects of democracy – an election – as a sign of a greater transformation. Often, when “the people have spoken,” they have either made no sense, or have acted contrary to their real interests and wellbeing. That is democracy’s internal – and eternal – weakness.

      A dictator never sleeps easily, but the longevity of any particular despot seems to depend on the depth of his wickedness. Bad dictators do not endure as long as do absolutely evil dictators. That is to say, the worse the person, the more depraved and murderous the dictator, the more likely it is that he will remain in power and the less likely it is than he will be overthrown by a popular revolution.

     The reason is clear: dictators whose brutality knows no limits will wantonly murder civilians who challenge their rule. Hitler and Stalin, of course, stand out in this genre as they murdered civilians by the millions (and Stalin almost all his own citizens), as does Assad of Syria, who liquidated an entire city – Hama – with its population of 20,000 when they threatened his regime in 1982. Mao Zedong likely murdered more civilians than Stalin and Hitler combined, and died a peaceful death. Pol Pot, who executed approximately two million fellow Cambodians, is another who escaped justice. The crueler they are, the less they are encumbered by any sense of restraint or proportion.

   Dictators who are bad, rather than atrocious, are more susceptible to popular uprising, and Mubarak falls into that category. These are second-tier tyrants, who usually imprison or murder political opponents but are not wanton executioners, and thus fall prey to popular revolt. Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, even the parade of Latin American tin pot dictators like Somoza, Pinochet, Peron, Noriega (he was overthrown by the United States) and others were driven from power by popular rebellions, often aided by the military.

    Indeed, the only way the completely evil dictators are ever deposed is through a military rebellion, as it is the military that enables them to maintain their grip on power and can readily detach that grip as well. Thus, Idi Amin was exiled by his army, and Hitler himself almost killed in July 1944 by a military conspiracy. Stalin, aware of this dynamic, executed almost his entire officer corps in the 1930s to prevent any semblance of opposition from arising against him. Mussolini was deposed and arrested by members of his own government.

      The Communist regimes in Eastern Europe were toppled in the late 1980s and early 1990s because their autocrats, although repressive, never engaged in mass slaughter of civilians. Much the same could be said of the collapse of the Soviet Union, whose rulers allowed it to come apart. In fact, the classification of despots reflects this division. The merely “bad” dictators are often referred to as “authoritarians” or “totalitarians,” whereas the heinous, depraved rulers are termed “dictators.” The major difference between the Eastern European era of repression on 1968 and the era of freedom in 1989 and thereafter was that, unlike Brezhnev, Gorbachev did not send in the tanks to bolster the old Communist regimes.

     They are all despicable, to be sure, but it is ironic that the more fiendish the dictator, the more he is likely to survive, and it is the relative moderation of the others that facilitates popular uprisings. As in Mubarak’s case – and in the rest of the Arab world – the street does not matter as much as the support of the military. But, oddly, a Mubarak can be driven from power not because he was brutal or repressive but because he was not brutal or repressive enough.

     Here’s another irony that is now old news. The Arab “Wikileaks” scandal (the release by Al-Jazeera of PA diplomatic correspondence) sent Abbas and company into a frenzy when it was allegedly revealed that they had entertained making certain concessions to Israel – acceptance of most settlements, a limitation on the re-flooding of Israel with “refugees” (known as the “Right” of Return), deep security cooperation, and other tantalizing notions. In truth, it is still unknown whether these were PA positions or simply their record of Israeli concessions. But rather than bask in their unexpected “moderation,” the PA was quick to castigate Al-Jazeera and deny making any concessions at all. Most diplomats concerned with public relations would have been quick to embrace their efforts at “peace-making” as good news, a sign of progress and maturity. Instead the PA perceived this as an attempt to overthrow their government and besmirch them in the eyes of their public.

    This strange reaction presents only two possibilities: that the PA negotiators are insincere, and are only trying to induce more and more Israeli concessions in exchange for nothing (a winning tactic for twenty years); or that the PA negotiators are sincere, but they recognize that their public will never consider  or accept a permanent peace with Israel. Rather than prepare the average Palestinians for the give-and-take of negotiations in which not every demand will be satisfied, the leadership is completely incapable of transforming Palestinian society from being enthusiastic purveyors of terror into being proponents of c o-existence.

   Either way, it reflects the sheer insanity of a continued “peace process,” notwithstanding Tom Friedman’s tedious advice (that he has been proffering for…30 years) that now is the last and best opportunity for Israel to make peace. His theory – that Mubarak’s downfall will usher in a wave of radical Islamic governments across the region, and therefore peace must come now, immediately and without delay, with Israel making all the concessions necessary – is as foolish and irrational as most of his advice has always been (so, nominate him for another Pulitzer). Making “peace” (meaning, signing agreements and having ceremonies) with people who cannot enforce it, and are unelected rulers soon to be deposed, makes as much sense as embarking on a cross-country trip now in an old jalopy, because the car is dying and may not be available in a week. Well, yes, but the same car will break down on the journey – like the Oslo train stalled because of terror, rockets, Hamas, and a violation of all agreements to date.

    So why would he think that this new agreement, just another agreement, would not meet the same fate and dissolve into more terror and more vulnerability for Israel? Well, maybe that is not such a concern for him, all his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. More to the point, when will people stop taking seriously the policy recommendations of a person who has been consistently wrong for decades ?

     And from irony to farce:  The “peaceful” revolution is Egypt, in which the police and military have been lauded for their “restraint,” has to date claimed over 300 lives. That is, 300 Egyptians have been killed in the rioting in a little over a week. And yet, strangely enough, there has been no reference to use of “excessive force,” no laments over the killing of unarmed, innocent civilians, and no calls for UN Security Council condemnations, all standard operating procedure when Israel kills Arab terrorists.

     Could it be… hypocrisy ? Might it be a … double standard ? Or perhaps just vicious, anti-Israel propaganda, all to remind us that next time those accusations are lodged against Israel – and there will be a next time – ignore them.