Advice to Netanyahu: "Let's Make One Thing Perfectly Clear"

by Atty. Ziv Maor, journalist and writer, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Two countries currently exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea: the State of Israel, and the (imaginary, but still very real) State of Tel Aviv. Both of them had a troubling Saturday night about a week ago: The State of Israel wondered with concern how the government managed not to take advantage of President Trump's ultimatum to Hamas that if the hostages are not released by Saturday at noon, "all hell will break loose." At the same time, those in Israel's other state were involved in the suspense of a particular reality TV series…

In any event, after Prime Minister Netanyahu met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio the next day, he made a public statement not exactly explaining why the deadline had been ignored by both parties to the conflict, but still relating somehow to Gaza: "We are in total security coordination with the Americans," he said, and added, "Not all the details can be divulged."

But actually, that's exactly part of the problem. No one expects that "all the details" should be divulged – but how about at least some of them? Why should everything happen behind closed doors? Why should everything be concealed from the public that is paying the price of the long-running restraint?

This has long been Netanyahu's approach. We in the nationalist camp have already gotten used to it. But what's making it harder to accept over the last few weeks is the total contrast with Trump's tactics. When he talks, he speaks clearly: Transfer. Gates of Hell. All the hostages. He doesn't mince words – and this has become "cold water for a tired soul," as we read in Proverbs. Netanyahu's tendency to keep everything quiet and vague has exacted prices from Israel in the two campaigns that have come aggressively upon us: the campaign against the Arab enemy, and the left-wing uprising. In both cases, the opponents act predictably and consistently. Trump's clarity shows the importance of the "speak clearly" approach.

Shortly after the beginning of the current war, our Prime Minister declared the country's ultimate war objectives: the release of the hostages (who numbered some 250 at the time), the destruction of Hamas as a military and governmental/administrative body in Gaza, and the removal of the security threats facing the Jewish communities in the western Negev. Not much later I wrote here that aside from the first one - freeing the hostages - the others are not truly objectives; they speak of what won't be, but not what will be.

This is a sad repeat of what happened when Hizbullah attacked us and we responded with outright war. The government set the "collapse of Hizbullah" as the objective, but did not state what should happen afterwards. What would be the ideal situation in Lebanon as far as Israel was concerned? Our government had no answer.

Trump, however, has the answer for Gaza, which he stated in bombshell fashion: American control of Gaza, via the transfer of the local population elsewhere. Will this actually happen? No one knows. But the very fact of the clarity of the goals brought immediate diplomatic results: Everyone is talking about the Trump plan. He announced the far-reaching American demands, and now everyone is analyzing him and trying to figure how much of his utopian vision he might be willing to compromise on. Wherever the spinner stops, it will certainly be much better than it is now.

If Israel had announced, with the dust of the massacre still rising, that its goal was to renew the thousands-year-old Jewish settlement in Gaza City, everyone from Biden's Washington to EU capital and Saudi Arabia's Riyadh, might not have agreed, but they would have taken this as the starting point. The question then would have been, "What would Israel be willing to compromise on?" It would certainly not have been, "How can we get Hamas to agree to release the hostages?" If Israel had made that announcement, the war would have been over a long time ago.

But the government chose political fuzziness, and "without [political] vision, the country falls apart" (see Proverbs 29,18).

Some say that it was this that caused the downfall of none other than Napoleon Bonaparte. Though his ultimate defeat was due to a number of factors, one of them might have been that he sought to conquer Russia without any plan for what would happen afterwards.

Trump well knows this lesson. Let us hope that Netanyahu, as well, will learn it very soon. 

The Prophet Isaiah's Vision Coming True – Let's Do It!

by Ziv Maor, Editor-in-Chief of the news broadcasts at Galei Israel radio station, translated by Hillel Fendel.

A cursory glance at the new residents in the palaces of our Syrian neighbors, currently known as "the rebels," leads more to feelings of concern than of optimism. This is because of our long-standing acquaintance with the Arab enemy, and our general perception that the Arabs continue to be the same Arabs and the sea that they wish to push us into is the same sea…

To this is added the knowledge that our new neighbors have frightening associations with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. And even more worrisome is the fact that Julani and Shar'a, the two new sheriffs in the neighborhoods, are long arms of the Turkish enemy octopus.

If we look at Syria as a square on the checkerboard of the Middle East, we can note that there is a Qatari-Jordanian-Syrian-Turkish contiguity. This is a critical route for the entire region that can provide oil from Qatar to Europe. In the developing Middle East, the diplomatic engine will no longer be the "Palestinian problem," but rather, who will control the European gas market. For while on the one hand, there is this pipeline that can open in the wake of the fall of Assad, but there is also a developing and competing maritime axis of Israel-Cyprus-Greece.

Despite all, many experts are expressing very non-cautious optimism in light of the events. Shar'a himself declared that he does not see Israel as an enemy country, and Israeli expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar speaks of key Sunni figures in the rebellion who say they plan to open a Syrian embassy in Israel's capital of Jerusalem. Ziv Jenisov, an independent journalist who spent much time in the areas of the battles in Syria in 2018, has related that when he whispered to some Sunni rebels that he was Israeli, their admiration was palpable. And demographer Prof. Yaakov Feitelson has been speaking about Syria's return to the days before the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement [which defined the respective spheres of control of Great Britain and France following the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire]. In those days, each ethnic group in what was to become modern-day Syria lived securely in its own area: the Alawites along the coast, the Druze south of Damascus, the Kurds in the northeast, and the Sunnis everywhere else.

Two important ethnic groups in Syria, the Druze and the Kurds, are supporters of Israel. The Kurds have expressed pro-Israeli sentiments for many years. The Druze indeed remained loyal to Assad, despite his oppression of them, but the spontaneous joyous reactions to his overthrow in the Druze villages in the Golan leave room for optimism that the Syrian Druze will join their brethren in Israel.

Time for a New Conception

The events that have so suddenly overtaken us are an opportunity to take a hard new look at a certain long-running Western, left-wing approach – and throw it out the window. This approach, or conception, holds that sovereignty is a binary situation: Either there is sovereignty, or there isn't. It has been a fundamental element of the twisted Israeli policies towards Judea and Samaria since the first intifada. That is, it is commonly held that either there will be two states between the Jordan and the sea, or one state, which will either be binational, or a Jewish-run apartheid. Any middle ground is not even considered, but rather denounced as an unstable temporary solution that will perpetuate the conflict forever.

The revolution in Syria invites us to introduce a new word into our vocabulary, which can not only help us formulate a new solution to the problems of the Arabs of the Land of Israel, but can also serve as a key to a reorganization of the entire Middle East. The word is: suzerainty. It generally refers to the partial control of an area, or even a country, by another country. There are many regions in the world that enjoy a certain measure of independence, but at the same time entrust certain important functions associated with sovereignty in the hands of a different country (usually a stronger one). The classic example of such is the state of relations between Puerto Rico (and also Guam) and the United States. There is also suzerainty between Montana and the U.S., between Belgium and the European Union, and between Flanders and Belgium.

The Left, and anti-Semites around the world, define Israel's position in Judea and Samaria as a "conqueror" or "occupier," thus distorting the meaning of "occupation" in international law. In practice, the more accurate term for Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is "suzerainty." A deep understanding of the concept of suzerainty, and of the ways in which it is implemented in various areas of the world, opens before Israel a wealth of possibilities in the new Middle East that is currently taking shape. Internalizing Israel's suzerainty means understanding that Israel is a regional power and can use its power unapologetically to fortify its status and interests.

This is how it can look: Judea and Samaria will be recognized immediately as an integral part of the State of Israel; its Arab residents who remain here will receive Israeli citizenship; and Arab Palestinian nationalism will be outlawed. The Arab cities will have the status of local autonomies, run by the families that already run many of their affairs. The Gaza Strip will retain, for now, the status that the Palestinian Authority currently enjoys, with Israel overseeing its education network (to prevent anti-Israel incitement and the like). Perhaps in a few decades from now, Gaza will be ready to join Israel.

The Druze and the Kurds in the new Syria will exist as autonomies, with their own armies and with military guarantees from Israel. Southern Lebanon will be governed by Druze and Maronites (Christians), who will also enjoy Israeli military protection. Israel will open a gas pipeline to Europe, thus subordinating the economies of Lebanon and Egypt. Israel will also be able to leverage, without compunction, its control over the drinking water that it supplies to the Kingdom of Jordan, and will be free to enforce Israel's political interests over King Abdullah.

Who doesn't know the Prophet Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Nation will not lift a sword against another nation, and they will never again wage war." But when it is understood as a simple vision of peace and serenity, it is being taken out of context. Just a few verses before it, which are somewhat less well-known, the true and complete prophetic vision is laid out:

"And it shall be at the end of the days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be firmly established at the top of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall stream to it. And many peoples shall go and say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths" – for from Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks…"

Thus we see that even the Prophet says that the condition for regional peace is suzerainty of the Holy Temple mountain over the neighboring peoples. G-d has opened the way for us – let us go forth and ascend it.