לחזור לאולפן

פינוי מתיישבים מאולפנה, מגרון וכיוצא בהם נראה מבוך שבו כל אחד ואחד מן הצדדים בונה לעצמו ולשומעיו סיפור שבא להסתיר את העובדות.

הנחת היסוד בשיטת המשפט הנהוגה בישראל  היא שהצדדים נאמנים לשטוח את טענותיהם ובית המשפט פוסק על המחלוקות ביניהם. אין בית המשפט בוחן את הדברים שהעותרים והמשיבים מסכימים עליהם. אדרבה, בית המשפט מעודד את הצדדים לצמצם את החלוקות ככל יכולתם. באין מחלקות, אין בית המשפט בוחן כליות ולב ויוצא מתוך ההנחה שמה שנאמר משקף כוונת אמת.

בעניין שלפנינו לא היו מחלקות לא על הבעלות על הקרקע ולא על החובה להרוס את מה שנבנה עליה. ההסכמה של המדינה לאלה לא הייתה הרהור לב של הפרקליטות או היועץ המשפטי לממשלה ונבעה מהחלטת הממשלה. לא "הקהילייה הבינלאומית", לא אובמה, לא עבאס ולא שלום עכשיו הכתיבו לפרקליטות את ההסכמה להריסת הבתים; ממשלת ישראל עשתה זאת וכל שריה, גם ה"ימניים", שבהם ידעו על כך.

בדיון האחרון שבו המדינה בקשה דחייה נוספת בהריסת הבתים, הפרקליטות לא טענה ששנתה דעתה כיוון שטעתה בעבר, אלא שהחידוש הוא בשינוי מדיניות הממשלה, נימוק שאין בו כל ערך משפטי.

בית המשפט פסק את מה שפסק לא בשל אהבתו לפלסטינים, או בשל שנאתו למתיישבים: הדיון הוכרע טרם עמדות כאלה או אחרות של בית המשפט הגיעו לכלל השפעה. ההתקפה על בית המשפט והאיום בחקיקה כזו או אחרת לא עומדים במבחן של ההיגיון. גם לו הצעות חוק "הסדרה" היו חוק, אם המדינה הייתה מסכימה להריסה, לא הייתה להם השפעה כל שהיא.

המתיישבים סבורים לרוב שבית המשפט הוא "שמאלני" ולכן עדיף להשתתף כמה שפחות בדיוניו ודי בהשפעתם הפוליטית על הליכוד כדי שהעולם ינהג לפי מאווייהם, בשל כך נימוקים משפטיים נגד ההריסה ויש כאלה הרבה, לא נדונו בשום מקום. הפילוג במחנה הדתי הלאומי והבכיינות של מאות רבניו, גם הם השפיעו על המחדל המשפטי. ההתנהלות הזאת כמעט ולא מאפשת שום הליך משפטי בשל שיהוי.

הוויכוח המשפטי שמתנהל בציבור וכאמור לא בבית המשפט עוסק בזכות הקניין "הקדושה" כביכול. מעניין שדווקא השמאל הפך לחסיד מובהק של הקניין הפרטי. מארקס במהופך. אלא שהזכות הזאת כרוכה כפי שכתבה כבוד השופטת בייניש "בשיטתנו". אלא שבשיטתנו זכות הקניין כמו כל זכות אחרת אינה עומדת לכשעצמה אלא היא כרוכה ב"שיטתנו". ב"שיטתנו" יש עוד כמה דברים, למשל חופש לכרות חוזה. אין החופש הזה מתקיים כאן, שכן אפילו היו מציעים לבעלי הקרקע, ועוד לא ברור שהם אכן כאלה, Empire State Building בתמורה לקרקע, עדין היו מסרבים כיוון שהיו נענשים בעונש מוות, לו הסכימו.

החוקתיות של עונש מוות על מכירות קרקע ליהודים צריכה להיבדק גם כן. אם ישראל היא הכובש לפי החוק הבינלאומי הרי ככל הנראה המפקד הצבאי לא מילא את חובתו בהתירו קיום לחוק הזה. אפילו חקיקה עצמאית של הרשות הפלסטינית מותרת לפי הסכמי אוסלו, היא סותרת ככל הנראה את החוק הבינלאומי. מכל מקום החוק הזה הוא בעל חשיבות מכרעת בקיומה או העדרה של מכירת הקרקע ומציאותו איננה "לשיטתנו.”

כיוון שאין בעלי הקרקע חופשיים למכור את הנכס בכל מחיר, אפשר להניח שהאינטרס האמיתי שלהם דורש מכירה בכפייה. מכאן שבית המשפט היה צריך לכפות את המכר לא רק בשל זכויות המתיישבים אלא מכוח דאגה לרווחת בעלי הקרקע. איני יודע מה תהיה הנפקות של הטענות האלה אם יועלו בבית המשפט, אולם עובדה היא שלא הועולו.

נחזור ל"שיטנו". אם בישראל היה מתברר שעסקת מכר כל שהיא הייתה פגומה הוויכוח בין הצדדים היה רק על כסף ולא על עקרונות מופשטים כל שהם. אם בית המשפט מבקש לנהוג "לשיטתנו" ראוי שיתיחס לדברים כפי שהם נוהגים אצלנו ולא בכל מקום אחר.

שאלה אחרת שעומדת על הפרק היא הנזק שנגם לזכויות אדם של המתיישבים לעומת הנזק לבעלי הקרקע, אם בית המשפה יכפה מכר.

המתיישבים צריכים, לדעתי, להגיש צו על תנאי נגד המדינה, על שלא טענה את הטענות האלה ועל שהסכימה שלא כדין עם עותרים על פינוי והריסה. המתיישבים צריכים להסביר את השיהוי בכך שהמדינה שהסכימה עם העותרים, הבטיחה אין קץ פעמים שלא יהיה פינוי, ונסוגה מהבטחתה בנימוק שאו לפיו אינה יכולה להתנגד להחלטה חלוטה של בית המשפט, אלא שהחלטה נובעת מהטעיית בית המשפט על ידי המדינה ולא מכל סיבה אחרת.

המעשה הפגום והמחדל הם מפעל ממשלתי למהדרין. בשל כך גם המתיישבים, גם בעלי הקרקע וגם המדינה יוצאים נפגעים. הניסיון לפייס את המתיישבים ולפצותם בבניית "דווקא" חדשה, מוסיפה חטא על פשע. ישראל צריכה להחליט על בנייה או העדר בנייה ביהודה ושומרון מתוך שיקול עצמאי שאין לו כל קשר להריסה כזאת או אחרת. הקהילייה הבינלאומית זועמת. כל אלה בשל מעשיה של ממשלת ישראל, ממשלת "ימין"? 

Learning from America - United Arab States

America is praised for its democracy, for freedom, for the genius of Federalist Papers, for its Constitution, for stability, for economic and military power and for many other well deserved exceptional qualities. Yet less abstract characteristics, what Alexis de Tocqueville called 'habit of mind,' may explain better its uniqueness.

Holocaust Museum  Washington DC

America has created a vision of nation building without an nationalistic ethos. To be a French, or German, or Russian, or Polish one must carry on his or her shoulders the history, language, culture, sometimes religion, and other attributes, without which one is not considered a full member of the nation. America is different: by some magical process one becomes an American the next day after getting citizenship, and without the immediate burden of culture and history. New Americans may have taken rudimentary citizenship 101 course about George Washington, the Constitution and the Civil War, but they feel American not because of that. Furthermore, usually the new Americans are more patriotic than citizens born there.

When one becomes an American, one is accepted as he or she is. His English may be less than perfect, it doesn't matter. If his sense of humor is unconventional, perhaps perhaps we could learn something new. His clothes are different? So what? Henry Kissinger still retains traces of German accent, but nobody cares. It is hard to imagine French, or Russian Foreign Ministers with less than impeccable French or Russian accents respectively. Did Bashevitz Singer write in Yiddish? Nobody remembers. He is an American Nobel winner, isn't he? He writes about a bygone strange world. It does not matter, we can live it through reading his stories.

What is perhaps more important, America welcomes the ties of new or old Americans with their previous homelands. Those ties become somehow a pillar of American community life. In the past they used to say that a New York politician must visit the three i's: Ireland, Italy and Israel before running for an office. Because of this attitude, after the State of Israel was established, the ties of Jews to the new country seemed natural. In fact they strengthened the status of American Jews as Americans.

Even the language issue of Spanish American is more or less tolerated. Turkish commentator, who recently visited Florida, was wondering how America tolerates Spanish easily while Kurdish in Turkey is almost a sin.

When Arabs become in 'habit of mind' Americans, they reject terror and are open to any discussions which concern the Arab world. CAIR and similar organizations damage Muslims not because of their real or alleged support of human rights but because they make it harder for Muslims to become Americans.

The ability of the people of United States to accept new Americans as equals from day one is, in my mind, the most important quality of the “exceptional” America. Individuals, communities and countries around the world should learn and imitate it not as a tribute to the US, but as first rate service for their own existence.

The hard Left will benefit too from taking a rest from its usual agenda and take a hard look at what their country really is.

The European concept of nation state is quite new. Even in late Middle Age there were no modern nation states. If a Lord of the King of France decided to shift his loyalty to the King of Prussia, all inhabitants of his fief became "Germans" without much ado. The rise of nationalism in the modern age created the concept of nation state, the pioneers of which were Italy and Poland. In this sense Palestinians and almost everybody else are "invented" nations.

The idea of nation state maintained that nation was, or should have been the dominant social structure of the community, more important than any other such structure. The nation was was somehow vaguely defined by ethnicity, language, religion and territory. Since in all countries there were minorities which didn't fit into definition of the "nation," minorities became a key negative factor in defining nationalism. They were the "other," without which nation was, in fact, impossible. They were "not us," and thus a subject of prejudice and hate. There was strong affinity between nationalism and fascism. Most of the new nation states established after the First World War had strong fascistic tendencies. 

Baghdad

The Arab states came into being by strokes of pen of imperialist powers, which defined rather arbitrarily borders according to power politics of France, Britain and to lesser extent Germany and Russia, and according to internal politics of the pretending dictators, monarchs and other rulers. Those states didn't reflect the social structures that mattered to people more than the the artificial states: tribes, religious sects and territorial loyalties. The new Arab states had fascist tendencies because other states had them too, and because such tendencies made life easier for the semi-independent rulers. Furthermore, political parties established at the beginning of the last century in the Arab world, be it the religious Muslim Brothers or the secular Ba'ath looked at fascist Germany and Italy as inspiring models.

The ever simplistic orientalist view of the West presumes that Arab states are God created structures and that "free election" will bring democracy and prosperity, following which there will be a happy beach party. Without preexisting democracy free elections are meaningless. In fact the worst totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century, came about by "free election."

Arabs will have to find by themselves the social and territorial structure. In doing that they should rely to their own culture and history and observe critically the world around. Examining the success of the United States may give them some clues as to why Unites Arab States could become the future success of world history.

Striking Iran: the Decision

None of the Israeli major intelligence services, SHABAK, MOSSAD and Military Intelligence, 

predicted the Arab Spring. After it started they were unable to predict the fall of Mubarak. 

Even now, they do not have a clear idea as to its outcome. In this they are not different 

from other intelligence services, and from the so called experts and journalists. Be this as it may,

the knowledge of what happens next door is of paramount importance to Israel. This 

failure of  of intelligence is not less important than any other such failure in the 65 years of 

Israel's existence. 

Failures of intelligence are in fact failures in analysis of raw, frequently contradictory, data in 

drawing conclusions and making decisions. The process is much wider than strictly 

professional intelligence. Most of the times the failure or success is determined by other 

military and civilian leaders. At the end it is the commander in chief, whatever his or her 

formal title is, who makes the decision. 

In summer of 1973, 44 years old Major Shlomo Baum serving his 30 days annual reserve 

service in Sinai not far from the Suez Canal noticed unusual movements of the Egyptian 

Army across the canal. He reported it to his superior officers, who dismissed the 

information. Baum who knew Ariel Sharon from the famous, some would say infamous, 101 

Unit, called him up. At that time General Sharon was the Commander of the Southern 

Command. Sharon ordered alert. Baum's superiors did as ordered, but complained about 

the unnecessary move, because of friendship of Baum and Sharon. In his memoir of the 

Yom Kippur war Saadat wrote that he planned the war for summer, but the alert of IDF forced 

him to change plans. 

Israeli intelligence was surprised by the war which was launched in October. Newspapers 

blamed the ruling conventional wisdom concepts, which they called the “conception,” or 

CONSEPTSYA, which precluded war. Without concepts thinking, decision making is 

impossible. The concepts must however be constantly evaluated and criticized. Pierre 

Bourdieu in very different context regarded the inability of social and political scientists to 

Commander in Chief

reflect critically on their assumptions and concepts a major weakness of these disciplines.

In the first few days Yom Kippur was, to say the least, difficult for Israel. On the basis of 

the same intelligence the Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan, the adored hero military leader 

and the Prime Minister, the grandma Golda Meir reached opposite decisions. Dayan 

wanted to admit defeat, Meir thought that victory can still be achieved. She became the de 

facto commander in chief, and made strategic and tactical military decisions. 

Truman - against the "wise men"

Many times failures of intelligence stem 

from the fact that heads of such services

do not fully understand, or perhaps 

cannot internalize the rules of decision 

making. Human decision takes place only under uncertainty. 

The future and its consequences are unknown, and

in spite of that a decision has to be taken. 

If everything is known, there is no decision, 

a computer would do the job better. 

In 1948 the US had to decide whether to recognize soon to 

be born the new State of Israel. George Marshall, the 

legendary war hero, whom Churchill called the “organizer of 

the victory,” the originator of the Marshall Plan for Europe, was the Secretary of State. He 

strongly objected to recognition of Israel. The “wise men” in the Department, Acheason, 

Kennan, Bohlen and others supported him, so did the CIA, which predicted that Jews will 

lose the war. Marshall threatened to resign. He insisted that the written protocol of meeting with

Truman will state that he will not vote for him, if overruled. Truman decided to 

Begin - Osiris Strike - against the Mossad

recognize Israel. The strong objections of Marshall 

and the “wise men” are remembered only as a 

footnote to history. 

Meir Dagan, the former head of MOSSAD, and  

Yuval Diskin, the former head of SHABAK do not 

think that failure in the past precludes them from 

continuing to be experts about the future. They claim 

to know what Iran is and how it will respond to attack 

by Israel. 

The fact is, however, that future in the matter of Iran 

is unchartered territory, not only for Israel and the 

United States, but probably for Iran too. 

It will take a missile several minutes to reach Israel. Israel is a tiny country, even if it has a 

massive nuclear capability, second strike may be too late. Is Iran “rational” as some claim? 

Rational or not, it is difficult to understand the rationale of sending children to war with 

formal passport to heaven if they die as it did in Iraq-Iran war, and to figure out what was the 

political or military gain in killing 85 Jews in Buenos Aires in the eighties. 

Will military attack destroy or delay Iran's capability to make a nuclear weapon? Will such 

attack remove the clerics from power? Can Israel rely on the US? How far will Obama go 

with Iran if he is reelected? 

Those are hundreds more questions do not have easy, clear and easy answers. Uncertainty and 

difficulties notwithstanding, a decision must be taken. The commander in chief will have to make

it. 

Against Hate -- Ahad Ha'am for Palestinians

How could a nation rooted in Palestine for well over a thousand years be so easily plucked out and chased away at gunpoint? By now I knew this wasn't because of the inherently superior intelligence or even malevolence of our enemy. What was it then?

I didn't have any answers.

Nusseibeh, Sari with David, Anthony (2007) Once Upon a Country p. 121 Farras, Straus and Giroux New York

I will try to suggest a partial answer.

David (Dolik) Horovitz (1899-1979) was the founder and then the Governor of the Bank of Israel. In 1970, at that time he was 71 years old, he published his autobiography, Ha'etmol Sheli in Hebrew, which means My Yesterday in English. In 1920 he and Meir Yaari, who later became the legendary leader of Israeli Left, were among the founders of a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz, Beytanya. The book caused a bitter controversy between the two young old men about Talmudic or dialectical shades in semi-private discussions they held 50 years before as if it happened yesterday. They recalled what transpired clearly not only because of outstanding memory and intelligence. The argument was well remembered becaust it dealt with vision and ambition of the allmost teenagers pioneers of the tiny, in present day terms, Third Immigration Wave or Aliyah, of less than 30,000 immigrants that came to Palestine in the years 1918 to 1924. These young men and women wanted to create new forms of personal, social and economic existence not only for Jews but for all humankind. The world knew nothing about them, and even within the world Zionist movement the whole Jewish population in Palestine at that time was a small minority. In spite of all that, the Third Aliyah created, in defiance to all expectations the social, political, ideological and military foundation for the future state of Israel.

The will and determination of a group of people to create new vision is the precondition for its success.

In my mind, the public understanding and poor scholarship missed the real history of the Holocaust. To exist in the Ghetto, in face of death everywhere and keep the family safe for another day called for immensely more bravery and courage than manifested by the conventional glory of military armed heroics. What was most remarkable, in spite of the knowledge that death is a day, a week, or in the best case few months away, is the fact that food and survival were not the only things that mattered for the Ghetto residents. They also created in the dreary reality theaters, schools, libraries and books. They revolted not only against the opressors but against the overpowering hate too.

Eva Sandler lost lost her two children and her husband in the Toulouse murder. In face of the disaster she remained self-composed and kept her trust in God. Furhermore, this remarkable woman obstinately refused to fall into the chaos of hate. “We, the Jews, we are not looking for revenge,” she said. Mass media, the loyal allies to terror, are much more interested in the assassin than in the mother of murdered children and their father. The God of ratings is not interested in honest courage. Mournig with no hate and lust for revenge is much more powerful than ranting of lesser human beings.

The major flaw of hatred is not faulty ethics or even deranged psychology, but the acceptance and confirmation of the alleged or true stereotype that the hated has of the hater. Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856 - 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am, (Hebrew: אחד העם‎, lit. one of the people, Genesis 26:10) in his essay Imitation and Assimilation written in German in 1893 dealt at length with the cultural danger of adopting stereotypes of the “other” nation. Palestinians may learn something from it, rereading it will not damages the Jews either.

Arabs and Palestinians can choose peace or war with Jews. Be their choice as it may, hatred will serve it poorly.

On individual level many Arabs in Israel are most intelligent and and successful. Some of the best doctors are Arabs. As many antisemites who prefer to be treated by Jewish doctors, know, it is not easy to compete with Jewish physicians. Arabs are certainly able of great achievements in community and in nation and state building too. Getting rid of hatred is a step in this direction.

Sari Nusseibeh believes that Jews and Arabs are natural allies. Such view may seem overoptimistic, but Arab success in the long run could become a bridge for the two nations.

Si vis pacem para bellum

maskirovka

Since time immemorial surprise and deception were an important feature of many military battles. Hannibal crossing the Alps, Allenby in Megiddo in 1918, Pearl Harbor, Operation Barbarossa, Landing in Normandy, Yom Kippur war and 9/11 terror are few examples coming to mind. It seems that surprise and deceptions are dreams of many military commanders planning an attack. Even in the largest military operation in the world, which somehow escaped public attention, in which millions of soldiers were involved on both sides, the Bagration operation of the Red Army in 1944, deception, or rather maskirovka, was one of the tenets of Stalin and the stavka. Surprise and deception in military operation are not just textbook prescription taken from manuals. They stem from the fact that battles are not only movements of soldiers and equipment exerting firepower, but are campaigns of minds of military commanders. Planning a battle and leading it involves time, efforts, intelligence and total dedication. In these respects it is not different from scientific research projects or works of art.  

Allenby - Megiddo  1918

If Israel launches an attack on Iran, its timing, scope, operational means, allies, even its objectives will be based on surprise and deception. The military commanders are working day and night on the details and on intelligence. The speculations of journalists, experts and armchair generals are by definition wrong. No journalist or expert could have envisaged a painting of a master before it was actually painted. One can simulate battles in mind or play a computer game, but the result would be similar to painting, say, Mona Lisa before is was actually painted, by computer program. The predictions in the press and on the web are worthless. The fact that they are repeated several times a day by former Generals and lobbyists do not make them more valuable.

If Israel believes that Iran by itself or through its terror allies would use nuclear weapons against the Jewish State and if it believes it has the means to destroy such weapons before they are fully developed, the decision is pretty straightforward. One can presume that the attack will take place before “it's too late”. In these circumstances the opinion of the US, or international community are of little consequence. The debate whether Iran is rational or not is also not important. Nobody is 100 percent rational. If Iran is, say, only 10 percent irrational, Israel cannot take the chance of its existence. Furthermore, the US fully agrees that Israel has the right to destroy Iran's nuclear capability and do so "it is too late." This stance stems not only from logic, friendship and political expedience but also from the belief that it is helpful in forthcoming diplomacy with the clerics. 

Israel and the US both would prefer a solution without military attack. There is, however, a built-in difference of opinion between the two countries, which has nothing to do with personalities, love and hate and politics. Israel is single minded, it wants immediate harsh sanctions. The US is a powerful empire with many interests, which Israel is both unwilling and unable to consider. Considerations of world economy, of price of oil, of relations with allies and rivals such as China and Russia make US action slower than Israel would expect. The size of the countries, the manner of decision making are different too. Those differences are well known to both sides, and both of them are trying to pressure one another in more or less amicable way. Unnamed officials leak about difficulties of military attack, about chaos, about oil prices and many other things which create public opinion against military attack by Israel. On the other hand, Israel is not ashamed to mention refusal to bomb Auschwitz, to hint about elections, to mobilize its friends and more. At this stage the US is asking Israel for two months more for engagement with Iran and for letting the sanctions work. 

The third party is Iran. Rational or not, nobody in the West knows exactly what its goals are. The system there is based on a sort of uneasy balance between the clerics and middle class. The Arab revolt, whatever its outcome is, weakened the clerics, because Islam was not the agent of change in removal of the old rulers. The revolt in Syria which is going on in spite of Hezbollah and Iran supporting Assad, strengthens the dormant middle class in Iran. Are nuclear weapons a key for survival of the clerics as rulers? Are the sanctions hurting? Is it possible to reach an accommodation with the US? Nobody knows for sure, perhaps event the clerics do not. As in many negotiations each party tries to picture itself as wearing the shoes of the other and imagining what it would do if the roles are reversed; not necessarily the best engagement strategy but quite natural, in particular when information is scant. If the roles were reversed the clerics would not have negotiated anything with a country which is hundred times weaker. Similarly, Americans think that Iranians behave as the Americans would have in their place. The most damaging characteristic of US foreign policy is the belief that the whole world is Main Street America. Enter more players, Europe, Russia, China, Turkey, and the process becomes even slower. The chance of doing something before “it is too late,” is almost non existent, except if the biting effect of the sanctions increases dramatically, or there is another major change in the region, for instance fall of Assad.

The final question is how Iran is reading the Israeli threat. Strange as it is, if Iran concludes that the threat is becoming real and imminent it will give in and stop, at least for a while, development of nukes. The old adage  si vis pacem, para bellum stands.    

Who will rule Turkey

Prime Minister and his Head of Intelligence

The arguments in the Turkish parliament about intelligence service seem to be taken from television mini series. War against terror involves agents, who infiltrate a terrorist organization. Occasionally such agents, believed to be loyal and true terrorists are ordered to commit acts of terror. Refusal may lead to exposure, consequently even if the agent remains alive, he or she becomes an useless spy. Now, if an agent engages in terror, is she immune from prosecution? Who grants the approval to act in this way and who is in charge of control? These dilemmas are usually discussed in close doors, certainly in a country like Turkey, not exactly a paradigm of government transparency. 

The public prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against no less a figure than Dr. Hakan Fidan, the head of national intelligence service (MİT), an appointee of Prime Minister Erdoğan with a rank of Undersecretary and against several other officials under him. The subject matter has been the Kurdish PKK, which is considered by Turkey a terrorist group and CKK its political arm. In response, the parliament enacted a new law, which allows the Prime Minister to grant immunity to MİT agents in exercise of their approved duties. The main opposition BDP stated that it will ask the Constitutional Court to cancel the new law.

The debate is much more than a legal bickering between factions in Government and Parliament. It represents deep power struggle among important forces that have shaped modern secular Turkey ruled by an Islamic party.

Fethullah Gülen

Fethullah Gülen is the head of a movement that exerts considerable religious, social and political power over Turkey and Turks over the world. He was the architect of making the Islamic AKP the ruling party in Turkey, and subsequently nominating Erdoğan,  its leader, the Prime Minister. Gülen followers are well established in AKP and in the Government. Presumably they maintain a forceful presence in the judiciary system.

Erdoğan's Turkey is a rather strange amalgam of nationalistic state, alliance with secular business, and moderate Islam. The state vision in its strict ethnic and language definitions is closer to right wing Poland between the wars than to Ottoman's Caliphate or even Ataturk conception of the country. Like Poland at that time, Turkey has difficulty in dealing with its sizable 20 percent minority, with facts of its recent history, and again like Poland it has imperialistic dreams toward small and weak neighbors. The alliance with business community is based on crony capitalism with ever growing disparity in distribution of national income. The Islamic foundation are more a political tool than real life force changing the secular Turkey into a religious country.

After the last elections, Turkey's relations with most of the countries around it, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Cyprus, Greece deteriorated significantly. Yet in the media an impression arose that Turkey became a regional – a word that probably Mr. Erdoğan dislikes – power and its Prime Minister a charismatic leader. It seems that Mr. Erdoğan believes that this is indeed the case and that support of Mr. Gülen is not crucial anymore. Mr. Gülen, a resident of Pennsylvania, is less impressed with the image of the Prime Minister. He probably considers him arrogant and unnecessarily argumentative. On the face of it, though, the difference in style and even minor opinions do not warrant such a grave step as public summoning and criminal investigation of the Head of Intelligence who is also a loyal confidant of the Prime Minister.

It may well be that a more important development is the reason for the recent showdown. The health situation of Mr. Erdoğan in detail is unknown. Officially he does not have cancer. Yet a second operation is not an event which necessarily implies excellent health. It may well be that a succession struggle is taking place. Ahmet Davutoglu the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Abdullah Gül the President are so far the best known contenders. Fethullah Gülen supports Abdullah Gül. He wants to remain the eminence grise who determines who will be the next Prime Minister. During the visit of Ahmet Davutoglu in the US, several American journalists wrote critically about the Gullen foundation. It appears that the timing and leaks are also a part of the ongoing struggle.

Fethullah Gülen was the only prominent Turkish religious leader who opposed to Gaza flotilla. Prime Minister Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu aggressive stance against Israel proved to be a failure. It did not improve the relations of Turkey with other Muslim neighbors, in fact it worsened them. In maintaining good relations with Israel, Turkey had a leverage which it lost. Even the Palestinians did not become more eager to look for support under the wing of Turkey. After severing the ties with Israel Turkey became of no value to them. Israel used to have excellent relations with the Turkish military, because of that it probably did not maintain contacts with the Gülen foundation. Times are changing, it my be useful to consider this foundation a bridge for improving contacts with the AKP and the next Prime Minister.

Cultural Capital of Leftist Apartheid

Few days ago, Norman Finkelstein, a well known anti-Zionist activist,  denounced the Boycott, Divestment andSanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Here is how Wikipedia summarized his criticism:

Finkelstein "launched a blistering attack" of the BDS movement, saying it was a "hypocritical, dishonest cult" that tries to cleverly pose as human rights activists while in reality their goal is to destroy Israel. In addition, he said: "I'm getting a little bit exasperated with what I think is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm not going to tolerate silliness, childishness and a lot of leftist posturing. I loathe the disingenuousness. We will never hear the solidarity movement [back a] two-state solution." Furthermore, Finkelstein stated that the BDS movement has had very few successes, and that just like a cult, the leaders pretend that they are hugely successful when in reality the general public rejects their extreme views.

Finkelstein did not suddenly change his views and became an ardent Zionist. He has been and remains a strong pro-Palestinian voice. He slams the one state solution, not only because it is impractical, or because Israel will never agree to it, but, because, if realized, it is the worst outcome of the Palestinians.

One-state solution implies that Palestinians do not have a culture of their own, that they are not a vibrant society with its own values. It assumes that by stroke of pen one can transform the Palestinians into a sort of mini Jews and that granting them equal legal rights will make them indeed equal. For all communities and societies the path into modernity was, and to many of them still is a difficult struggle. The 1,500 hundred years long persecution of Jews under Christianity, could be considered as a sort of  apprenticeship for modern age success of the Jews. The belief that Palestinian aspirations for statehood could be achieved by becoming citizens in a state Jews created is a complete nonsense. In such state, notwithstanding equal legal rights, they would become refugees in alien culture.

The so called radical Left, which on the face of it supports multi-culture, in fact uses the existence of other culture only for its political ends. The other culture itself is never of any interest. In terms of the social scientist Pierre Bourdieu, the Left sees itself the owner of all cultural capital just like the colonial powers considered themselves in the past owners of all economic capital. The continual attack on America and Israel to certain degree stems from the Left's absolute lack of interest in what takes places in cultures it is unfamiliar with.

Edward Said was mostly right in his Orientalism, when he criticized the prejudices of the well known historians and sociologists of the Orient. Nietzsche, Bourdieu and many others had a similar views about social scholars and philosophers in general. Interestingly, every psychoanalytic practitioner is required to undergo analysis of himself or herself, but no such requirement for analysis of inbred preferences, and prejudices takes place in other areas of intellectual work. The orientalists of the past were however immensely superior to self declared present day intellectuals of the Left. The orientalists, even if prejudiced and non reflective, still were very much interested in the subject matter of their scholarship. 

Every "progressive" blogger apparently knows what democracy is and how it should be implemented in Egypt, or Syria or Libya, or any other Arab country. Such blogger is also  able in several hours to prepare a dratt constitution for those countries. She assumes that her own culture, politics and opinions are equally valid for places, cultures and people she knows nothing about. It is worthwhile to consider what G.W. Hegel thought about the attempt of leader he adored, Napoleon, to compose a constitution for Spain. The differences between Spain and France were minute in comparison to those between US and any Arab country. Here is what Hegel writes in paragraph 274 of Elements of the Philosophy of Right:

The state must in its constitution penetrate all relations within it. Napoleon, for example, wanted to give Spaniards an a priori constitution, something that went quite wrong. For a constitution is not something simply made; it is a work of centuries, it is the idea and consciousness of the rational, to the extent they have developed in a nation. ... The nation must have for its constitution the feeling of its right, if granted externally it has no meaning and no value. ...

The attempt of the Left to tell Arabs what is "good for them", is a sort of low level cultural imperialism. No wonder that the more America portrays itself as "pro democratic Islam," the more its support on the Arab mainstreet declines. The support for President Obama there is much lower than it was for the hated George Bush. 

By itself, constant bashing of Israel by the radical Left does little damage. It may even be the main reason for the growing from year to year support of Israel in America. When main street America hears and reads what haters of Israel have to say, it likes Israel even more. The attitude  of the Left however is damaging to Palestinians and to peace effort. For the Left, Palestinians exist only as victims of Israel. They do not have any existence of their own. Apart from being victims the Left has nothing to says about them, neither good or bad, as if they do not exist. It certainly keeps silence about peace. 

Still, Israelis and Palestinians must engage in new thinking of their own and find ways and means for a discourse that will support their national interests. Perhaps a solution as defined by UN 181 resolution, two states with minority in each of the other is a possible answer.   Israelis should learn more about their neighbors. Unfortunately newspapers in Israel ignore Palestinians, except in context of conflict. Reading Sari Nusseibeh might be a good start, not because he is an elitist moderate intellectual, but because he understand his community better than most. On personal level dialogue may be helpful too.