Dr Michael Benjamin

In Leeds, at about the middle of the 1950s, I stood on Moortown Corner.
Moortown Corner is a junction running east-west and north-south. To the north is the road to Harrogate, passing a beautiful estate – Harewood House. There lived a man of great importance to me and the country. The Earl of Harewood was president both Leeds United and the Queen’s cousin. As president of Leeds United, the Earl would entertain my superhero, John Charles. This relationship made the Earl of Harewood a fable.

I came to watch his cousin; our Queen, drive past Moortown corner on her way from Harewood House on her visit to Leeds. And my life was changed. There is a saying, ‘a cat can look at the Queen. ‘

I may not be a cat, but I did look at the Queen. But more importantly her Majesty looked at me, or so it seemed at the time. I was enchanted by this woman who had always dimly been in my life. She was a daughter of the King who had died when I was a little boy and she became  Queen of the United Kingdom. As a Jew, we respected royalty-especially the British royalty. The royalty gave the stability which prevented a fascist Britain. The UK gave refuge as the only place in Europe where a Jew could be born and existent in freedom.
That day, I saw a beautiful lady dressed exquisitely gliding by in a regal carriage. She waved graciously and regally to the crowd. She gently moved her head from side to side acknowledging as many of her subjects as possible. And one of them was me.
I looked deeply into her indescribable blue beautiful blue eyes. I fell hopelessly in love with this woman. It was not the hot sweaty hormone driven love of a teenager. It was the deepest of respect-the kind that Knights felt when they rode into battle.

About the same time my auntie, the youngest of the Benjamin family got married. My father was to make a speech honouring the guests. My father was not an emotional man whatsoever. He spoke about his mother that day in one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard. I love speeches, and I listen at least once a year to Martin Luther King’s speech. I regularly read Churchill speeches; I admired the eloquence of Abba Evan; I loved the fiery repertoire of Menachem Begin. Nevertheless, my father’s speech about his mother, ‘the Queen of our family, ‘was one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard.
You see the Queen represents; the Queen embodies; the Queen is a symbol to which you belong and of which you are proud. In Britain, stability and continuation our of all importance. The Brits need royalty; the present sovereign is just that. Her Majesty has taken Britain from a nation her father inspired in a world war. Elizabeth led with dignity and grace a nation into a new millennium, a new era and a new role in the world.

I left the UK; I chose to come to Israel. I felt not part of the continuation that was Britain. My part to play in being British was no longer. I wanted to be part of the Jewish family by living in the state of Israel. Within four years of arriving, I plunged into the most awful of wars. The Yom Kippur war was the hardest cultural baptism of fire that anybody could undergo. This essay is not about the hardships of the Yom Kippur war as seen through the shrink’s eye of the pentothal needle. But during the war, I met Menachem Begin. I won’t say how and I won’t say where; suffice it to say that my brief meeting with the man was enough to see that he was completely a genuine person and his public image was an accurate portrayal of the man himself.

I do not doubt that Menachem Begin was the greatest Prime Minister we have ever had. There were non-greater, there were similar to him, David Ben Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin and maybe Shimon Peres could have their claims. What made all these men great was like the UK royalty, they fulfil national needs.
In Britain, the sovereign symbolizes and personifies an institution, a way of life that has to be preserved and represented.
In Israel, we do not have that need. In Israel, we are a family living through constant fear and are in ever-present danger. We need a father. If Britain needs royalty, we need a parent. We need someone who we know is there for us, and only for us, we can trust and rely on to do what is best for us. In Britain, we gave blind loyalty; in Israel, we do not. You cannot disagree with your King, but you can disagree with your father.

Nevertheless, you need a father’s who knows best. In Israel what we think today might be different tomorrow. We never can be certain what is right and what is wrong The way we felt about two states for two people was good and right when we thought it. Today it’s probably wrong. Good and honest people who thought one thing; have changed their minds as situations have changed. Begin, a man deeply attached to the land of Israel, gave some of it up and made peace. Rabin and Peres men who represented peace both went to war. We are not talking about agenda or party political platforms-we know that they can change. We know that events dictate what we have to do much more than what we want to do. So do platforms matter? No, they do not.

Of late, we have seen Bibi achieve a milestone in being the longest serving Prime Minister. He goes into the election almost schizophrenic. On the one hand, he’s lauded for his achievements and the other he his damned by his behaviour.
And herein is the rub.
Bibi, when he represents us abroad is doing this for us and us alone. Bibi, when he developed the economy and made us powerful and prosperous, did this for us and us alone. Bibi behaved as we expected and needed a father to behave. But we’ve seen the dark side. The Bibi that went around looking for presents for himself, the Bibi who sought glory in the media by manipulating its infrastructure, the Bibi who bought submarines and saw his close circle get rich. This Bibi was not representing us. This Bibi was not a father; he was not a leader-he was someone far away from us who seem to think we should understand him. But we are not here to do that. We have seen a flawed father. And for a family in fear, this cannot pass unnoticed. And it has not.

Gantz is being castigated for not having an agenda. He doesn’t need one. We all know in our heart of hearts that the situations the leader have to face have little bearing to his party’s agenda. He will have to react; he will have to change his mind from what he thought before. We all have to, and we all have done it in the past. So what Gantz says, in his case what he does not say, has almost no significance. We look at the man and wonder are you going to be our father?
Are you going to be the man functioning entirely for our good and not be bringing along some other agenda promoting yourself?

Gantz is managing to put this across brilliantly.
We see the undesirable side of Bibi where he was behaving for himself and not for us; We long for the perfect father, trustworthy and pure.
Gantz and his personality will become prominent and possibly only issuing of import in the next election.

I believe that Gantz is going to win because Bibi is going to lose. Bibi could only have lost if we have an alternative father.
And Gantz is starting to be that. The family of Israel’s needs to believe in the new father, this need will overcome any need to hear him speak, which is nigh on irrelevant anyway. And if unblemished, he will defeat the fatally flawed Bibi.

Back in the good old Yorkshire, we spoke plain.
We called a spade a spade; we did more than that we called it a bloody shovel.
Back in Yorkshire, we didn’t have many shades or colours. Everything was either black or white; in between, there were a few shades of grey, but not many, mind.
We Yorkshireman hardly saw any colour, even in our allotments everything was muddy. Probably there were a few vegetables that somehow managed a different colour. But we didn’t have hues of colours or spectrums. It was all black and white with some grey in the middle.

Coming to Israel was hard. In Israel, there are many shades of different colours. And colour colours our language-both here and there.

In Yorkshire, we have a few sayings that more or less cover everything. We say, ‘Hear all, see all, say nowt. ‘That pretty much is what we would expect from a guy who was Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. So, when Bibi effects an attitude as if he knows things that we do not, as a Yorkshireman, I would say,’ I bloody well hope so.’
Unfortunately, for Bibi, the next part of the saying is, ‘Eat all, sup all, pay nowt. ‘Now that might sound very nice and even part of the defence brief Bibi might be using. But there’s another Yorkshire phrase, ‘You don’t get owt for nowt. ‘

What that means to us simple Yorkshire folk is that you can’t really expect somebody who is repeatedly giving you presents of great value, and by great value I mean over hundred thousand quids worth of value and think that the guy doesn’t want owt in return. To paraphrase Yorkshireman, ‘don’t be so bloody stupid. ‘

We would probably add to that, ‘Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. ‘In other words, ‘you must be bloody joking. ‘

In Yorkshire, we don’t really like the police or lawyers. In our eyes, they were all a bunch of scoundrels.

But they are regarded as a necessary evil. Sure, we would like to do away with them-but not really. We knew that the two are part and parcel of society and without the pair, it would be a bit of a jungle. Of course, we expected somebody who was caught to scream blue, bloody murder. Pretty much like what our Bibi is doing just now. We’d probably shake our heads and say, ‘fair dos. ‘But we would never seriously expect somebody to suggest abolishing the Crown Courts because they had been caught.

As I said, back in Yorkshire we didn’t have much colour, maybe in our allotments.
In our allotments and back gardens, especially around the Leeds way, we had one speciality that we all grew. Leeds is famous for rhubarb. Part of south Leeds, Morley is the world centre for growing rhubarb.
And here’s the rub. We plain speaking, ‘likely lads’ from Yorkshire don’t bandy around with words. So, when we do want to blather we don’t have the vocabulary as we do in Hebrew. We would never be able to fill so many inches the newspaper of so much hot air about a guy who’d been caught doing something stupid.
In Yorkshire when you want to blather, and you have not got the vocabulary you use a word that sounds as if it means something and it doesn’t really. That word is rhubarb. If you want to fill the air with meaningless sounds, you say, ‘rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. ‘

When I sit listening to the antics and explanations of Bibi, I miss the simplicity of good old Yorkshire. Rhubarb pie is quite tasty, by the way, as is Yorkshire pudding.

The Leeds’ Jews had quite a few eccentrics amongst them. Mr Schiffer ruled the roost. But he was not the only one ‘a bit off the wall.’
Another celebrated eccentric was a certain gentleman whose name I will not reveal who habitually set fire to his failing enterprises. His enterprises always started with great enthusiasm and whimpered out into incipient bankruptcy. With alarming regularity, his businesses failed to make money. But there was always a solution at hand. He would torch his establishments then collect the fire insurance and start all over again. It was quite a smart wheeze. Suspect as they may, the authorities could never catch him.
One day the police discovered his Achilles heel. His wife was not as intelligent or calculating as he was. She proved this by angrily accusing the police officer who came to wake up the whole family, yet again. She snarled at the poor copper, ‘couldn’t you wait till the morning to tell us that the factory has been burnt down? ‘
Leeds Jewry, maybe not jokingly, was once described as being divided into three sectors: those who went to university; those who went to the markets and those who went to prison. Our hero went from the second category to the third. Nevertheless, at the time it sounded like a very bright idea.
But what is the point of being a Jew and undergoing so much persecution if you cannot have a bright idea? Never mind if it goes completely wrong; we Jews understand that bright ideas sometimes have a downside. Just look at the idea the Jewish lad from Nazareth had. We should never forget Karl Marks who may have been a Sheigetz, but he was a Jew. There we see two ideas with downsides.
All this brings me to discuss the downside of a very bright idea the two aspiring politicians had in Israel this week. Bennett and Shaked had worked with Bibi Netanyahu. They were both quite intelligent and very ambitious. With Bibi in power, there was no real way forward. So, if you cannot move forwards then move sideward. And that is what they did. They found a well-established once successful political party. This party had lost both its identity and its soul. It was like a once lovely lady who had been courted by the right and the left. Now she had aged, not with too much dignity and was left in a place which she wasn’t sure where she was.
Bennett and Shaked virtually took the party over. They gave a new direction and gave new hope. As the idea was to topple Bibi eventually, they realised they had to be ideologically close to Bibi. They managed this quite successfully and soon enough were in power along with Bibi. Surprisingly as senior ministers not only did not fail but they were quite successful. Probably much more so than many of the ministers in Bibi’s Likud.
But the downside was to show itself very quickly. Bibi, like our hero from Leeds, was showing signs of incipient bankruptcy. Bibi’s bankruptcy wasn’t monetary but a moral bankruptcy Frustratingly for both Bennett and Shaked this bankruptcy wasn’t going to unseat Bibi. And if it did, by some strange coincidence their adopted party were going to be on the same and wrong side of history as was Bibi. It was at this point that B and S decided to burn their own political house down and start a new political enterprise – a new party. The straightforward concept was that they could then freely criticise Bibi. When he fell, they could enjoy the benefits. If he didn’t fall, they knew fine well that the bruised and battered Bibi would have no recourse other than to invite them into his future coalition.
And this is where they got it wrong. B and S considered that Bibi would be so battered that he would have no alternative. What they didn’t take into account was that their new party was going to attract votes from two parties already in the coalition. These two parties were facing a problem of passing the minimum number of votes to get into the Knesset. If these parties are to fail to gain the minimum number of votes they will lose all their votes. The disappearance of the two parties will mean that nobody, even Bibi will be able to form any coalition that can govern. If the two parties disappear, in all probability we will see a national unity government.
The downside of all this manipulation is that in any national government, all the parties will completely oppose any inclusion of B and S’s new party. B and S have made far too many enemies.
The new vehicle of ambition will hit a brick wall on its test drive. The founders, B and S, will sit in the political equivalent of jail- the opposition.
Not the loyal opposition.
B and S don’t do loyalty.

Sixty years ago, Mr Schiffer ruled over the Leeds Jewish community. Mr Schiffer’s word was law. No one dared contradict him or stand in his way. Sometimes people would imitate him, many people would complain about him, but it was to no avail. What Mr Schiffer said went. No one would have dreamt of derailing Mr Schiffer. And Mr Schiffer, the owner of the largest Jewish poultry store in Leeds, was a wily old bird. I want to mix a metaphor; this wily old bird ruled the roost. It didn’t matter what he did, it was moral, or it was not moral; Mr Schiffer did what he wanted when he wanted, how he wanted, and only the angel of death stopped him.
In many respects, you would think that I am referring to Mr Schiffer to illustrate our present Prime Minister. And, unfortunately, you would be wrong. Leeds Jewry had no judicial apparatus. In Israel, we most definitely do have one. As opposed to the Leeds Jewry we, in Israel, have a democracy, and we have a say. We go to the election booth, and we place our vote. If we have the reason, we can replace any latter-day Mr Schiffer with whoever we see fit. But we must have a major political issue to do so.
But something has gone wrong.
Unfortunately, in Israel the legal system had its own Mr Schiffer; it had its own man who ruled the roost and though he has long left the roost his crowing can still be heard, and his chickens have come home to roost. Aharon Barak was a gifted and highly motivated jurist. He caused a revolution by stating, correctly, that everything should be reviewable. Nothing should be left unquestioned. In this respect Barak was right. But Barak went one step further and said how everything should be reviewed.
In a transparent society, one would expect that every aspect of our lives should be open to review by the relevant review boards and regulators. They should be part of every service. Unfortunately, Barak hijacked this whole process, and instead of saying reviewable he said judgeable.In other words, almost everything that happens in Israel is now under a legal review either before or after being done. In my profession, psychiatry, we have reached a pitch whereby doctors and lawyers together decide whether a patient should be treated or not.
The military sits with lawyers and decides who should be bombed and who shouldn’t. The legal profession’s tentacles have extended in every direction and every which way possible.
Yet, the legal profession itself is deeply distrusted by many of the Israeli population.
You may ask why.
The answer is that two things happened. Barack, like Mr Schiffer, left the scene. A powerful, highly intelligent man left behind a system which did not have personnel of the same calibre to fill his place. Instead, he left behind a ramshackle highly inefficient bureaucracy which had gained access to almost everything. It was soon quickly and widely felt that the legal profession was advancing itself, in power struggles and yet had very little if nothing to add apart from bureaucratic messes.
Things got even worse when the Guild representing the legal profession-the so-called Lawyers Office became an axiom for infighting, and some very disturbing characters seemed to be of great influence. There was no doubt that the Lawyer Office was intent, or so it seemed, in furthering the lawyer’s interests.
The legal profession forced the government successfully to accept that it must be the primary decider in appointing judges.
Even more confusing, the nebulous defined and all-encompassing role of the Legal Adviser to the government became overwhelmingly powerful. On the one hand, the position enabled the holder not only to advise what might be legal and what not but to also enforce his opinion. On the other hand, if the government or members of the government were challenged legally after the decision had been made then the adviser would decide whether the challenge was justifiable and should be continued.
In any other circumstance, this would be a distinct conflict of interests. The contradiction ballooned even more, when de facto the man appointed by the Prime Minister to advise him, will now have to decide whether the Prime Minister should be put on trial. Even more alarmingly having decided to put the PM on trial the adviser will decide whether to defend the PM. In the closed shop which is the legal profession of today, we have yet another disturbing set of circumstances. Along with the press, the legal profession is widely regarded as being left-wing and certainly opposing, in spirit, the Likud government. At this point, it is not important how true this is. Not only has justice to be seen to be done but rumours have to be seen to be not true.
The general feeling of the Israeli population is that there is a power struggle between right and left. The legal profession which has metastasised into so many government functions is now seen to be in a permanent political struggle attempting to overthrow the Likud government.
In all probability, it is not true, but it doesn’t matter. The left-wing of the political spectrum claim via its affiliates, the legal professions to be the guardians of democracy. The right-wing camp scratches its head in wonder. How can the non-democratically and self-appointed legal profession be the guardians and overrule our democratically elected government? It doesn’t seem right. And we are witnessing a power struggle using the emotive concept of ‘defence of democracy.’ We do not know where the truth lays or who lies. What is true is that we are witnessing the end of the Netanyahu era. The things that Netanyahu is accused of pretty much what you expect to see at the end of a long era. An era where an ageing powerful man is surrounded by cliques tending to promote their own interests. There is a sense of decadence. In normal circumstances, in a normal society and democracy, we would want a change.
Netanyahu’s era is under threat.
Netanyahu seems to be sensing where the battle lines are and acting accordingly. I have little doubt that Netanyahu will attack the process which is about to put him on trial. Netanyahu in all probability will play on the distrust that the public has for the legal system. The present holder of the office of the legal adviser is now in a situation whereby if he does not place Netanyahu on trial he will be hounded by his legal profession. If he does put Netanyahu on trial, he will be hounded by those who have been aggravated and now contest the power of the legal profession.I have little doubt that Netanyahu will be put on trial or at least indicted. The battle lines will be drawn. And be election will be decided by the virtual referendum to be held in the voting booth. The loser will not accept any outcome of the vote, and we will be in a virtual civil war.
There is only one way out of this tremendous impasse, and that is for Netanyahu to step down and accept clemency for himself and his family. The next government must then set as a priority the reformation of today’s legal system. The next Knesset most certainly must take back the ultimate power and authority invested in it by the will of the people. We expressed our will on election day when we vote for our Knesset. We do not agree that our will be sojourned or denied.
In a similar matter, the role of the legal adviser to the government must be split into two where he is no longer head cook and bottle washer. He can no longer both advise and execute. The referendum on the Israeli legal system in these elections must be avoided at all costs. If it isn’t, I fear a debilitating civil war. The democracy is that of the peoples. We are the guardians. We will decide who makes the laws. And if we do not like the laws, then we will change those who made them.
The Netanyahu era is at an end. Decadence and death are similar. Over a length of time, they both are inevitable. Decadence is the forbearer of the death of the political body. The need for legal reform cannot and should not be used to postpone the inevitable downfall of Netanyahu. Hopefully, Netanyahu will leave the stage with grace. I fear he may not do so but instead set it on fire. There are enough pyromaniacs to help.

I wonder what old man Schiffer is thinking as he watches.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/news/…/europe/article4312618.ece
My answer:
And the paradox is missed.
The Jews who flee flee the indifference of European discrimination and danger will find no sanctuary from fear.
The same indifferent Europe to its own bullied and vilified Jews, now actively and willfully takes part in the bullying and vilification of the very country that the Jews flee to.
Israel of late has been placed in the docks yet again. Europe raced to aid the Palestinian’s latest attempt at lunacy. ‘Either give us what we want in two years or we take what we want’.
The so called ‘Two State Solution’ is a malicious and malevolent as any other supposed vindication of Jew cum Israel bashing.
There is no poisoning of the wells. The Jews do not own the press. The Jews are not rich bankers. The Protocols Of The Elder Zion are a forgery.
The Two State Solution is another lie. The tenet is based in a simple act of deceit. It states: ‘Two People’, Two States’. And Israel does not accept it. It’s all the Jews fault.
And here is the truth.Here is the Palestinian version of the Two States Solution. The one you so nobly prevaricate over.
The Two State Solution in its latest version is in fact thus: Two States for one people, a Jew free Palestinian populated Gaza and West Bank. And one State with two people. Israel which has even now has a nigh on 20% Arab Population has to admit in its borders another million Arabs and their progeny in other words an Israel which is 40% Arab. In other words three States for One People. And no State for the other, whose fault it all is anyway.
This was supported in the UN by France. The UK had the good grace to abstain. Not that it stopped the Parliament in accepting the principle.
So here is the paradox. You Europeans do nothing to stop your Jews living in danger. And yet you do everything to make sure that on fleeing they will continue living in danger in Israel.
Wouldn’t life be so much easier all round if you learned something? You could learn to end your aching hypocrisy. You could learn to stop meddling and drawing lines on maps in the Middle East. Stay at home and sort out your own problems. Stop exporting them.

Arabs riot in Israel and East Jerusalem. And Bibi wants to change the legal status of Jews in the West Bank.
Pure idiotic lunacy:-
I live in the West Bank. The inane proposal in no way changes my status. It is another provocative yet empty gesture which so epitomise the failing Netanyahu government.
The Israeli Arab population are without true representation. At the local level the Mayors are trying to calm the situation. At the national level the Israeli Arab Members of Knesset have consistently chosen to represent the ‘Palestinian cause’ and not addressing their constituents’ local Israeli Arab problems. This local Arab leadership alienates itself from the body politique. In doing so is not only not facilitating equality but engendering in-equality. Thus the social tension. And this is ‘wrapped round’ Palestinian nationalism.
The truth is that Israeli Arabs wish to integrate. They want no part of Palestine. The Israeli Arabs are disliked by Palestinians. Israeli Arabs are discriminated against. But they wish a part in the Israeli society, not to take Israel apart. All this is contrary to any mindset or needs of the awful Netanyahu.
In East Jerusalem the problem has been magnified and distorted. After 1967 Jerusalem was de jure divided and de facto united. We got on very well. Now it is the opposite we are ‘de jure of one’ united and de facto divided. And we do not get along. The root cause is rank discrimination. East Jerusalemites have no facilities, the standard of living is abysmal.They have no hope and no identity.
The East Jerusalemites are in name Israelis. They are treat as Palestinians. There is no law, no order, no governance that act or speaks in their name.
Erstwhile the problem is religion. It is not so. It is about bad government, neglect, and arrogance. In this atmosphere kids take to the streets.
Hopefully, with a new reasonable realistic Israeli government we will resort to what we once were and no longer are. A government that tries to correct the realities by firstly living in reality. A government that represents the people. A government that addresses itself to finding solutions. Not making empty, pointless yet aggravating gestures.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4254526.ece

My reply:

I enjoyed your bravery and honesty.
The real and universal  problem is the coherency and interaction of  state and religion.
States are weakened and devalued  fragmenting everywhere.There are many factors causing this.  Religion is but one of the most myriad dispersive factor. But not the only one. Alienation is another. Alienation, disintegration and distrust generate a search for unity and strength.
If the states are inherently weak without a clear division between state and religion there is a marked tendency to disintegrate. But even integrated states contain alienated populations. Often the results of a failed immigration policy.  The alienated wish to belong. To be strong. To correct the wrongs as they see them.
The tendency to disintegrate and devolve is not one of Islam. It is world wide, following the globalisation and exploitation we all feel to a greater or lesser degree.
IS and Occupy Wall Street have common antecedents. Their means of action are dissimilar due to their leadership. Or is it chance? The answer is irrelevant.
IS is the amalgam of three trends: A pan devolutionary process of government; the unravelling of artificial states who have no internal cohesion and alienation due to a failed integration of minorities.
One should not attack IS because it is Islam. Islam is irrelevant. IS is wrong because of the means it chose. The means are wrong.
But the causes are there to be seen. Defeating IS will not eradicate the root causes.
And without eradicating the root causes IS will not be beaten.
To suggest that an alliance of Shi’a and capitalist can beat IS is shallow and inept if not repugnant. It is like expecting the breweries to fight alcoholism.
The answer is leadership. The world needs a breed of revolutionary leaders with a vision of peace.
How paradoxical is the thought that this is the way I see Mohammed, Moses and Jesus.
But Gandhi, King and Mandela also fit the bill.
Where are they?

Five points:
The plans for a Gazan Port were only abolished after the Hamas made its intentions evident.
The present embargo is not being implicated because of PLO – Hamas lack of agreement.
The main and significant embargo is imposed by Egypt.
All of the above are due to Hamas’s reckless behaviour and dedication to destroy Israel.
The fourth point is the UN resolution of 2006 whereby the UN guaranteed that the Hezbollah would not replenish it’s arsenal. This was abrogated with impunity.
Finally the West’s complete indifference to the mayhem in Syria. Compare the gallant decisions and exercise in flam and hypocrisy  made in the Parliament concerning Israel and Syria. This decision is about to be replicated across Europe.
The erstwhile noble Palestinian cause has been subverted by those who deny Israel’s right to exist.
The European good intentions camouflage the BDS movement with an identical intent.
In short, if you were an Israeli just what would you do?
For those who suggest stop ‘stop settling’ my reply is succinct and this: Just what do we get in return? For once we demand quid pro quo.

The Guardian and the Times have two different reports that compliment each other.
The Kurds are getting pushed back. The bombing is reported as ineffective. The Turks are accused of not helping the Kurds and giving ISIS prisoners in exchange for their imprisoned diplomats.
I do not know how much of this is true. From Israeli experience, hitting targets demands a lot of human intelligence on ground. It is very hard to picture it being in place.
As for aerial strategy it can only work if you are prepared to flatten everything remotely related to your target. You cannot pinpoint a moving pin. The other way is to cause so much infra structural damage that the populace ‘demand you stop’. A great idea in theory. In practice people, no matter how hard you try, stay in the buildings. Unfortunately smart bombs are almost human. They err too. And to think that the ISIS give a flying fuck about the civilians is delusional. The only things that bombing can do are to unite the bombed, provide horror PR shots of civilian casualties and give fillip to the recruitment efforts of ISIS.

The psychology here is amazing. After the Gaza war the people in Gaza had had enough but those in the West Bank wanted it to continue. In spite of the mauling a previously unpopular Hamas became popular. Thank goodness that’s resorting back. And you cannot factor into this the effect of the deeply unpopular Kleptocratic PLO.  So what is the real effect of the bombings in the Muslim population — the potential volunteer?
But the bottom line is that all assumptions about bombing are probably shallow, not thought through, wishful thinking,
At the time of Iraq Israel was reported to tell the Americans: ‘Either do it right or don’t do it at all.’ To it was added the addendum that Israel did not believe that the US could, would or even should go in.
IMO that was good advise then and now.
Aid the Kurds, Jordanians & Egyptians. Beware of the Turks, Qataris and Iranians. I wonder how long will it be till you see sympathisers of IS reacting, in the UK itself, to the bombings?
Again, the UK’s problem is the causation of volunteering, how else will it exhibit itself & how to stop all of that. And that is the problem you should be solving. A hybrid James Bond cum Biggles is not the way forward.

For too long the Israeli and Palestinian conflict has seemed a one off. An unprecedented unique paradigm with many unique factors. But is this so?

The answer is simply NO. The situation is a very stark example of what is happening worldwide. The solution can be found by looking beyond the warring peoples. In fact we must look at the world as it is today.

We are living in a world composed of Land of, Countries, States, and People.
They are often almost synonymous. And that is where the confusion lies. They are not. Land is simply a geographical entity. Nothing more or less. It has no functional role other than to provide a back drop. When a people have a distinct affinity to a land it is often called ‘Land Of—-‘. Land Of Scotland, Land Of Wales. Here we see the first inkling of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. The ‘Land of’ is equally known as the ‘Land Of Israel’ and the ‘Land Of Palestine’.

Countries are within defined areas. They have sovereignty. The country’s value is its intrinsic value when viewed externally. It makes very little difference what is the composition of a country to another country. Countries regard other countries as monolithic. Their relevance to one another is based on the relationships between countries. This being trade and influence- be it financial, cultural or military. Countries are well defined, with well known, acceptable and workable norms of behavior. One has only to look at the IS, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to see what happens when a country fails to exist. Gaza and the West bank are different examples. Their existence is a virtual one devoid of context and affective meaning. The US is for this purpose is a Country within it are many States.  A model that works well.

In the modern world the State and Country have become synonymous. They are not. The US is a successful example of a State –Country synergy. Countries are virtually defined by fellow countries. The nature and governance of the individuals in the country is run by the State. There may well be a devolution of power from the Country to individual States. The loci of functioning shared between the Governing ‘Country’ and its constituent States is never well defined. There is a constant state of flux between the ‘central government’ and the ‘peripheral government’. This is well illustrated in modern Europe. The EEC wishes itself a strong ‘Country’ with now rebelling constituent States. Generally speaking the Country deals with external matters between countries, defense, foreign policy and trade. Each Country ascribe internal uniformity in fiscal, legal and the political system in which its constituent States will function. When the Country and State are not synonymous the State will be responsible for the governing of the State. I will return to this later.

A Nation are peoples that feel they have a commonality in history. They are peoples who feel that they can share the same Country or State’s agenda and body politique. They are prepared to be governed as one.   They ascribe their individuality within the sovereignty of the Country or State. People are defined by their commonality in history, heritage, values and beliefs. They may seek to be autonomous or sovereign. They may choose to be constituents in a State or Country which allows them to express defining values.

What is modern government?  The government consists of government who provide to the inhabitants services and preserves the institutions of the Country and or State. The government oversees the functioning of State institutions. The government define the scope of the services, define the mode of service, define the locus of service, prioritize the service, budget the service and oversee the services—regulating and auditing. The State or Country does not necessarily give the service. The Country decides on the mode of government be it military, religious or democratic.
There has been a major change in Government. Particularly in democracies, but not only, has there been a shift between the loci of decision making, funding, auditing and service providing.  Decision about services providing to a lesser extent funding have devolved. In Israel the Local Councils are providing much of the services which will dictate quality of life. Services at a ‘local level’ evolve into functional economic units. The Central Government decides, funds, regulates and oversees National institutions. The local government executes and audits.

There is a spectrum of functionality and loci from the level of Country, State and Local Authorities.

Applying this to Israel and Palestine. Within the Land of Israel- Palestine there are two people. They have no intention of becoming one Nation. Is it not possible that we have two States in one Country?
The land and the country is indivisible.
The defense and economy of the Country de facto are inadvisable.
To those who say ‘Two State Solution I say ‘Yes, but in one indivisible Country’. To those who say ‘One State Solution’, I say’ No. One Country solution. Within it two States’.
A ‘weak’ Country Government who devolves most of its powers and symbols to the two constituent State. The symbols that are maintained are the autonomy and functioning of all religious artifacts especially the Jerusalem basin. There must be trade of interests. If the Jews wish to be allowed to prioritize Defense then the Palestinians must be allowed to prioritize economic development and foreign policy. These and only those will be dictated at the Country Government level. In the fullness of time the artificiality will be removed. As the States and their peoples learn to live together it will dissipate.
The two sister States are dedicated to serve the people therein. Israel for the Jews. Palestine for the Palestinians and their incoming exiles. Both States will provide infrastructure for natural growth of its present minorities. Both people maintain to live anywhere in the Land of Israel-Palestine. Both people will forgo that right for the foreseeable future. If there are ‘out of State’ marriages the new couple will live in their people’s State.  To preserve the ethnic consistency all Palestinians will be given an amnesty by the State of Palestine. All Palestinian ‘refugees’, without exception, will return to Palestine.
East Jerusalem Arabs will become Palestinians.
All Jews wishing to leave the future Palestine will be aided and encouraged to do so.
All Arabs wishing to leave Israel will be afforded the same rights.
All minorities in both States may not choose to be a member of the Sister State.
All minorities be it Jew or Arab must swear an oath of allegiance to its new chosen State in which they will then live as a loyal minority.
The contiguous sister States border will be open. Their placement will be decided by local plebiscites held at a municipal level. All municipalities within a distance of eight kilometers on either side of the green line will vote where there town or village will exist. Be it in Palestine or Israel. With appropriate compensation, as envisioned in the Bush letter of intent, the new open borders will be drawn. The wall will be totally removed.
The City of Jerusalem will never be divided. But it will be shared fairly and equitably. There will be no visible border. There will be five seats of administration in Jerusalem. The Country’s governing body with its devalued but central powers. Both Governing State bodies, that of Israel and Palestine. Both Municipal bodies of the undivided East & West Jerusalem and finally the administrative body running the basin under the aegis of the Countries governing body.

Could it work? Looking at Jerusalem we are in fact recognizing a de facto situation. Does it matter who removes the rubbish or services the schools in East Jerusalem? The basin de facto is divided. This must stop.
Our fathers prayed to live in the Land Of Israel, not the State Of Israel. In 1947 with partition we agreed to not only share the Land. We also implied that State funded Zionism will be done within the State Of Israel. We have to honor that commitment.
Presently we are like Siamese Twins. The twins are not indivisible. But they are deeply linked and these ties cannot and should not be severed. No one side can dictate. Certainly not the weaker to the stronger.
In the present climate this plan would win both huge internal and external support. The initiative would again be in our hands. The solution would be seen not only in the context of IS, which is appropriate locally. It would be seen and associated with solutions to similar problems from Scotland, Catalonia and some extent Hong Kong. There are difficulties with ‘one country two systems’. They are surmountable. They are imminently acceptable and marketable.
Our experience with well-intended concepts has been dashed by our experience in Oslo, Southern Lebanon and Gaza. We have learned a lesson. The lesson is about naivety.
No thoughts are naïve. Was JFK naïve to go to the moon? Was Bill Gates naïve to think that he could do what he did? Was Steve Jobs naive?
No, none of them were. Naivety is not a defining factor of a thought. Naivety is an expression of execution. JFK, Gates and Jobs did not execute their plans naively. The conception does not define naivety. Only inception and execution define if a project is to be deemed naïve. The inception and execution of all Israel’s initiatives have damned them to becoming exercises in naivety. Not the conception. Conception is naïve free.