So, as the surreal “peace” train chugs apace, those who are flummoxed, as to how Israel’s PM (and not just in relation to Netanyahu’s tenure) can behave as if he is autocrat, well, the reasons are endemic in Israel’s heinous flawed political system. Kafkaesque.

Fatal Flaw One: 

WITHOUT a doubt, it is the paradox of Israeli politics, whereby you vote right but you get left. How can this be? Read excerpts from this American-Israeli’s op-ed at American Thinker:

Many supporters of Israel are continually bedeviled by a glaring contradiction within Israeli politics.  How can it be, regardless of which party wins the election, that leftist policies are invariably implemented?

As a backgrounder, from 1977 to date (excluding an eight-year period), Likud won elections based upon a platform of a “Greater Israel.”  That being the case, nevertheless, it was under Likud PM Menachem Begin whereby the entire Sinai was relinquished.  While there are too many substantive examples to enumerate, essentially proving that leftist policies continually supplant right-wing Likud electoral platforms, two stand out as “poster children” and therefore warrant special attention.

Likud’s Ariel Sharon was elected on February 6, 2001 by a landslide margin, defeating Labor’s PM Ehud Barak 62.4% to 37.6%.  Sharon’s win should have handed him a wide berth to govern from the right, regardless of outside pressures.  (It behooves mentioning that Israel’s structural deficiencies, due to proportional representation and fixed party lists — as opposed to truly democratic constituency elections — vitiates democratic electoral outcomes.  Professor Paul Eidelberg elucidates the prescriptive polices required to achieve said reforms at his policy institute, the Israel-America Renaissance Institute.)  However, policies of appeasement were in full swing during Sharon’s first year.  This was especially ironic, particularly since the well-known hawkish general — nicknamed “the bulldozer” — was nowhere to be found as his politician counterpart “fought” Arab terror.  Moreover, there were higher casualties from Arab terror attacks during Sharon’s first year in office than in previous combined years.  It wasn’t until the bodies started piling up, coupled with a hue and cry from the general public, that Operation Defensive Shield was finally belatedly launched on March 29, 2002.

Similarly, Sharon, paradoxically dubbed the “settlement builder,” executed the wholesale expulsion/destruction of the once-glorious Gush Katif “settlement” enterprise, as well as that of communities in the northern Shomron.  The expulsion/destruction took place despite a Likud-led referendum (due to massive nationalist outcry) which squashed any mandate to push forward with “disengagement.”  Even though Sharon promised to abide by the referendum, he did no such thing.

How can this be?  How can an overwhelming majority of the electorate’s voice be negated, thus allowing the left to rule, regardless of the majority’s wishes?…….

Fatal Flaw Two:

Speaking of the recently deceased PM Sharon – and no disrespect intended to the dead – the fact of the matter is that his bulldozing tactics, reflective in his ACTUAL bulldozing of scores of Jewish communities (expelling over 10,000 loyal Jews) homes, businesses, schools, synagogues, even uprooting the dead, took place despite the will of the majority public who supported him on his promise NOT to lay a hand on Jewish communities! He even defied his own referendum in the process, whereby the electorate voted, once again – לא! NO!

So, is this commentary unwarranted, or not? EX PM ARIEL SHARON’S (TARNISHED) LEGACY: A MILITARY HERO, YET TRUTH MATTERS.

Fatal Flaw Three:

IF not for Israel’s unrepresentative system, its lack of checks and balances, Israel’s “peace” obsessed leadership would be unable to commit crimes against Jewish national interests, in contravention of its own penal code!

Fatal Flaw Four:

In this regard, there is no other Israeli, as capable as Professor Paul Eidelberg, to sort this (political) mess out, but the leaders want it to remain as is. In fact, Professor Paul Eidelberg drafted a Constitution for Israel, and more than a few Knesset members have taken note of it.

Eidelberg wrote a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: The Philosophy of the American Constitution (ISBN 0819153419), On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence (ISBN 0870232169), and a Discourse on Statesmanship (ISBN 0252004280)…..

He has written several books on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Demophrenia (ISBN 093345127X) analyses the mentality of Israel’s ruling elites. Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall (ISBN 0761823808), which has been translated into Hebrew and Russian, discusses what he sees as the flaws inherent in Israel’s system of governance and how they may be remedied. His work, A Jewish Philosophy of History (ISBN 0595316956), investigates the world-historical events leading to the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

Policy and politics

Eidelberg has drafted a Constitution for the State of Israel, which has influenced various Knesset Members interested in constitutional reform…

Herein are more pearls of wisdom from the eminent Professor Eidelberg:

In view of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unlawful and irrational endorsement of a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel, the public should be informed that Mr. Netanyahu has scorned the patriotism of Israel’s greatest Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, who sent this message some years ago to Ariel Sharon and Chief Justice Aharon Barak:

“No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist.  No Jewish body is sanctioned to do so.  No Jew alive today has the authority to yield any piece of land whatsoever. This right is preserved by the Jewish People throughout the generations and cannot be forfeited under any circumstance.  Even if at some given time there will be those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the jurisdiction to negate it for future generations to come.  The Jewish Nation is neither obligated by nor responsible for any waiver such as this.  Our right to this land, in its entirety, is steadfast, inalienable and eternal.  And until the coming of the Great Redemption, we shall never yield this historic right.”

—Speech to the 21st Zionist Congress Basel 1937

It is with the above in mind that the following “news” from DEBKAfile should be viewed. So while Minister Bennett is forced to “apologize”, to step in line like party apparatchiks, PM Netanyahu continues his deception, fronting for the babblings of ‘peace’ & reciprocity’, yet Islamic adherents (including Abbas’s PA Junta) plot jihad. Is this an acceptable form of decorum and “strategic policy” from a truly democratic leadership?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Jan. 29, demanded Naftali Bennett, the pro-settlement Jewish Home party leader and Minister of Industry and Trade apologize or be sacked, for brusquely criticizing his proposal to leave Jewish settlements in a future Palestinian state.
The minister apologized without delay, regretting that “his concern for Israel’s future and security” was taken as a personal attack on the prime minister, whose leadership in difficult circumstances he respected. But he didn’t climb down. It was his duty, the minister stressed, to voice his belief that abandoning Israel citizens to Palestinian sovereignty was a dangerous notion that must be dropped.
DEBKAfile: A cabinet crisis has been averted for now over the concessions urged on the prime minister by US Secretary of State John Kerry for the sake of a peace accord with the Palestinians. But by playing his cards too close to his vest, Netanyahu is exposing himself to more criticism and a loss of respect from within his own government.

Too often his words are countered or contradicted outright.
The Bennett episode roseout of the frustration of a member of the security cabinet which Netanyahu keeps in the dark over his solo performance.

But also today, Netanyahu was actually contradicted for insisting that the peace framework document that John Kerry is about to present to Israel and the Palestinian Authority is a US document, which represents America’s take on the points agreed and does not oblige Israel to accept its contents.

US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro stepped forward to deny this. Addressing a National Security Institute conference in Tel Aviv, the ambassador said that the framework agreement mostly incorporates ideas presented by the two sides (Israel and the Palestinians), with only a few inserts of American origin.

Ambassador Shapiro must be presumed to have been authorized by Secretary Kerry to publicly challenge Prime Minister Netanyahu – and not for the first time.

Since mid-December, DEBKAfile’s sources have disclosed elements of the framework proposal which conflict with Netanyahu’s public comments.
Without going into the rights or wrongs of the dust-up between the prime minister and Bennett, it is evident to DEBKAfile’s sources that Netanyahu has most probably been prevailed upon by Kerry to make fairly far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians – particularly on the scale of Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. This information he has not shared with his ministers and as it comes out, more ructions are to be expected.
In Jerusalem, for example, Netanyahu almost certainly agreed to cede to Palestinian rule the Arab-populated suburbs of Shuafat, Beit Hanina, the Shuafat refugee camp and the large village of Issawiya. This village, which is a notorious hotbed of terror ruled by the radical Palestinian Democratic Front, has sprawled up the slopes of Mount Scopus by unopposed wildcat construction.

So the Palestinians are now also laying claim to Mt. Scopus, which has been the seat of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem without interruption since its foundation in 1918.

Even under Israeli control, heavy military and police backup is needed for entering Issawiya, which is less than 10 minutes drive from Jerusalem downtown. An outbreak of violence was quelled with difficulty by Israel border police this Wednesday. Under Palestinian control, no one doubts that this village will be one of the first sources of rocket fire on Jerusalem when even Israeli security forces are unable to subdue its hate-filled inhabitants.
Strategically, too, giving up Issawiya would mean Israel is relinquishing control of the highway connecting Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim, throwing in the towel of a struggle waged for years to maintain territorial contiguity between these two Israeli cities.

If Netanyahu’s standing within his cabinet is waning, it is because in the view of many politicians and circles outside politics his tactics in the conduct of negotiations with Kerry and the Palestinians does not bear muster by democratic standards – and above all in Israel itself – for the handling of issues of vital concern to the nation’s security and very future.

In the case challenged by Bennett, Netanyahu appears to have yielded substantially in private to his two negotiating partners and then, when criticized, pretended the concession was not for real but a tactical stratagem for showing up Palestinian intransigence and insincerity in pursuing peace diplomacy.
It was therefore up to critics to trust him and shut up, a demand that Naftali Bennett contemptuously spurned.

Netanyahu is creating a confusing world of double and triple mirrors. The respect he claims is slipping away from him and exposed him to the less than respectful contradiction by the US ambassador.

And when he protests time and time again that his foremost concern is national security, his words are often thrown back at him – as they were Wednesday by Military Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen Aviv Kochavi, who warned shortly after the US ambassador’s comments that “170,000 rockets and missiles are threatening Israel.”
This figure was bigger before Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza last year, he said, and diminished in the course of the Syrian war. “But the number will rise again,” Kochavi assured his listeners.

About Iran, Kochavi said: “The Iranian nuclear project goes on and a decision by the Iranian leader will determine whether one or more nuclear bombs are built. In Washington, Director of US National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed that Iran has no technological bars for producing a nuclear bomb. It depends solely on a political decision.

The prime minister has never tried to reconcile his avowed focus on security as his paramount concern while allowing Israel’s enemies to constantly build up the number of rockets aimed at Israel, or with Iran remaining with a single dilemma, reported repeatedly by DEBKAfile in the past year, of whether to build one nuke or an arsenal, without Israel lifting a finger to forestall this threat.
It is this disparity between word and deed that is costing Netanyahu national and personal respect at a time that he needs it most.

The glaring question becomes: how can a so-called democracy behave akin to a socialist regime – castrating the majority public’s leadership and DEFYING the will of those who elected them – yet exhibit Orwellian tolerance for treasonous behavior by an internal Arab/leftist fifth column? Makes no sense…until you know what’s what!

Deceitful is the polite way to term PM Netanyahu’s (including Sharon’s actions and Rabin’s signage onto the Oslo Peace/Death Accords, as he shook Arafat’s blood-soaked hand!) ILLEGAL machinations (let alone immoral), but treacherous….perhaps, treasonous fits the bill!