Monday, February 13, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
A topic alluded to, but not discussed separately, in last
year’s extended essay on the strategy and tactics needed to defeat BDS (and
other anti-Israel campaigns), is timing.
When teaching my kids to cook, I tell them to treat time as
an ingredient that needs to be taken into account during the planning process
and “added” when called for, given that messing up timing can screw up your bread
dough just as badly as forgetting to add the yeast.
Moving on to more serious business, Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf’s
habit of wearing two
watches illustrated the vital role time plays in warfare where battle and
war plans are as much about the clock and calendar as they are about weapons
and terrain. An army not showing up
where it is needed is obviously a problem, but no more so than the same army
showing up at the right place too late (or even too early).
The purpose of this site is not to praise anti-Israel
propagandists, but with regard to using time as a tool of combat, the BDSholes
seem to “get it” better than our side does.
Scheduling propaganda events during Sabbat or the Jewish holidays - while
devious and cowardly - does have the intended effect of lowering the number of opponents
that can mobilize against them.
Similarly, the Leninist tactic of pushing meetings of decision-making
bodies into late hours and then voting in their own agenda after everyone else
goes home exhausted - while dishonest and manipulative - does demonstrate the
BDSers understanding of how to wield time as a weapon.
Whenever friends of Israel find themselves scrambling to
pull together fliers and posters for a rally or debate taking place in a few
hours or days, that should be an indication that time (like the initiative) is
not on our side.
Obviously the enemy must be met, and given that we’re not
the ones perpetually demanding that third parties condemn our political foes,
it’s likely that we’ll be responding to situations created by others more often
than we’d like. But preparing in advance
for likely occurrences, such as entirely predictable Israel Apartheid
hate-fests cropping up in the Spring, seems like a good use of time in the
Fall. Similarly, snarling up
anti-Israel votes in student government through aggressive procedural
challenges so that they can’t be voted on during an academic year seems a more
effective use of time as a weapon than does a direct confrontation with the
enemy at a time and place of their
choosing.
Even (scratch that, especially)
when you’re riding high politically, timing can mean the difference between
small (and often temporary) victories, and long-term real ones.
For instance, it’s taken as axiomatic that a new President
should press his advantage during the first hundred days of his presidency,
shoving through as much game-changing legislation and rule changes as possible
before political opponents regroup and figure out ways to thwart the new
administration’s agenda.
We’re seeing this now as the new Trump administration
continues to issue an avalanche of Executive Orders in order to implement
campaign promises (like restricting immigration and walking away from trade
agreements) while foes are still in a daze.
But the very aggressiveness of this activity helps give those foes a
focal point for resistance.
For instance, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barak Obama in 2008
used their victories (which included the Democrats capturing both houses of
Congress) to rapidly push through game-changing agendas that did not need to
take into account the needs of the Republican minority. But this very haste led to Republicans
retaking Congress two years into each new administration’s first term, becoming
the majority and thus an enormous barrier to any new Presidential initiatives.
Might patience reward the new President (or any President)
with longer-lasting legislative (or even cultural) victories vs. controversial
administrative decrees? Hard to tell,
but precedent seems to say that “all glory is fleeting”
which implies the need for strategies above and beyond “full speed ahead!”
There is a lesson here for Israel and her friends
abroad. The replacement of a hostile US
administration with a friendly one is an obvious source of relief, but the
controversial nature of the new American President means we are faced with yet
another multi-faceted challenge which needs to be managed skillfully and
strategically.
Some thoughts on what this can include next time.
