America demands Israeli concessions for peace, Israel stubbornly refuses to relent under the pressure. The President tells Israel to withdraw from the lands it occupied in the war; the Prime Minister doggedly attempts to deflect the pressure and hold onto as much as possible. The Israeli public backs the PM; coalition members and opposition parties castigate American interference and lopsided behavior against Israel.
The American administration threatens economic punishment should Israel not fall into line. The administration faces significant criticism for this not only from Jewish groups like the Bnai Brith, but scathing attacks for its conduct by congress.
The President, of course, is Dwight Eisenhower, and the year is 1956. The war was the 1956 Suez-Sinai War between Israel and Egypt, and the concessions referred to are the Sinai and Gaza Strip, to be vacated with no preconditions. The Israeli PM is David Ben-Gurion.
The similarities to today’s Israeli-American feud are striking. Obama demands; Netanyahu, bolstered by his hawkish government, refuses to give in to all his demands. No doubt the circumstances of the 1956-1957 crisis, as well as the 1975 diplomatic scuffle over the Sinai between Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin both weigh heavily in the heart and mind of Bibi Netanyahu. Direct confrontation with an American president is the last thing he wants.
But a lot has changed since 1956 and 1975. Israel today is far larger, more developed, and less dependent on America. Bibi’s anxiety is misplaced. Israel in 1956 had just under 2 million citizens, in 1975 less than 3.5 million, but today well over 7 million. While American aid made up nearly 20% of the Israeli government’s budget in as late as the 1980’s, today it makes up only about 4-5%.
While Israel used to be heavily debt-ridden, today its net debt (about $30 billion) is smaller than what is owed to it (about $60 billion), and most of the money owed to Israel is from the US federal government. US loan guarantees, which were used as a means to coerce Israel not only in 1956 and 1975 but also during the Bush-Shamir spat in the late 80s/early 90s, now are essentially meaningless. Israel has a massive surplus of foreign currency and already owns nearly $60 billion of America’s debt.
In 1956 David Ben-Gurion refused to capitulate to Eisenhower’s demands for half a year, until a compromise was reached in which Israel ceded the Sinai and Gaza in exchange for UN forces in both areas and explicit US promises regarding Israeli access to the Gulf of Aqaba. Though the decision was certainly a far cry from Ben-Gurion’s November 1956 speech pledging to retain both the Sinai and Gaza, it marked the first time that an Israeli Premier would stand toe-to-toe with an antagonistic American administration and not be the first to blink.
Eisenhower’s administration led the UN in condemning Israel and threatened to orchestrate international economic sanctions against Israel. Israel, it was estimated, could survive for 12 months in such a scenario, before collapsing in the face of sanctions. Ben-Gurion was certainly aware of the intense pressure Eisenhower faced from congress, which refused to support his legislation as long as the specter of sanctions loomed over Israel.
If Ben-Gurion could stand up against Eisenhower for at least a compromise, Netanyahu is in a far better position to stand up and give Obama nothing. With his coalition partners Lieberman and Eli Yishai giving him full support and Likud MKs demanding no concessions, the only question is, will Netanyahu have the prescience to not only remember 1956, but see the advantages Israel now has.
Showing posts with label netanyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label netanyahu. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Baron and the Serf
If extraterrestrials were to ever visit our planet, they would have a devil of a time understanding it. Most befuddling would be this strange little misshapen political entity known as “Israel”.
Carved out of the heart of the Middle East through blood and sweat by hundreds of thousands of Jews seeking to end the millennia-old oppression they suffered at the hands of gentiles, the state was meant to once and for all terminate the insidious baron-serf relationship through which Jews were always dominated by gentiles in every country both Muslim and Christian; politically, economically, and socially.
This movement to make a state, known contemporarily as Zionism, came about largely as a reaction to the failure of the gentile-initiated Emancipation in Europe, which freed Jews as individuals but not as a collective from age-old oppression.
What then would an outsider, uninitiated in the finer points of contemporary politics, make of this state, Israel groveling to Biden and Hillary Clinton in a pitiful attempt to apologize over the construction of homes in its capital???
Sadly, this is nothing new. From the get-go the Jewish establishment in Israel related to the US as the new Baron for the Jewish collective. The Zionist movement, originally meant to terminate the master-slave relationship now merely sought to replace the old European and Arab masters with a new American one.
American demands on Israel are always the same: give up land to your sworn enemies who seek your destruction. The territories demanded change with time, but only because Israel’s borders miraculously expand faster than American efforts to reduce them. From 1948 onward the demand was that Israel surrender the Negev (about half of the state of Israel). After 1967 the demand shifted to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, and Sinai.
One of the most pernicious actions of the US, however, has been its refusal since 1948, to recognize Israeli control over WEST Jerusalem as well as its status as the capital of Israel from 1950 on. The issue of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem did not begin after the 1967 War, it began in 1953 when the Israeli Foreign Ministry relocated to Jerusalem, following the earlier relocation of the Knesset. The US State Dept. to this day will not recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, and all passports listing Jerusalem as place of birth have “Israel” removed.
The message is clear and astounding: it is not the “unsettled borders” of east Jerusalem that prevent American recognition of Israeli control, but Israeli control per se of any part of Jerusalem, east or west, that is not recognized. America, the alleged ally of Israel, doesn’t even recognize its control of its capital!
How then could one explain to the uninformed observer the Prime Minister of the allegedly free state of Israel groveling to an ally which doesn’t recognize the most basic right of a free state – the building of homes in its territory?
Carved out of the heart of the Middle East through blood and sweat by hundreds of thousands of Jews seeking to end the millennia-old oppression they suffered at the hands of gentiles, the state was meant to once and for all terminate the insidious baron-serf relationship through which Jews were always dominated by gentiles in every country both Muslim and Christian; politically, economically, and socially.
This movement to make a state, known contemporarily as Zionism, came about largely as a reaction to the failure of the gentile-initiated Emancipation in Europe, which freed Jews as individuals but not as a collective from age-old oppression.
What then would an outsider, uninitiated in the finer points of contemporary politics, make of this state, Israel groveling to Biden and Hillary Clinton in a pitiful attempt to apologize over the construction of homes in its capital???
Sadly, this is nothing new. From the get-go the Jewish establishment in Israel related to the US as the new Baron for the Jewish collective. The Zionist movement, originally meant to terminate the master-slave relationship now merely sought to replace the old European and Arab masters with a new American one.
American demands on Israel are always the same: give up land to your sworn enemies who seek your destruction. The territories demanded change with time, but only because Israel’s borders miraculously expand faster than American efforts to reduce them. From 1948 onward the demand was that Israel surrender the Negev (about half of the state of Israel). After 1967 the demand shifted to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, and Sinai.
One of the most pernicious actions of the US, however, has been its refusal since 1948, to recognize Israeli control over WEST Jerusalem as well as its status as the capital of Israel from 1950 on. The issue of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem did not begin after the 1967 War, it began in 1953 when the Israeli Foreign Ministry relocated to Jerusalem, following the earlier relocation of the Knesset. The US State Dept. to this day will not recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, and all passports listing Jerusalem as place of birth have “Israel” removed.
The message is clear and astounding: it is not the “unsettled borders” of east Jerusalem that prevent American recognition of Israeli control, but Israeli control per se of any part of Jerusalem, east or west, that is not recognized. America, the alleged ally of Israel, doesn’t even recognize its control of its capital!
How then could one explain to the uninformed observer the Prime Minister of the allegedly free state of Israel groveling to an ally which doesn’t recognize the most basic right of a free state – the building of homes in its territory?
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Death of the Israeli Left
Ever since the historic defeat of the Labor party in 1977 and the rise of Menachem Begin’s Likud party, the Israeli left has been on the decline.
Now, however, it is more pronounced than ever. The far-left Meretz party, which once held 12 seats in the 120 member Knesset is now the smallest part with only 3; while once dominant Labor has sunk to fourth place with a mere 13 seats.
A telling sign of the trend to the right in Israel is a Dialogue poll conducted for Haaretz last week. According to the poll, Likud would rise from 27 seats to 35, while Labor and Kadima would drop from 13 to 9 and 28 to 25 respectively. The left-wing/Arab bloc as a whole would decline from its present 55 seats to 48, while the right-wing/religious parties would increase from 65 to 72.
More important in the poll, however, was the DISAPPROVAL of Netanyahu despite his party’s growing support. The primary reason given? His freezing of settlement construction in the West Bank.
Since his turn to the left, his numbers, which had stayed comfortably in the high-50s to low-60s, have for the first time sunk below 50% and are lower than his disapproval rating. This is a clear smack at the leftist policies of Netanyahu, who despite his party affiliation, is feeling the burn of his actions.
More importantly, however, is the coalition’s confirmation today that it will permit voting overseas. This seemingly innocuous bill, which was first proposed by Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party and fixed as a basis of their coalition agreement, augurs major change for Israeli politics.
Israel, unlike the US, has hitherto prohibited all voting outside of the state, except for consular workers and other government positions overseas. This was a natural outgrowth of the feeling in the early days of the state that Israelis who leave the country were abandoning it and the Jewish people. Today, however, Lieberman and Netanyahu see it as an untapped source of electoral strength.
It is estimated that close to 1 million Israeli citizens live overseas, the overwhelming majority of them Jewish. These expatriates, who usually left for economic reasons, tend towards the right politically, and represent a potential voting bloc for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu.
Their inclusion in Israeli elections would go along way in nullifying the electoral power of Israeli Arabs, who constitute about 22% of the country but only a tiny percent of Israeli expatriates. Currently their vote is split roughly 50-50 between Arab parties and the left.
If and when this bill will pass, it will likely be the final death-null for the already battered Israeli left. Meretz, the furthest to the left, will probably be the first to go, and may not survive the next election cycle.
Now, however, it is more pronounced than ever. The far-left Meretz party, which once held 12 seats in the 120 member Knesset is now the smallest part with only 3; while once dominant Labor has sunk to fourth place with a mere 13 seats.
A telling sign of the trend to the right in Israel is a Dialogue poll conducted for Haaretz last week. According to the poll, Likud would rise from 27 seats to 35, while Labor and Kadima would drop from 13 to 9 and 28 to 25 respectively. The left-wing/Arab bloc as a whole would decline from its present 55 seats to 48, while the right-wing/religious parties would increase from 65 to 72.
More important in the poll, however, was the DISAPPROVAL of Netanyahu despite his party’s growing support. The primary reason given? His freezing of settlement construction in the West Bank.
Since his turn to the left, his numbers, which had stayed comfortably in the high-50s to low-60s, have for the first time sunk below 50% and are lower than his disapproval rating. This is a clear smack at the leftist policies of Netanyahu, who despite his party affiliation, is feeling the burn of his actions.
More importantly, however, is the coalition’s confirmation today that it will permit voting overseas. This seemingly innocuous bill, which was first proposed by Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party and fixed as a basis of their coalition agreement, augurs major change for Israeli politics.
Israel, unlike the US, has hitherto prohibited all voting outside of the state, except for consular workers and other government positions overseas. This was a natural outgrowth of the feeling in the early days of the state that Israelis who leave the country were abandoning it and the Jewish people. Today, however, Lieberman and Netanyahu see it as an untapped source of electoral strength.
It is estimated that close to 1 million Israeli citizens live overseas, the overwhelming majority of them Jewish. These expatriates, who usually left for economic reasons, tend towards the right politically, and represent a potential voting bloc for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu.
Their inclusion in Israeli elections would go along way in nullifying the electoral power of Israeli Arabs, who constitute about 22% of the country but only a tiny percent of Israeli expatriates. Currently their vote is split roughly 50-50 between Arab parties and the left.
If and when this bill will pass, it will likely be the final death-null for the already battered Israeli left. Meretz, the furthest to the left, will probably be the first to go, and may not survive the next election cycle.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Morally vs Ideologically Bankrupt
Since Netanyahu’s election as Prime Minister in February of 2009, Obama and his cronies have delivered a constant pressure upon Israel to agree to a total freeze on construction of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Netanyahu, always the spineless one tried to compromise on the issue: a partial building freeze in the West Bank (allowing for natural growth, which was never clearly defined or explained) and the completion of projects already underway. The result was last week’s building freeze declaration, which, in theory, was to ban only those projects which were not yet begun and were not part of the 500 units approved recently for construction.
Let’s count the charges against the Netanyahu gov’t:
1) Nixing approval for new units in both the West Bank and Jerusalem even before the 10 month freeze, aggravating one of the worst housing crises in Israeli history.
2) Violating its own restrictions on the extent of the building freeze, banning even the recently approved units and even illegally confiscating (read: stealing) building equipment.
3) Proceeding with the freeze despite the fact that it will cost the economy an estimated 500 million dollars, further deteriorate the already difficult housing situation, and get in return absolutely nothing.
Netanyahu spinelessly uses the freeze – and the damage it does to Israel, especially to struggling young families – so he can feel more at ease talking to Obama. But the settlement movement is just as bankrupt as Netanyahu. Since the founding of Gush Emunim, the core of the settlement movement, in 1974 the settlers and their allies inside the Green Line have been unable to formulate a comprehensive plan which would ensure the survival of their enterprise. Their answer to every problem or crisis is to build more; more houses and more settlements. When the demographic threat to the State of Israel crystallized in the 1980s they offered no solution (like some form of population transfer to encourage Arab emigration), and so eventually were subjected to the disastrous Oslo process in the 1990’s and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement. The mainstream settlement movement and the Israeli government are two heads of the same bankrupt coin: one morally lacking, the other, ideologically.
Let’s count the charges against the Netanyahu gov’t:
1) Nixing approval for new units in both the West Bank and Jerusalem even before the 10 month freeze, aggravating one of the worst housing crises in Israeli history.
2) Violating its own restrictions on the extent of the building freeze, banning even the recently approved units and even illegally confiscating (read: stealing) building equipment.
3) Proceeding with the freeze despite the fact that it will cost the economy an estimated 500 million dollars, further deteriorate the already difficult housing situation, and get in return absolutely nothing.
Netanyahu spinelessly uses the freeze – and the damage it does to Israel, especially to struggling young families – so he can feel more at ease talking to Obama. But the settlement movement is just as bankrupt as Netanyahu. Since the founding of Gush Emunim, the core of the settlement movement, in 1974 the settlers and their allies inside the Green Line have been unable to formulate a comprehensive plan which would ensure the survival of their enterprise. Their answer to every problem or crisis is to build more; more houses and more settlements. When the demographic threat to the State of Israel crystallized in the 1980s they offered no solution (like some form of population transfer to encourage Arab emigration), and so eventually were subjected to the disastrous Oslo process in the 1990’s and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement. The mainstream settlement movement and the Israeli government are two heads of the same bankrupt coin: one morally lacking, the other, ideologically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)