It's Netanyahu! Hooray.
Avigdor Lieberman, the neo-fascist and anti-Arab candidate, has made his pick. He will throw his support behind Binyamin Netanyahu and make the Likud chief the next prime minister of Israel.
His only caveat is that he wants Tzipi Livni's, Kadima, to join the governing coalition too, thereby creating a unity government.
Hopefully, Livni will say "no" and go into opposition and let Israel have the right-wing government most of the population voted for.
All Kadima (or Labor) would bring to the equation is (1) a more benign face to defend destructive policies and (2) a way for Netanyahu to avoid yielding to the demands of the far right which he has so assiduously courted.
No, it's time to let Bibi be Bibi. Let him try to govern from the right and see how well that works. With the economy tanking and Israel's relations with its friendly neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) worse than in years, let him see where Likud (and Lieberman) and, perhaps, the religious right policies as well will get him.
They won't get him far. The sooner Israelis know it, the better.
Livni should not pull Bibi's chestnuts out of the fire -- nor should she sit in a government with a blatant racist like Lieberman. It's crunch time.
It should be mentioned that Netanyahu tends to be a pragmatist. He may be so eager to avoid a crazy rightwing government that he will bring Livni in and leave out Lieberman. It's possible. But one thing is certain. This is not the post-election scene Bibi dreamed about. It's more like his worst nightmare.
Pure poetry: "All Kadima (or Labor) would bring to the equation is (1) a more benign face to defend destructive policies and (2) a way for Netanyahu to avoid yielding to the demands of the far right which he has so assiduously courted."
Livni is like Condi: she sells the same dreadful policies, but the media focuses on her designer shoes.
I want Lieberman for foreign minister. He's the real face of Israel anyway.
February 19, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time for Lieberman to go under the microscope for his terrorist affiliations with Kach and the Kahanists. Israel has elected a terrorist, so sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
February 19, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the bottom of the Ha’aretz article linked to is a cross-reference to another one,
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065200.html
"Likud: We'd be happy to have Yisrael Beiteinu in our coalition," which contains a passage I find mysterious:
What, exactly, are M. de Chauvin’s concerns? In context it would make more sense if "immigrant absorption" was a reference to non-Gentiles, but even that much is not unmistakably clear.
As for "the war on terror," do the politicians of the Tel Avîv government use that distinctly GOP-soundin’ expression much?
Happy days.
February 19, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big test for Tzipi. What's she all about? We will find out, and I'm not optimistic.
February 19, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Early signs are encouraging:
"Today the foundation was laid for an extreme right-wing government led by [Likud Chairman Benjamin] Netanyahu. This is not our way, and there is nothing for us in such a government," Kadima leader Tzipi Livni told party members on Thursday, after 65 MKs announced their decision to support Netanyahu for the post of prime minister-designate.
* * *
Livni went on to say "we weren't elected to legitimize this extreme right-wing government, and we must represent an alternative of hope and go to the opposition."
"Kadima will continue fighting for it beliefs and its path - a diplomatic arrangement based on two states for two peoples alongside an unrelenting war on terror, while addressing internal civil issues that require immediate remedy, most importantly an alteration of the current system of government and the marriage system and the creation of a true common ground to represent Israel's values as a democratic Jewish state."
February 19, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tidbit.
February 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Your apparent glee at the prospect of a Netanyahu-led, right-wing government is revolting, yet depressingly predictable.
Oddly enough, for someone who professes to support the peace process and the two-state solution, you expect and indeed seem to hope for the worst from Israel. In this, you find common cause with the mythbusters, billwalkers and others who basically conceive of the State of Israel as a deeply immoral enterprise. You seem to believe that peace can only be achieved if Israel is revealed as a hypocrite, dedicated to expanding settlements and opposed to a reasonable settlement, resulting in a loss of financial support from the US, leading Israel to wake up and make the concessions it has resisted. Hence, your delight in the prospect of a Netanyahu/Lieberman-led government.
The only similar analogy would be an American on the left taking pleasure in four more years of Republican rule then rooting for them to fail miserably just so that we could see how truly disastrous their policies are. (Wait, there was an American leftist with a similar view. In 2000, Nader said there would be little difference between Bush and Gore -- tweedledum and tweedle dee, as I recall -- and the election of either wouldn't make a bit of difference. How wrong did that turn out to be? How many people have died as a result of that bogus reasoning?) Now Israel faces the same prospect: more senseless death and a peace process that fades further into the rearview. If this is the cost of proving the bankruptcy of the rightist ideology, it is too steep a price to pay.
I, for one, am terribly saddened by this development, though I do agree that Kadima and Labor should go into opposition rather than provide a fig leaf for the right's hateful ideology.
February 19, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
AG:
Take solace. MJ might not really mean what he writes, in light of his post yesterday endorsing a petition calling for Lieberman to be kept out of the governing coalition. [I have decided to sign the petition fwiw.] I don't believe his real position would change overnight. Some very good people who post here have objected to my characterization of the I-P threads around these parts as parlor game play. This post, juxtaposed with the one from yesterday where a contrary position is taken, helps to explain my characterization. I wish it weren't so.
I continue to believe that MJ is as an important alternative spokesperson in circles beyond the Cafe. That's why I tend to focus on the policy positions of the Israel Policy Forum as being a true reflection of where MJ stands. And where MJ stands is important around here because Josh Marshall apparently believes that MJ is the right person for leading I-P discussions at the Cafe.
BTW, check out the IPF's new website. MJ does deserve credit for setting it up. Perhaps some day the Cafe will reflect what he has done over there. In the meantime, draw your own conclusions, as I have, about why things are different at IPF.
Ciao.
Bruce
February 19, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is false: "In this, you find common cause with the mythbusters, billwalkers and others who basically conceive of the State of Israel as a deeply immoral enterprise."
The settlements and blockade of Palestinians are a "deeply immoral enterprise." I have never said all of Isarel is a deeply immoral enterprise.
I don't care if you agree with me, but please characterize my positions correctly.
February 19, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I based my belief on your comments consistently depicting Israel as a brutal and oppressive neo-colonial enterprise devoted to ethnic cleansing and your defense of Hamas as akin to freedom fighters engaged in a worthwhile, if strategically misguided, resistance. (And here, I would adopt Hamas' definition of resistance as resistance to the occupation of all of "Palestine," not just the territories).
If I mischaracterize, I apologize. For real.
February 19, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's just the settlements and the blockade you oppose, I agree with you - although I suspect our prescriptions for how to go about ending them would differ substantially.
February 19, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do. I'm for a legal solution. That means a recogition that international law and standards apply. That means: (1) the UN has alredy recognized the State of Israel, so it's not going anywhere; (2) the Palestinians are a people living under Occupation, so they are entitled to rights, including the right to resist their occupation; (3) settlements are a form of violence, which require international sanctions; and (4) a final peace deal will be a regional peace deal.
And 50 years from now, Arabs and Israelis will be freely moving around the ME like Europeans in Europe.
I am only hardline on one issue: I oppose any solution that requires the willful disregard for reality and treats any people--Jew or Gentile--as invisible. I also don't believe that God cares whether any piece of land is owned by a Christian, Muslim or Jew.
February 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, you consistently refer to "the Zionists" as collectively nefarious, as if Herut and Likud revisionism was the core value of Zionism. With this latest bit of rhetorical hedging, it is impossible to take your comments seriously.
February 20, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that Bibi getting into power can in any way be seen as positive. I'll be waiting for his first missile strike on Iran.
February 19, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I am awaiting for Iran to strike back. And then we are supposed to be outraged, right?
February 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the core issue of promoting peace, the chances are that a Netanyahu/Lieberman government won't be all that much different from one led by Livni or a "national unity" government. This is not, pace mythbuster and others, because there is no difference between Lieberman and the rest of Israel. Rather, it is because the power of the Israeli government to achieve peace is very limited anyway. No Israeli government is going to unilaterally force out settlers. There probably won't be much difference regarding even the growth of settlements. Most importantly, none of the leaders, not Livni, Lieberman or Netanyahu, can do much about the sorry state of the Palestinian leadership and its ability to deliver peace as part of "land-for-peace". Without that, no Israeli government will take on the settlers and make other painful compromises. This is also what the peacenik crowd consistently fails to say anything substantive about.
I am also interested in how Yisrael Beteinu, which is stridently secular, will co-exist with Shas and United Torah Judaism in the same coalition. That should prove interesting.
I actually think MJ and Gideon Levy are right in this respect: there are benefits to having a government of the "right" if only because it will expose the hollowness of so much of their rhetoric. Netanyahu IS a pragmatist. He may end up being better for peace in the long run.
February 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTD: As is often the case, cogent and reasonable. I agree that no Israeli government will unilaterally take on the settlers without some reciprocity from a Palestinian leadership that currently seems incapable of delivering its end of the land for peace bargain. I disagree, however, that a Livni-led government would be no different. At least Livni is willing to acknowledge the need to give up the settlements and to engage with the Palestinians in the hope that such leadership will emerge. I am not willing to bank on the expectation that the hollowness of the right's rhetoric will be exposed. There are lives at stake.
February 19, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is circular reasoning: " I agree that no Israeli government will unilaterally take on the settlers without some reciprocity from a Palestinian leadership that currently seems incapable of delivering its end of the land for peace bargain."
And what is the reciprocity you seek? Please articulate the "deal". Olso is all vague promises. It's time to talk about a specific deal....or it's just empty noise to distract everyone while building more settlements.
February 19, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the "deal" is all that controversial, at least among people outside the fringe rejectionists. The vast majority of people are willing to accept that Israel should transfer sovreignty of some portion of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (with a whole lot of detail there to be negotiated) and in exchange the new Palestinian state will sign a peace treaty and renounce any further claims on Israel, thus formally ending the conflict.
The mistake that you and others consistently make is to assume that Israeli intransigence over giving up land is the biggest obstacle to achieving peace. Remove that obstacle and peace can flourish. It's just not true. If we've learned anything over the last 15 years, it's that when Israel withdraws, corruption, violence and terrorism shortly ensue. It happened during the Oslo period, it happened in Lebanon in 2000 and it happened in Gaza.
Israel cannot possibly take the chance that a withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to the same kind of chaos. The consequences of that for Israel would be catastrophic because the stakes with the West Bank are much higher. Not only are more people affected and the land itself closer to Israel's population centers, but we're talking about the core of the historic Jewish biblical patrimony. Even those who are not supporters of the settlers still have an attachment to the land.
It therefore must be acknowledged that forcing settlers out of the West Bank will involve a national trauma for Israel the likes of which it has never experienced. This wouldn't be like Gaza, where Ariel Sharon was able to muscle it through the Knesset. The resistance would be unimaginably fierce. There would be rioting in the streets. The government would likely collapse. And it won't just be the religious nuts who would object.
To put the country through that sort of trauma, the Israeli government would need to argue that finally ending the conflict and achieving acceptance was there for the grasping. They would need to see a change in Palestinian attitudes. They would need to see overtures from the Arab and Muslim worlds that the possibility of the conflict being over is real. They won't just trade away the land for a promise. It will never happen.
February 19, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a misleading statement: " If we've learned anything over the last 15 years, it's that when Israel withdraws, corruption, violence and terrorism shortly ensue. "
What you mean to say is that when Israel "withdraws" locally, they intend to control remotely. And corruption, violence and terrorism then ensue. Until the Zionists understand that they must relinquish cannot control over Palestinian life, they have not "withdrawn" from anything.
Gaza is a textbook example of the non-withdrawal withdrawal.
February 19, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's always an excuse for the Palestinians, isn't there?
Perhaps you can explain how the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon was less than a total withdrawal. Yet no sooner than Israel left the area, the Hezbollah terrorists moved in.
Plus even if you accept the fact that Israel still controls the borders of Gaza as well as the air and sea, it is not clear to me why that means it had to turn into a nest of terrorists.
February 19, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be surprised to learn (since MJ apparently labeled me a neo-con some time ago based upon my qualified and not-without-reservations defense of the Gaza operation or war or whatever you want to call it except massacre) that I would favor an agreement essentially along the lines of the Geneva Accords. As for reciprocity, there would have to be a recognition that the right of return will be limited or symbolic: not all descendants of refugees from 1948 will come back to resettle in Israel. There would have to be a commitment to at least working toward a peaceful coexistence - an end to violence and incitement. And I agree with you that God should play no part and any deal would hopefully be regional, not only because it must account for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living outside the West Bank and Gaza (many of them subject to deplorable treatment themselves) but also because as long as the better part of the Arab world is at war with Israel, it's hard to envision real security. That all seems pretty far off now - particularly with the governments of both societies divided between the timid (Olmert, Livni, Abbas) and the malevolent (Lieberman, Netanyahu, Hamas).
February 19, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many worthy sentiments in your post.
But please don't overplay the "it's terrible to be a Palestinian in the Arab world" canard. My wife has relatives in Jordan, UAE, and Qatar and they are treated much, much better than her relatives who live in East Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Much better.
I also don't need to rely on the American or Israeli media to tell me what life is like for a Palestinian under Occupation. I just have to use the phone.
February 19, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking mostly of the more than 400,000 in Lebanon who have no civil rights, no access to government health, education and social services, and are prohibited from working in more than 70 professions: (http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/lebanon.html). (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=99502).
February 20, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be inflammatory or anything, but how is this kind of wishful thinking -- that things getting worse because of a fascist regime in Israel will be a good thing because then Israelis will come to their senses all the sooner -- any different from Rush Limbaugh's wishing failure on Obama?
February 19, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
i didnt know Obama was a fascist who calls for the murder of an entire race of people.
but you think its the same thing.
February 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who in Israel is calling for the murder of an entire people?
February 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think anything of the kind. Of course you know this.
To paraphrase what I said: Wishing that things will get worse in order for them to get better is ridiculous.
February 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wishing that things will get worse in order for them to get better is ridiculous."
Perhaps. But acknowledging that things have gone from bad to worse and saying, "Well, the only way to go is up" is slightly less ridiculous.
February 19, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"no Israeli government will unilaterally take on the settlers without some reciprocity from a Palestinian leadership..."
True and sad. Because what the hapless Palestinian leadership, its credibility and resources undermined by settlements, checkpoint and blockade, can do to "reciprocate"?
The situation is that Israel has all the power, so it cannot possibly obtain adequate reciprocity, so the only realistic option is to "unilaterally" start treating Palestinians like people. Something that Barak and Livni are not able to do, by the way.
February 19, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has both all of the power and none of it. While we're all waiting for Washington to step up to the plate, maybe we should take a cue from Sen. Kerry and go to Syria for a cup of tea.
Can't wait to see Netanyahu's face when he meets with George Mitchell... until the showdown, ciao
February 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you guys hear about the Israeli spy arrested in Lebanon yesterday?
From the New York Times:
"At the start of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli officials called Mr. Jarrah to reassure him that his village would be spared and that he should stay at home, investigators said.
He was finally arrested last July by Hezbollah, which now has perhaps the most powerful intelligence apparatus in this country. It handed him to the Lebanese military — along with his brother Yusuf, who is accused of helping him spy — and he awaits trial by a military court."
Two brothers arrested for spying for Israel, and their cousin was a 9/11 hijacker. Watch this NBC News segment which shows a video of the highly westernized Jarrah laughing between takes of his martyrdom tape recorded in 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0
The possible implications are staggering.
February 19, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What implications are you getting at? Is this where you suggest an Israeli link to 9-11 or are you speaking in jest?
February 19, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that cousin of two 25 year Israeli spies look like an Islamic fundamentalist to you?
Amazing how his passport survived the crash, but the plane disappeared into a hole isn't it? And what about the silly report on the radio that morning that Flight 93 landed at the Cleveland Airport? As if!
February 20, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the NY Times article from yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=3&hp
February 19, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have questions for the pro-Israel group. If the US quit giving you money and weapons, would you be able to maintain your control? Do you want to try? Have you ever considered or wanted to be an independent country, instead of a dependent of the US?
February 20, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink