Showing posts with label Benjamin Netanyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benjamin Netanyahu. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Two articles of interests

I've been so busy these last few weeks that I've had barely enough time to stay on top of developments in the region.
Two opinion pieces caught my eye that I thought I would pass along.
The first is an Op-Ed in the Times by Prince Turki al-Faisal - the former head of Saudi Intelligence - dismissing the idea that Arab states should initiate the process of normalizing relations with Israel.
The second article appears today at Foreign Policy magazine's site. Titled "More than Just a Photo Op" the article tries to highlight what most observers see as non-existent: an actual strategy of the Obama administration for Arab-Israeli Peace. I'm not sure I agree with all of Daniel Levy's points but it is an interesting argument and I'm sure a few of the things he suggests are both valid and too quickly dismissed.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

FP on Aluf Benn's NY Times Op-Ed

I mentioned yesterday in my take on the Martin Indyk interview in The Daily Beast that Haaretz’s “editor at large” had been complaining in a NY Times op-ed two days ago that Obama has been “ignoring” Israel.
FP has published a response by Steve Breyman that skillfully deconstructs Benn's illogical whining. It's a must read for anyone interested in the current state of affairs between Israel and the Obama administration.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/29/is_obama_ignoring_israel

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Israel: America can keep its money

Haaretz is reporting that the Israeli Finance Minister is not just dismissive of the possibility that the US could withhold loan guarantees worth billions of dollars but doubts that the state of Israel even needs them.
"I don't see any limitations on the horizon. It's not time to be concerned about that" said the Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, "I don't see any need to use them in the near future.”
This comes as a response to the increased tension between the US and Israel over the latter’s plan to move ahead with an illegal settlement construction in the West Bank despite condemnation from President Obama.
Relating back to my post yesterday, I’m not sure if this is Israel calling Obama’s bluff on economic sanctions (not that he’s even suggested them… yet) or if this is a reflection of the relative influence Israel now has over the United States. I’m sure the tough talk (tough in a teenager sort of way: “I don’t even need your stupid allowance Dad!”) has been mandated by Netanyahu and the chorus of “no other country can dictate Israeli policy” that we saw yesterday seems to suggest such a position. But it is interesting that Israel seems to be pushing this issue rather than simply continuing its settlement expansion while trying not to draw American ire. This is starting to look to me like a fight Netanyahu thinks he needs to start. Which in turn begs the question: Is this a fight he can win?

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Who is more powerful: Israel vs. The US --- REDUX

My post yesterday on the resounding chorus of Israeli politicians decrying the external "pressure" and "challenges to its sovereignty" (sound familiar Ayatollah Khamenei?) was a lead into the question I posed and half answered: Who is more powerful: Israel of the United States?
Let me expand a bit...
First let me confess that using the term “powerful” is a bit misleading. What I’m trying to get at is “power” in the sense of who has a bigger influence on the other’s policy making. This isn’t a question of who is militarily stronger or who has a more effective international diplomatic reach. This is purely a question of which state is more reliant on the other.
Now I should also admit that historically the case has always been that Israel has benefitted greatly from American patronage. Without a doubt the United States has always been “more powerful” than Israel. The military aide – and more importantly the weapon sales concessions – that Israel has received from the US has gone a long way in solidifying the Israeli Defense Forces as one of the premier militaries in the world. Diplomatically, the Americans have been involved in most of the successful (and failed) peace efforts between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), and the Palestinians. There has been no equivalent to Camp David – no “Camp Adam” to facilitate peace between the United States and Cuba.
So has that balance shifted in the opposite direction? Sort of…
I doubt that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate a settlement between an American President and Raul Castro. Israel, in many ways, benefits more from its perceived position of weakness in relation to the US. It relies a great deal on funds raised in the Diaspora for various “emergencies” and while immigration from the West has dropped considerably in the last two decades there is no doubt that there still exists a strong emotional connection between a great many diasporic Jews and their perceived homeland. This is maintained considerably by Israel projecting a sense that their existence is under siege. I won’t get into whether it’s true, or why they think they face these existential threats but that perception (valid or not) has been a great boon to Israel’s state coffers.
But the nitty-gritty of this question of relative power really comes down to need. Who needs who more? I don’t remember a time when the two men leading these states have had as much of an ideological gap between them as today. While Obama is hardly the Marxist Muslim many feared, his liberal centrism is about as far away an American President can get from Benyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s extremism has been bolstered by his own far right leaning coalition government and the country’s domestic fatigue for the ongoing stalemate with the Palestinians. The only person who is trying to moderate Netanyahu – the only person that counts – is Barack Obama.
So when Netanyahu announces that, despite firm proclamations from the Obama administration that the settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (East Jerusalem in particular) must stop, Israel will continue with said construction regardless, we have Obama’s first real challenge in his effort on the Arab-Israeli front. How can Netanyahu get away with such intransigence? Because Netanyahu is gambling that Israel is no longer beholden to American power. In fact, he may think that the dynamic is quite the opposite.
Without overstating their influence, we have in the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. Detailed in their book “The Israel Lobby” Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have laid out a damning indictment of Israel’s influence over American foreign (and in some cases, domestic) policy. In courting the vote of AIPAC supporters (quick: where did Obama make his first major speech after winning the Democratic nomination?) Obama had to continuously assert that American support for the state of Israel is unwavering. On top of that, and in words that should come back to haunt him, he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided”. AIPAC has long been controlled by vocal supporters of the Likud party (now under Netanyahu) and the need to vigorously court the support of AIPAC voters has to be seen as a compromise to Likudniks.
Now, it would seem, Netanyahu is cashing that check Obama wrote in front of the AIPAC audience back in June.
Obama, on the other hand, has little to offer Israel. There is no effective organ for promoting American interests among Israeli voters like AIPAC does stateside. Israeli hawks are benefiting from a status quo that hasn’t seen an American President do anything but murmur displeasure with Israeli actions. And even economically – as dire straits as the Israeli economy may be in – they are no longer the struggling economy they once were. On the other hand, being viewed as Israel’s unquestioning patron has cost the United States billions of dollars in both direct aide and costs through association. Their diplomatic stature suffers in both the Arab street and in more progressive European capitals. At some point a Realist look at the US-Israel relationship will conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits when you have so little influence you can’t stop the construction of a single apartment building.
Or, they may conclude that toning down that relationship may be too costly politically. And if this is the conclusion, is it that much of a stretch to suggest that Israel now has the upper hand in its relationship with the United States?

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Israel: No "Subidiary" of Another State

Israeli politicians are up in arms at the increasing chorus of international leaders who argue that the proposed settlement construction in occupied East Jerusalem should be stopped.
Haaretz quotes…
Prime Minister Netanyahu: “Israel will not agree to edicts [American, European, Russian] of this kind in East Jerusalem”.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon: Israel has an “indisputable” right to build anywhere in East Jerusalem.
Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai: “Israel's government is not a subsidiary of any other world government […] Israel’s Government [is] free to build anywhere in Israel”.
Science Minster Daniel Hershkowitz: “Israel must reject international pressure and the challenges to its sovereignty in Jerusalem”.
It appears that the coalition government is clearly behind the Prime Minister in his refusal to submit to the pressure being put on it by the United States, Russia, France and Germany. And to be honest with you, when it comes to Russia and France, I don’t really blame them. What has either done for Israel recently? The Germans are a curious case in that there are few Western countries who try as hard as the Germans do to stay out of Israel’s affairs and the strong statement from the head of the German Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee suggests that this trend may be slowly changing or it may be an indication of this issue’s importance.
But that of course brings me to the United States. While the Europeans (and Russians even more so) have always posed as a minor irritant in the side of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians (nothing says rebuke like a polite discussion with an Ambassador) as long as their objections remain dissociated from economic sanctions they have little bite in their mute bark. The Americans, on the other hand, are different. I’m particularly struck by Eli Yishai’s assertions that Israel is no “subsidiary” of another state.
Israel takes billions of dollars annually in economic and military aide from the Americans and does little in return. Israel’s inhumane actions towards the Palestinians have endangered the security of the United States enormously. As the financier of Israeli militarism the United States gets little but the unwanted association of their weapons technologies with civilian deaths.
In reality, the relationship between the US and Israel seems to be asymmetrical but not in the way you’d think. If the Israeli’s continue to defy Obama’s claim that the settlement of East Jerusalem is an impediment to peace it would seem that we’ve entered the era where Israeli influence over American policy is as powerful if not more than American influence over Israel’s.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Rumours of Hamas-Fatah Unity Government?

Rumours of a Hamas-Fatah Unity Government are circulating in the Middle East right now. Two currents are out there that would suggest that the bilateral talks taking place between the factions in Cairo will either fail or succeed. The first corresponds with a series of reports that both parties have been arresting rival activists in their respective territories. I'm not sure that this bodes well for the talks and frankly releasing the recently arrested as a "good will gesture" is a pretty hollow gesture.
Alternatively, I've read reports that the Egyptians have already coaxed an agreement out of the parties and are waiting until next week to announce it. I'm really unsure of how a Unity Government will play out with the new US administration. But this is certainly another major development in the Arab-Israeli issue for Obama to consider. I'm going to try and do a post on the recent political standoff between Netanyahu and Obama as the former has authorized the construction of new settlements north of Ramallah.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Israel to continue settlement expansion

Israel has given a giant middle finger to Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton by announcing that they will continue to expand their illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. This comes despite a clear demand from Obama and his Secretary of State in the last week on the suspension of construction taking place there. The Israeli government is trying to spin its policy as "natural growth" of existing settlements. This is, obviously, an attempt to distract the reality that whether its a new apartment bloc for 500 new settler families in Ariel (the largest of settlements with more than two hundred thousand residents) or a new settlement around East Jerusalem, the outcome of locating more colonists in what would ostensibly be the territory of a future independent Palestinian state is the same. That is, of course, if the Israeli government had any intention at all of seeing such a state exist.
It will be interesting to see how the US will respond to this pretty blatant incitement. Obama and Clinton made it clear well before this announcement by the Israelis, that the "natural growth" argument wasn't valid. Obama's demand of Netanyahu last week when they met in the White House was as unambiguous as you can get (ie. stop all settlement construction now). Some are saying that this might be the first true test of Obama's finesse in foreign policy (not withstanding, I guess, the calamity in AfPak - that new and ever so jargony term for Afghanistan-Pakistan). And while he has shown to be willing to take Israel to task - I suppose by making unambiguous statements on things like settlements - I'm not really convinced that he has many cards to play at this point.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Of note from the long weekend

From the weekend, AP has a lengthy piece on the overtures made by Hamas towards the West.
Juan Cole gives a quick (yet remarkably astute) rundown of the Obama-Netanyahu meetings that took place at the White House on Monday.
Obama wants Netanyahu to commit to supporting a two-state solution to be implemented in the near future. Netanyahu absolutely refused. He did say he is willing to "talk" to the Palestinians, though it is unclear why that would be a productive thing to do if he is die-hard against giving them the only thing they want.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Hilary Clinton in Jerusalem

The CBC posted an article to their website that I think is a perfect example of the Kafkaesque farce that Middle East "Peace" has become. Here is the link to the article, with it's headline reading "US supports creation of Palestinian State: Clinton" followed by the sub heading "Says US envoys bound for Syria, pledges 'unshakeable' support for Israel".
What bothers me so much is that this article (which in the CBC's defense is really only straight up reporting of Clinton's visit to Jerusalem, her statements made there, and the policies of the Obama and Netanyahu administartions) is that it's makes no logical sense. Her statements are full of non sequiters and meaningless aphorisms.
Let me give you a few examples:
First, you cannot have "unshakeable support for Israel" while simultaneously supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. Maybe some of us define "unshakable" differently, but the election of a Netanyahu-Lieberman government in Israel should, at the very least, make your feelings towards Israel a little “shaky”. You cannot simultaneously “push vigorously” for a Palestinian State and have unshakeable support for Israel when it’s population has elected a government that does not recognize the legitimacy or right of a Palestinian State to exist.
Second, the Obama administration, it suggests, might “clash” with the Netanyahu administration unless it pursues the continuation of a “Peace process” with the Palestinians. I’m fascinated to know how Obama and Clinton are going to judge the earnestness with which Netanyahu will approach Peace. The history of Peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians is well documented. If the supposed “doves” of Israeli governments past negotiated with the Palestinians in bad faith I can only imagine how Netanyahu will handle such talks. All the more so considering the charter of his own party promises never to concede anything to the Palestinians.
Lastly, I don’t think I need to say too much about the absolute hypocrisy of a statement like “We will work with the government of Israel that represents the democratic will of the people of Israel”. Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Palestinians that the US refuses to speak with has killed fewer Israelis in its “terrorist” attacks than the Israeli government has killed Palestinian children.
My prediction of where this is heading is, not surprisingly, pretty bleak. The Obama administration may in fact push a Netanyahu administration to the “peace table” for talks with the Palestinians. Obama and Clinton will claim a modicum of success in doing so and meanwhile Netanyahu and Lieberman will “negotiate” with obstinate Arabs all the while offering a nudge and a wink to the majority of Israelis who elected a government that refuses to recognize Palestine’s right to exist. Israel will continue the Occupation, Israel will continue to receive the vast majority of US foreign military aide, and Israel sit back and wait out the change in US administration. It’s already done so with eight previous Presidents.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The "PMs" and "the Kingmaker"

Here are a couple of fun facts about the men and women at center stage in the Israeli Elections:

Tzipi Livni was a Mossad agent. Her father, Eitan Livni, was Chief Operations Officer for Irgun. Don't know what Irgun is? Well Irgun is... how would I describe it... the Hamas of Israel? He had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for his participation in the "terrorist" murder of six people. Then he escaped from jail and after the State of Israel was created he was elected to the Knesset for the Likud party. But I'm sure Tzipi is nothing like her father. She has others commit murder for her. Plus, shes not in the Likud party anymore!

Binyamin Netanyahu went to both MIT and Harvard which is why his English is so perfectly accented to deliver encouraging speeches at AIPAC meetings. He is the author of two books on "combatting terrorism" which as an Israeli politician must be fairly short books since there is only "one way to deal with terrorists". And as I mentioned in an earlier post, he quit the Cabinet of Ariel Sharon over the closing of Israeli settlements and the "withdrawal" of the Israeli military in Gaza. Remember: he doesn't recognize the right of a Palestinian State to exist. A cheery thought in terms of any future "peace talks".

And then there is Avigdor Lieberman about whom I've written too much already. Apart from his fascism, don't forget that Lieberman, like many Israeli politicians, is currently being investigated for criminal acts. The investigation pertains to alleged bribes received by Lieberman over the development of the Oasis Casino outside of Jericho.

At least none of them are rapists (as far as we know) since thats the role of the President.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Likud will win...

With Kadima up one seat it looks like Livni's party will "win" the election. Two things make it unlikely that Livni will actually be the next Prime Minister though...

1. Unless she makes an agreement with either Likud (unlikely) or Yisrael Beiteinu she won't be able to garner enough seats in coalition to make her the next PM. I can't see Likud agreeing to any power sharing agreement where Netanyahu isn't the PM, especially when they only have one or two seats less than Kadima. The question then, is how far to the right is Israel's "centrist" party anyway? The only real option for them is Yisrael Beiteinu, Lieberman's fascist party. In which case, it still doesn't matter if it's Livni or Netanyahu.

2. Apparently the thousands of Israelis stationed on military bases around the country have yet to have their votes tallied. I've said it before: a nation of conscripts is bad for the collective psychology of any society, and one can only imagine what sort of voting mind frame a soldier is in. My guess: Likud will have overwhelming support. We'll see in the next few days.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Election Day in Israel

Today is election day in Israel.
I think this election will be one of the most important in Israel's history. Likud is ahead in the polls with a slight margin over Kadima. Yisrael Beitnu, Avigdor Lieberman's ultra-nationalist/fascist party sits in third. Here is Haaretz's latest poll figures. Keep in mind, governments in Israel are formed through coalitions. Haaretz's is referring to the two most likely coalitions: a right-wing, religious bloc, and a "centrist-left" bloc.
The final Haaretz poll before the election suggested a strong right-wing bloc, comprising Likud with 27 seats, Yisrael Beiteinu on 18 seats, ultra-Orthodox Shas with nine seats and a combined veteran party National Union and fledgling Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish home) on six seats. According to the poll, a center-left bloc would only be able to muster 54 seats, six short of the 61-seat threshold needed to form a majority coalition. This bloc would consist of Kadima with 25 seats, Labor on 14 seats, New Movemment-Meretz on 7 seats, Jewish-Arab party Hadash on three seats, the United Arab List-Ta'al on three seats and predominantly Arab Balad with two seats.
There are two things that make me say that this is the most important election in Israeli history since Begin's Likud party defeated Labour in 1977.
1. Yisrael Beiteinu is projected to win 18 seats. If you've been reading my posts from the last couple of weeks you know that Yisrael Beiteinu is Avigdor Lieberman's party. If this poll is accurate, fewer Israelis are going to vote for the founding "natural governing party" of the State of Israel (Labour), than they will for a party whose platform calls for ethnic cleansing. I think that this is a monumental shift in Israeli voting patterns. The emergence of Kadima as a centrist party alternative to Labour on the left and Likud on the right becomes a historical footnote when more people vote for a fascist party than the party of David Ben Gurion.
Lieberman has drawn comparisons to French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen for his open hatred of non-Jews. But his position that all non-Jewish Israeli citizens (meaning the Arab-Israelis who live in Israel, about 20% of the population) should have to take a Loyalty Oath is a first step in his preferred solution to the Palestinian question. Lieberman wants all Arab Israelis to be forcibly transferred to Jordan. Keep in mind that nearly all Arab-Israelis are descendants of Palestinian residents who did not leave or were not evicted in 1948 and have lived in Israel all of their lives, since non-Jews cannot immigrate and become Israeli citizens.
Mainstream media in North America, to their credit, have seen the proposition of the Loyalty Oath and made the Le Pen comparison. Of course, no one would dare make the inevitable next step and admit that a fascist proposing ethnic cleansing as a "solution" to the bothersome presence of a different race merits the comparison to another famous European racist.
2. This election is also significant because it comes on the heels of the Israeli military "offensive" in the Gaza Strip. Forget for a second, if you can, that the IDF killed or wounded 1500 children, and that most of the dozen Israeli casualties were soldiers killed by friendly fire. This was an all out assault on a civilian population in retaliation for rockets fired into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip.
And it was incredibly popular in Israel. So much so, it appears, that the parties that launched the assault, Kadima (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert) and Labour (Defense Minister Ehud Barak) that killed more than a thousand Palestinians, won't win the elections. It seems that what Israel needs is a government more eager to kill and to maintain the Occupation, not one that even maintains the pretense of a "Peace".
I'd like to say that this comes as an ironic counterpoint to the Barack Obama's election in the United States. I'd like to say that while the US, Israel's biggest fancier and unquestioning champion has chosen "Hope" as a political ideology, Israel has chosen the opposite. But the deep cynic in me doesn't think that this is true. If an Avigdor Lieberman didn't emerge at the height of suicide bombings in Israel, what has happened now, fifteen years later that sees a society prepared to elect a Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition?
The answer to my own question borrows from another Obama saying: "Yes, we can". Israel can have it all. Occupation, a non existent Palestinian body politic, economic prosperity, and maybe, one day, and Arab free Israel. And they can do this because so many of us, in other parts of the world, will let them.

Friday, February 06, 2009

On Gideon Levy's Netanyahu article

As I mentioned yesterday the prospect of Benjamin Netanyahu's impending election as Israel's Prime Minister is deeply disturbing. My disappointment hasn't exactly been alleviated by Gideon Levy's nihilistic call for Netanyahu's election. Levy wants Netanyahu to be elected so the "the veil will be lifted and the nation's true face revealed". The revelation would ostensibly be that Israel is a State founded upon the racist ideology of Zionism and that the majority of the population support the continuation of the brutal occupation of Palestine. That the idea of peace was a masquerade. That while Israel said it was "focused on peace and the end of the occupation", it did everything it could to "further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement".
So, with Netanyahu's election, Levy surmises that the world will finally be able to see Israel for what it is.
I like Gideon Levy quite a bit. I saw him deliver an impassioned talk in Montreal a few years ago without any notes. As one of the few Israelis reporting regularly from the Occupied Territories he's a rare voice for justice in a nation mostly deaf to the plight of their neighbours. A plight they've created.
But let me tell you why his article yesterday scares me.
In many ways, he's right. The election of Netanyahu will make Israel's contempt for a just peace with the Palestinians all the more apparent. What he doesn't mention is the strength of Avigdor Lieberman as well. Compared to Lieberman, Netanyahu looks like Israel's Barack Obama. Lieberman is the leader of the ultra-right wing Yisreal Beiteinu ("Israel is our Home"). His jump in the popular vote could make him, once again, a key player in the Knesset and secure him another big Cabinet position. As an advocate for the forcible transfer of Arabs from Israel (also known as "ethnic cleansing") his prominence in the Government should be another blow to the "masquerade" that Levy refers to.
But it won't.
What scares me most about Levy's hope for Netanyahu's election isn't that Netanyahu will make the Occupation more brutal (which it probably will). My fear isn't that his election reminds us that Israeli society, while not monolithic, is still by and large contemptuous of Palestinians (which it is). My fear is not that his election will lift the veil on the fraud that is the "peace process".
My fear is that the world will see this and still not care.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Gideon Levy: "Let Netanyahu Win"

Benjamin Netanyahu will apparently be Israel's next prime minister. There is, however, something encouraging about that fact. Netanyahu's election will free Israel from the burden of deception: If he can establish a right-wing government, the veil will be lifted and the nation's true face revealed to its citizens and the rest of the world, including Arab countries. Together with the world, we will see which direction we are facing and who we really are. The masquerade that has gone on for several years will finally come to an end.
Netanyahu's election is likely to bring the curtain down on the great fraud - the best show in town - the lie of "negotiations" and the injustice of the "peace process." Israel consistently claimed these acts proved the nation was focused on peace and the end of the occupation. All the while, it did everything it could to further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement.
For 16 years, we have been enamored with the peace process. We talk and talk, babble and prattle, and generally feel great about ourselves; meanwhile the settlements expand endlessly and Israel turns to the use of force at every possible opportunity, aside from a unilateral disengagement which did nothing to advance the cause of peace.
With the election of a prime ministerial candidate who speaks of "economic peace," the naked truth will finally emerge. If, however, Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak are elected, the self-delusion will simply continue. Livni herself is enamored with futile, useless and cowardly negotiations, and Barak has long abandoned the brave efforts he made in the past. The election of either will only perpetuate the vacuum. The world, including Washington, will breathe a sigh of relief that for once, Israel has elected a leadership that will pursue peace. But there is no chance of that happening.
The record of each of these candidates, and the positions they have championed until now, proves that what has been will continue to be. Livni and Barak will rush to every photo opportunity with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. The Americans and Europeans will be pleased, but nothing will come out of it other than the sowing of a few more illusions. We will move from war to war, uprising to uprising, settlement to settlement, and the world will continue to delude itself into thinking an agreement is within reach. Hamas will grow stronger, Abbas weaker and the last chance for peace will be irretrievably lost.
Netanyahu would offer something else. First, he is a faithful representative of an authentic "Israeli" view - an almost complete distrust of Arabs and the chance of reaching peace with them, mixed with condescension and dehumanization. Second, he will finally arouse the world's rage towards us, including that of the new U.S. administration. Sadly, this may be the only chance for the kind of dramatic change that is needed.
The Palestinian Authority, another mendacious facade, will finally collapse, and Israel will face the non-partner it has wanted and sought all these years. The world may not rush to embrace Netanyahu as it would the "moderates" - Livni or Barak, who have led Israel to more unnecessary wars than Netanyahu, the "extremist" - while the real difference between them is almost non-existent.
Lifting the veil will lead to a crisis situation, which unfortunately is the only one that can bring about change. We must hope that both Kadima and Labor do not join a Netanyahu government (regrettably, another futile hope), as Israel's exposure will then be that much starker. A government composed of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman will not, of course, have to deal with an opposition of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman, and may therefore behave differently once in power than one might expect. Have we mentioned Menachem Begin?
But even if Netanyahu is the same old Netanyahu, this will be an opportunity to place the right's policies under the microscope. Let's see him stand before Barack Obama and speak of the grotesque idea of "economic peace," or wage foreign or security policies according to his stated positions. Let's see him answer just what exactly his vision is for 20 to 30 years down the road.
In due course, his anticipated failure may just hasten an alternative route, on condition that Kadima and Labor do not join the government and bring us another year of fraud. The lemons may yet yield lemonade - maybe the establishment of a right-wing government will remove all of the masks for good. The alternative, known and expected by all, is far more ambiguous, dangerous and threatening.
So let Netanyahu win. There is no alternative at this point anyway.

Oh Bibi...

I heard on the radio this morning that polling for Isreal's elections next week is suggesting that Benjamin (Binyamin, "Bibi") Netanyahu will be Israel's next Prime Minister (again).

Here are the quick highlights of Netanyahu's career: Elected Likud leader in 1993, Prime Minister from 1996-1999, cabinet minister (Foreign, Finance) from 2002-2005, reelected Likud leader in August 2007.

But now the lowlights...

Netanyahu resigned from the Cabinet in August of 2005 after Sharon (then Likud leader) implemented his "Gaza Disengagement Plan".

Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that in terms of negotiations with the Palestinians he would 1. never negotiate with pre-conditions, 2. never negotiate over Jerusalem, 3. never surrender the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu opened a new exit for the Western Wall Tunnel in 1996, sparking riots that killed 70 Palestinians and 16 Israeli soldiers.

Netanyahu, like most Israeli politicians, has been implicated in corruption allegations.

Netanyahu does not support the creation of a Palestinian State (and thus, refuses to recognize their "right to exist").

As disturbing as the return of Israel's "right-wing" party to power is, it's not the thing that worries me most about next weeks elections. What is truly frightening is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of Israelis will vote for Avigdor Lieberman.