I am going to try to tie these two seemingly disjointed topics into one, because I feel they are relevant to one another.
The elections in Israel have just been concluded, with a right wing surge in the Knesset. It looks as if Benjamin Netanyahu will be the the next prime minister (as Yisrael Beitenu has thrown its weight behind him). This has been a time of political turmoil in Israel as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (of the centrist party Kadima) has resigned after charges of corruption (which have affected Ariel Sharon the former Likud Prime Minister, and a number of other Israeli politicians) were forwarded. There has also been the Gaza conflict, that for whatever reason, became a sudden issue (rockets have been falling for years). This operation was launched under the leadership of a centrist prime minister (Olmert) and Labor defense minister (former Prime Ministe Ehud Barak). No doubt this was an attempt to show their "toughness" (and revive their relevancy) on the Arabs prior to the election to fend off the right wing, which is perceived as tougher on Arabs and more concerned with security.
In the elections for Knesset seats, Kadima (centrist) came in first with 28 seats, Likud (conservative) with 27 seats, Yisrael Beitenu (very right wing) with 15 seats, Labor (liberal) with 13 seats, and Shas (Haredi Sephardi and Mizrachi Judaism) with 11. Following this there were minor parties with a few seats. The important thing to note here is the popularity enjoyed by Yisrael Beitenu (meaning "Israel is our home").
Yisrael Beitenu is headed by a man named Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman is a Jew of Russian origin who resides in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim (near Bethlehem). Lieberman, although having been involved in governments and cabinets before, has made a resurgence (he had resigned from some posts and been sacked from another), particularly after the Gaza conflict. Lieberman provides an interesting and controversial solution to Israel's Palestinian problem. He has suggested that Israel cede territory that is primarily inhabited by Arabs which lies adjacent to the West Bank, to PA control, and annex areas of the West Bank that contain large concentrations of Israeli settlers (notably areas around E. Jerusalem). He has also said that any Arabs who choose to remain in Israel should take a loyalty oath or lose their right to vote (but could remain as 'permanent residents' if they didn't). He has also said the same oath should be required of certain Haredi groups... one can only assume he is referring to the Neturei Karta, a group of Orthodox Jews that reject Zionism as blasphemous (only God can return the Jews to Israel). It is worth noting that the Neturei Karta sent representatives to the Holocaust "Review" Conference in Tehran (please don't confuse them with decent people).
This is a highly controversial solution because it requires ethnic gerrymandering and the illegal annexation of illegal settlements. It has drawn criticism from right and left. The left claim it is racist and anti-democratic, and the right claiming it is giving up parts of the land of Israel and any such action is wrong from a Zionist perspective. Lieberman has had run ins with MK's from Arab parties (Balad, etc...) who have accused him of racism. Not only have Arabs made this claim so has Ophir Pines-Paz who called him a racist after threatening to "take care of" Arab ministers (saying they would be tried for treason and executed for meetings with any hostile government or entity). Lieberman had also suggested that sweeping military actions be conducted in the face of any Palestinian aggression, saying that the IDF should bomb commercial centers in Ramallah and other West Bank towns. This drew a stern rebuke from President Shimon Peres.
I think that in the end, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions regarding its borders and citizens. I also think Lieberman has made an insightful statement , saying that peace negotiations are based on three false premises:
1) The Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the Middle East.
2) The conflict is territorial and not ideological.
3) The establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.
I think that Lieberman is substantively correct here. And because of this I made the first statement, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions. The Palestinian territories are disjointed and filled with a people that have no desire to see commitments entered into by their leaders (Oslo etc...) fulfilled. Hamas is too powerful and too destructive. Israel will have to define its final border on its own. Unfortunately, due to the building of the security barrier, this won't be on the international recognized 1967 border. The Israelis will end up annexing areas with large settler presence so as not to uproot them. This will draw international condemnation and further hurt the image of Israel. But based on past experience it may be the only possible solution. Palestinians still hold the view (by and large) that Palestine is from the "River to the Sea. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is a ubiquitous chant at rallies, and obviously leaves no room for Israel. Negotiations are a waste so long as the partner holds dear Israel's destruction.
The surge in popularity of both Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu (made up of secular as well as religious Russian Jews) is important because it is evidence of what happens when dealing with a Muslim population (in this instance, but any implacable group in theory) becomes impossible. The Israelis left Gaza and Hamas was elected, it took over violently and carried on in its policy of indiscriminate violence (rocket fire). Negotiations with the PA have failed. The PA has not followed through on even its most basic commitments from Oslo (the Israelis have also failed to dismantle settlements, or even stop their growth ). The situation is not progressing, solutions must be reached, and now unilaterally.
This relates to Europe because similar situations could occur. If the Muslim population in, say, Britain is not helped (or forced) to integrate, and it remains a separate, secluded, group then the rise of right wing politicians is inevitable. In fact this is already happening as the BNP has seen an increase in popularity. Muslims have created enclaves which are "no go" for infidels. The constant push down the one way street of compromise with Islam (Islam takes and never gives) is going to frustrate citizens who don't want Shariah courts, bans on alcohol, and violent mob behavior every time a Muslim sensitivity is offended. Europe take heed, end the appeasement or get a Euro version of Yisrael Beitenu.
The elections in Israel have just been concluded, with a right wing surge in the Knesset. It looks as if Benjamin Netanyahu will be the the next prime minister (as Yisrael Beitenu has thrown its weight behind him). This has been a time of political turmoil in Israel as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (of the centrist party Kadima) has resigned after charges of corruption (which have affected Ariel Sharon the former Likud Prime Minister, and a number of other Israeli politicians) were forwarded. There has also been the Gaza conflict, that for whatever reason, became a sudden issue (rockets have been falling for years). This operation was launched under the leadership of a centrist prime minister (Olmert) and Labor defense minister (former Prime Ministe Ehud Barak). No doubt this was an attempt to show their "toughness" (and revive their relevancy) on the Arabs prior to the election to fend off the right wing, which is perceived as tougher on Arabs and more concerned with security.
In the elections for Knesset seats, Kadima (centrist) came in first with 28 seats, Likud (conservative) with 27 seats, Yisrael Beitenu (very right wing) with 15 seats, Labor (liberal) with 13 seats, and Shas (Haredi Sephardi and Mizrachi Judaism) with 11. Following this there were minor parties with a few seats. The important thing to note here is the popularity enjoyed by Yisrael Beitenu (meaning "Israel is our home").
Yisrael Beitenu is headed by a man named Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman is a Jew of Russian origin who resides in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim (near Bethlehem). Lieberman, although having been involved in governments and cabinets before, has made a resurgence (he had resigned from some posts and been sacked from another), particularly after the Gaza conflict. Lieberman provides an interesting and controversial solution to Israel's Palestinian problem. He has suggested that Israel cede territory that is primarily inhabited by Arabs which lies adjacent to the West Bank, to PA control, and annex areas of the West Bank that contain large concentrations of Israeli settlers (notably areas around E. Jerusalem). He has also said that any Arabs who choose to remain in Israel should take a loyalty oath or lose their right to vote (but could remain as 'permanent residents' if they didn't). He has also said the same oath should be required of certain Haredi groups... one can only assume he is referring to the Neturei Karta, a group of Orthodox Jews that reject Zionism as blasphemous (only God can return the Jews to Israel). It is worth noting that the Neturei Karta sent representatives to the Holocaust "Review" Conference in Tehran (please don't confuse them with decent people).
This is a highly controversial solution because it requires ethnic gerrymandering and the illegal annexation of illegal settlements. It has drawn criticism from right and left. The left claim it is racist and anti-democratic, and the right claiming it is giving up parts of the land of Israel and any such action is wrong from a Zionist perspective. Lieberman has had run ins with MK's from Arab parties (Balad, etc...) who have accused him of racism. Not only have Arabs made this claim so has Ophir Pines-Paz who called him a racist after threatening to "take care of" Arab ministers (saying they would be tried for treason and executed for meetings with any hostile government or entity). Lieberman had also suggested that sweeping military actions be conducted in the face of any Palestinian aggression, saying that the IDF should bomb commercial centers in Ramallah and other West Bank towns. This drew a stern rebuke from President Shimon Peres.
I think that in the end, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions regarding its borders and citizens. I also think Lieberman has made an insightful statement , saying that peace negotiations are based on three false premises:
1) The Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the Middle East.
2) The conflict is territorial and not ideological.
3) The establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.
I think that Lieberman is substantively correct here. And because of this I made the first statement, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions. The Palestinian territories are disjointed and filled with a people that have no desire to see commitments entered into by their leaders (Oslo etc...) fulfilled. Hamas is too powerful and too destructive. Israel will have to define its final border on its own. Unfortunately, due to the building of the security barrier, this won't be on the international recognized 1967 border. The Israelis will end up annexing areas with large settler presence so as not to uproot them. This will draw international condemnation and further hurt the image of Israel. But based on past experience it may be the only possible solution. Palestinians still hold the view (by and large) that Palestine is from the "River to the Sea. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is a ubiquitous chant at rallies, and obviously leaves no room for Israel. Negotiations are a waste so long as the partner holds dear Israel's destruction.
The surge in popularity of both Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu (made up of secular as well as religious Russian Jews) is important because it is evidence of what happens when dealing with a Muslim population (in this instance, but any implacable group in theory) becomes impossible. The Israelis left Gaza and Hamas was elected, it took over violently and carried on in its policy of indiscriminate violence (rocket fire). Negotiations with the PA have failed. The PA has not followed through on even its most basic commitments from Oslo (the Israelis have also failed to dismantle settlements, or even stop their growth ). The situation is not progressing, solutions must be reached, and now unilaterally.
This relates to Europe because similar situations could occur. If the Muslim population in, say, Britain is not helped (or forced) to integrate, and it remains a separate, secluded, group then the rise of right wing politicians is inevitable. In fact this is already happening as the BNP has seen an increase in popularity. Muslims have created enclaves which are "no go" for infidels. The constant push down the one way street of compromise with Islam (Islam takes and never gives) is going to frustrate citizens who don't want Shariah courts, bans on alcohol, and violent mob behavior every time a Muslim sensitivity is offended. Europe take heed, end the appeasement or get a Euro version of Yisrael Beitenu.
Posts
3 comments:
It’s only been very recent that I’ve taken an interest in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I say only recent because I’ve been watching this tit for tat volley for almost 4 decades and am just sick of it. Same old. Same old. But recently I’ve taken Israel’s side because I realize now how interconnected it is with the whole International Jihadi movement. I actually don’t think there is a solution to this situation (unless the religion of Peace is somehow discredited which hopefully will happen some day) but agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. Once again Al a very informative post.
Philosowizer,
The criticisms of Israel surround first its creation, second its continuing occupation, and third its future. First, state building is a nasty business, and if we look at the long history of the nation state we see that more often than not forging a state, democratic or otherwise, is a messy thing. Add in the fact that the Jews felt they had nowhere to go and had endured a genocide, and the whole thing becomes more clear. Second, the continuing occupation is illegal and wrong, Israel should leave, but it won't. It will never leave the high ground around Jerusalem as the strategic value is so great. The settlements were created to provide strategic depth to a quite narrow Israel (13 miles wide at places). Third, the future is uncertain, the Arabs outbreed the Jews, by a large margin. The demographic problem will continue to rear its head and will demand a solution.
And just why should Israel leave? Most Israelis were born after the formation of Israel. If one holds that it should be possible to take away Israel's land because the Palestinian's were there before, you can reason all the way back to Iudea and beyond, there's no escaping it.
And then there is the fact that Israel is a relatively normal country, even if it has been at war for decades. I wonder if my home country would still look quite so civilized after that. Morally, I strongly support Israel.
Back to the article.
1) The Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the Middle East.
2) The conflict is territorial and not ideological.
3) The establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.
Now, I'm not very well versed in recent history, but I think these require a bit of elaboration. If the conflict isn't the root cause of instability, then what is it? If Israel hadn't been formed, wouldn't we have had a stable Middle-East? Perhaps an oppressive, backward, women-raping Middle East (just so you know that I'm not on their side) but stable nonetheless? And isn't territory at least part of the conflict, if only because of the holy claims both parties lay on it? Can't argue with you on the third point though.
Now, I know it's quite possible I'm wrong to some extent, but if so I'd like to hear why from someone who knows these things.
Post a Comment