Jewish and anti-Israel: antisemtism?

But amidst the antisemitic barrage of hate speech and hyperbole, lies legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel – her policies, the domestic and social problems, as well as her relationship with immediate neighbours. Israel is generally accepted as ‘The Jewish collective’ – the single most identifiable symbol of Judaism across the world, so when Israel is criticized legitimately, this can often be misconstrued as anti-zionism or even anti-semitism. What I wish to focus on however, is the curious (and growing unfortunately) phenomena of Jewish anti-zionism in the wider context of Jewish voices criticizing Israel from the Diaspora. Make no mistake, Jews can be antisemites as well as anybody else (Pablo Christiani and Shlomo Sand instantly come to mind), and many of the voices spearheading the attack against Israel from college campuses across America and Australia, are in fact Jewish. The question is – what motivates so many Jews to rise up against their homeland and side with her enemies?

This is a question that I posed to international human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler when he came to speak to us at school. Is it that because so many Jewish children are raised on a steady diet of social justice, they feel compelled to interpret Israel’s actions as a gross injustice? His answer was insightful and interesting. Many of these Jewish anti-zionists have little or no connection to their heritage, and their campaign against Israel is often misguided, because they are ignorant of the facts on the ground. They are perceived by others to have more legitimacy in this issue because they are ‘Jewish’ – and Israel is ‘the Jewish state’ , yet ironically, the only time they publicly display or feel connected to their ‘Jewishness’ is when attacking Israel or siding with antisemites.

As an example, he reminded us that many of the Soviet Union’s most vociferous supporters were (yep, you guessed it) misguided Jews. Despite the fact that 2 million Jews were caged within the totalitarian Stalinist confines of institutionalized discrimination, and that students and mothers were marching on the streets of London, New York and Johannesburg demanding the freedom of Soviet Jewry – overzealous Jewish communists in the West continued to voice their support for the regime: A regime that denuded millions of Jews of their identity and still insisted that the word “Jew” was printed on their passports, so that they would never forget what they were. Today, a growing number of “Jewish communists” wage a similar, misguided battle. The simple fact that their parents are Jewish instantly makes them “experts” – yet they arrive on campus with little or no idea about Israel, Jewish history, culture or tradition. As little as 25% of American Jews have visited Israel. The number that attend Jewish day schools or youth groups is even lower. Every second Jew intermarries. Chelsea Clinton’s marriage to Marc Mezvinsky was hailed as proof that the golden age of the Jews of America is at it’s peak – however in another age such a marriage would have been widely shunned and criticized.

At the risk of calling Jewish anti-zionists ‘traitors’, I have to admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about being so quick to dismiss them as loonies or useful idiots. On the one hand, I share many disagreements with them. On the other, I’m proud that there is such a wide diversity of thoughts and opinions within the Jewish community. These people may be the ‘black-sheep’ of the family, but they’re part of the family nonetheless. I see this growing trend of anti-Israel radicalization amongst Jewish youth as synonymous with the distortion and deterioration of left-wing politics – which historically assumed support for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. An example is the Guardian newspaper which initially voiced support for Zionism, only to become infected with rabid Arabism over the course of the century.

Indeed, Jews have historically aligned themselves with the left side of politics. The left demanded Jewish emancipation in Europe during the 19th century. Jewish women spearheaded the fight for universal suffrage and feminism. The Bund, Trotsky and the Mensheviks lobbied to bring down the Czar in Russia, and create an egalitarian socialist utopia for all citizens. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched hand in hand with Martin Luther King at the height of the civil rights movement. These are all examples of Jews and left-wing politics working hand in hand to achieve universal human rights and freedom for all. The bad news, is that for the past 30 years, classic left-wing politics has all but disappeared, only to be replaced with a hollow shell of fanatical, ignorant, youth claiming immediate expertise on the Israeli-Arab conflict after reading Wikipedia.

This is essentially what Jewish youth face on university campuses across the Western world. They are immediately receptive to any injustice: Tibet, Darfur, The Congo. They hear soundbites on the Israeli-Arab conflict for the first time, and the magical, idealized picture of the Jewish paradise shatters: Israel isn’t the heroic wonderland of their childhood, but an aggressor fighting in their name! Yet rather than researching about the conflict in-depth to discover its root causes: the existential threat Israel faces on a daily basis – and the democratic and human rights afforded there as the only in the entire region – they immediately jump onto the bandwagon of anti-zionism, further propagating the distorted image of Israel as the chief violator of human rights in the entire world. This view is further compounded by anti-zionist academia and faculty on Israeli, American and European campuses – further forcing brutal images down unsuspecting throats. This is at least one of the principle causes of secular Jewish anti-Zionism. Jewish anti-Zionism on religious grounds from groups such as Neturei Karta demands a separate article altogether, however, they too seek to achieve the same outcome: the destruction of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.

The claim that ‘all critiques of Israel are antisemitic’ is patently false and ignorant, because that would mean that Israel is the #1 most antisemitic country on Earth. There are no secrets in Israel. The Hebrew press uncovers everything and presents the damning allegations to the Israeli public. Does this make Israeli journalists writing in Hebrew for an Israeli audience antisemitic? Of course not! Every one of Israel’s 6 million Jews has something against the government and its policies: the despicable education system, unnecessary bureaucracy, the communities in ‘the territories’ (West Bank), final status on Jerusalem, and so forth. Their anger is neither antisemitic nor anti-Zionism – it is rather constructive criticism by those who love the country so much that they choose to live there. From this we can deduce the yardstick between legitimate criticism of Israel by Jews in the diaspora: if the criticism is directed to a distinctly Israeli audience, then it is most likely constructive criticism, appealing to voters to rectify the problems in their society. If the criticism is directed at a non-Jewish or a hostile audience, then the criticism, whether legitimate or hateful, instantly is construed as anti-Zionism.

Jewish refusenik turned head-of-the-Jewish-Agency-for-Israel, Natan Sharansky presented the famous three D’s to determine whether criticism of Israel is in fact antisemitic:

1. Demonization: portraying Israel as the single worst violator of human rights in the world and the embodiment of evil. This includes claiming that Palestinians are the ‘new Jews’ or that the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are now perpetrating a new Holocaust upon Arabs living in the vicinity.

2. Double Standards: ignoring other far more serious crimes committed worldwide by focusing solely on Israel and her imperfections, turning a blind eye to Arab incitement and terrorism, and selectively bemoaning the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, whilst ignoring Israeli deaths at the hands of Hamas, Hezzbollah and the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade.

3. Delegitimization: inferring that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. This includes incorrectly portraying Israel as a vestige of colonialism or claiming that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’. Other examples include using selective quotations from Jewish texts such as The Talmud or Shulchan Aruch to support an anti-Israel agenda. Additionally, citing being ‘Jewish’ as conferring some type of authority to speak legitimately on behalf of other Jews in order to denigrate Israel is antisemitic.

I have a confession to make: I too have many qualms about the Israeli government and the path the country is taking. The correct place for me to air these complaints is in Hebrew on an Israeli newsite – to those who are receptive to such criticism and have the voting right to change the situation. Attacking Israel on non-Israeli sites or arenas is easily misread as anti-zionism and gives fuel for neo-nazis, Islamists and antisemites who don’t understand the nuanced and complicated problems within Israeli society. It is irrelevant that I’m Jewish, that I’m moving to Israel in a couple of months, or that I plan to enlist in the IDF: If my criticism breaks one of the three D’s or is directed at the wrong audience – then I too am guilty of antisemitism, and I hope that I am the first to recognize this. I remember talking to an elderly Hungarian Jew on our way back from a Passover Seder at night. I asked him why he decided to leave Israel, and what his views are on the country in general. He gave me a sharp stare, and then cooled off a bit: “I could tell you,” he answered me, “but I’m here now, not there. I don’t have to endure the hardships of living in Israel. I have no right to speak out against them.” And then we continued on in silence through the deserted streets and flickering light lamps – his droll, heretical wink giving me the answer that I was looking and hoping for.

But to some, even giving “The Zionist entity” a name, gives it the legitimacy and the attention that it does not deserve. So the next time you attend a terror-fest rally on the streets of Gaza city, make sure that you are well equipped with the many variants to describe ‘the so-called government of the so-called state.’ Indeed, to those that find out that the “Zionist entity” actually exists – and has a name (it is known colloquially by infidels as “Israel” a.k.a The “Jewish” state), it might come down as a bit of a shock, with symptoms including denial, anger, rage and eventually uncontrolled explosions in Tel Aviv kindergartens and buses.

Even Hezbollah has caught on to the trend on it’s official website, because apparently, typing out “The Zionist entity” every second sentence is too cumbersome and tiring – even for a Lebanese dhimmi with a gun to his head. According to the latest piece of propaganda verifiable evidence nicely littered with a touch of irony and scare quotes:

The list seemed to be part of a growing effort by activists, both in “Israel” and abroad, to pursue the pressing of war crime charges under the principle of universal jurisdiction against “Israeli” soldiers who participated in the attack. The three-week offensive launched by “Israel” in December 2008 resulted in the killings of about 1,400 Gazans. The disclosure of the troops’ details also appeared to expose the “Israeli” military’s growing difficulty in restricting such information from being revealed in the internet era, despite the army’s technology-savvy image. Data such as soldiers’ home addresses is not typically readily available to the public in “Israel”.

The term “Israel” was reported only 24 times in this piece, which is a pretty weak effort for Hezzbollah, considering that it managed to kill twice that number of innocent civilians in the Second Lebanon War. This article also bespeaks a tacit ‘understanding’ between those who realize that Israel exists, but that religiously, ideologically and ideally it doesn’t (wink-wink-nudge-nudge), which can often lead to confusing debates at Palestinian reconciliation meetings (“Isra-what?” I thought we were discussing *cue evil laugh* “The Zionist entity”).

Indeed, all of this innuendo not only confuses the faithful everywhere, but it can also cause major international relations slip ups. The sea surrounding “The Zionist Entity” has mysteriously become a graveyard for peace-loving humanitarian flotillas, because well, – it doesn’t appear on any maps. It turns outIHH was trying to deliver aid to the needy ‘people of Gaza’ who are being oppressed by an entity that doesn’t actually exist according to them.

Other grievances which require urgent international aid include: cigarettes tainted with pig blood, chimps running amok, and the Zionist sex gum of death:

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Hamas suspects that Israeli intelligence services are supplying its Gaza Strip stronghold with chewing gum that boosts the sex drive in order to “corrupt the young,” an official said on Tuesday.

Postage stamps: the root cause of the conflict?

Whilst “The entity’s” list of crimes are numerous: (defying the Accounting entity principle is considered by Accountants as the worst), the term “The Zionist entity” has it’s roots in the burgeoning Arab nationalist movement of the 20s, in which Arab leaders refused to recognize a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East: not even the “size of a postage stamp.” In a twist of irony, Israel’s current landmass of 20770 square kilometers, although the size of tiny New Jersey, can still fit 8.31 quadrillion postage stamps (400 postage stamps per square meter x 1sq km x20770). That means that “Israel” has a success rate of 8308000000000%: pretty impressive for any “entity”.

According to many in the Arab world, the terms “Zionist” and “Jew” are interchangeable. So when it comes to post-Khartoum recognition of the “so-called”, “Jewish” state, one wonders what all the fuss is about? Efraim Karsh hits the nail on the head with his analysis:

“This pervasive denigration of Jews has been accompanied by a systematic denial of the Jewish state’s legitimacy by both the PA and the PLO. Israel is often referred to by the pejorative phrase, ‘the Zionist entity.’ Israel is glaringly absent from Palestinian maps, which portray its territory as part of a ‘Greater Palestine,’ from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.”

So the “Zionist Entity” is a byproduct of the lunatic hallucinations of cave-dwelling, turban-clad, Osamas – reliving their delusions of grandeur with a video camera and a loyal fan-base of robot jihadists – meekly awaiting 72 prizes in heaven. Because in reality, Zionism has been tainted to the extent that it is no longer considered a movement to return the Jewish people to their homeland, but a pejorative to describe everything that is bad in the Arab world. How long before the term ‘Zionist’ is dropped from the “The Zionist entity” – so that one day they will wail “The entity!” and everyone will know what the hell they’re talking about. It seems like “The entity” is here to stay, and many will have a hard time reconciling this fact with their warped worldview. In the mean time, those living inside “the Entity” go on with their lives, living, breathing and building: one postage stamp at a time.

40+ people have perished so far in the fires

Browsing through the talkbacks and user commentaries in Haaretz makes my blood boil, due to the plethora of insensitive, heartless comments that pour into Israel’s resident liberal, leftist newspaper. This truly exposes Haaretz as a news source that caters solely to appease ignorant lefties, radical Islamists and their supporters, and haters of Israel everywhere. Indeed, Haaretz has the lowest native readership of any Israeli newspaper (6.6% circulation), and its audience is primarily European/Arab. That would explain the fact, that despite the grief and sadness of a nation in mourning, Haaretz’s serial talkbackers display nothing but antisemitic, knee jerk reactions – most of which are overwhelmingly sarcastic or malicious.

Nothing else can explain comments such as:

zayed | 02.12.10 | 19:23

what can IDF do is burning or killing but they cant put out fire
Maureen Ann| 02.12.10|19:41

Settlers … playing with matches again?
Joseph| 02.12.10| 19:54

This is Hashem’s anger at Israel over their refusal to make peace with the Palestinians and through the continued the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from E. Jerusalem and for supporting land theft by extremist Jews in the West Bank

Many of these commentators are repeat offenders who thrive off inflammatory reactions designed to hurt and anger. This is not about politics, or whether you support Israel or not. Reaching out to the victims of a natural disaster is common human decency, and these talkbackers, emboldened by the anonymity of the internet are given a free pass to spew out their drivel into the public domain. Had someone made similar comments about the victims of the Victorian bushfires, the reactions would have been swift and unanimous: this is not to be tolerated. Instead, the plethora of garbage staining Haaretz’s credibility is left bare on the website for the world to see, to comment upon, and to applaud. One only needs to note that Maureen Ann’s comment received 123 ‘thumbs up’ – meaning 123 individual users of Haaretz read her comment, and felt the need to applaud her in a show of merciless solidarity with her warped worldview.

I surf websites like Haaretz to gain a balanced perspective on Middle East affairs covered from multiple viewpoints: everything from Turkey’s Hurriyet, to Qatar’s Al Jazeera, to Israel’s Haaretz and every possible political stance covered in between. Whilst antisemitic vitriol is to be expected on the former two newsites, nothing can prepare me for the callousness of the talkbacks on Israeli English websites. This ruthless phenomenon regarding Israel is undoubtedly sui generis. No other country is treated like this. For example, one can have disagreements with Australia’s foreign policy regarding ‘boat people’ and the wave of illegal immigration. One can protest Australia’s involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and one can sneer in disgust at outbursts of racism on our city streets, but when it came time to assist the victims of the Victorian bushfires, hearts went out all over the world, and separate issues were temporarily put aside in favour of a unified, common goal: bushfire relief.

Israel however, stands alone to endure the pain of the tragedy, as well as bulwark of negative public opinion. My heart goes out to the victims, and I truly hope these vile talkbackers can reach out to their fellow human beings in need, rather than cast an entire people as pariahs undeserving of sympathy or assistance. This is ultimately their goal: dehumanization of Israelis followed by a justification for the fires. You don’t have to be pro-Israel to recognize this for what it is: antisemitism. We can sit down, Habibi and have a frank discussion on Israel’s policies over a cup of Turkish coffee any other day – but today, as the State of Israel wakes up to the news of this unprecedented calamity, the only correct reaction is to show support, or to keep your mouth shut.

As for Haaretz, I think, that following a string of such offenses as well as moderator decisions to publish such comments, it is in order to call for a boycott. After all, according to the stats, 93.4% of Israelis agree with me, and will be spending the morning reaching out to the victims, rather than dealing with online abuse.

Despite the fierce opposition, Cagaptay offered a set of pragmatic reasons why Europe needs to keep a hold of this Anatolian tiger. For one thing, Turkey is the second-largest NATO member and has the seventh largest economy in Europe, which is forecast to grow by 5% in 2011. According to the OECD, Turkey will be one of the three fastest growing economies in the world until 2017.  If Turkey is to remain a steady partner for the west, then it is critical that EU accession talks continue, and produce results, even if they seem negligible. It is of strategic necessity. Recently Turkey’s Chief Negotiator for EU talks, Egemen Bagis warned “If the European Union decides to freeze accession talks with Turkey, it will be a serious mistake.”

Unfortunately there is a palpable fear, though rarely voiced, within European public opinion of letting the Turks enter. For many Europeans, it is difficult to dispel the image that Turks are simply construction workers and kebab shop owners. Leading European leaders have been instrumental in stalling accession talks. French President Nicolas Sarkozy insists that there is no place within Europe’s borders for Turkey and prefers a privileged partnership, rather than granting full membership.

In Turkey, the AK party under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is steering the country away from its Kemalist roots. When he was first elected in 2002, the AKP announced that it was no longer an Islamist party. However eight years on, the party has worked hard to undermine the position of the secular elite, i.e. the military, the media and pro-opposition business leaders. During the recent constitutional referendum, 58% of the country voted in favour of granting the government a freer hand in selecting judicial appointees. Turkey’s military, which is the protector of Ataturk’s secularist legacy, had its wings clipped in February when seven officers were jailed for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government. Media groups are also under assault. Dogan, the owner of the newspaper Milliyet, was given a $3.3 billion tax fine, for reporting that the AKP was linked to a German Islamist charity. Free Speech is not actively encouraged. Following the killing of the Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink, the European Court of Human Rights judged Turkey to be failing in its role to protect and facilitate those who freely express themselves. It is not surprising that a significant portion of Turkish society is unhappy with the way the AKP and Erdogan are leading the country.  Pro-EU Turks feel trapped in limbo, due to the mixed messages emanating from Brussels. Fortunately the country has a vibrant civil society, an educated middle class, and if the estimates are true, the Turkish government will not have to depend on EU cash injections in the coming years to support its economy.  It is be up to the new leader of the People’s Republican Party (CHP), Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, to prove to European decision makers that there are millions of Turks who are ready to commit to the reforms proscribed by the Copenhagen criteria.

The opposition needs to have their support bolstered, with the knowledge that the EU has not washed its hands of Turkey. If that is the case, the present government will have little incentive to pretend that accession still matter. Since 2005, much of the pro-EU rhetoric has disappeared, and Erdogan has embraced an authoritarian stance which is alarming to most Europeans. Israeli-Turkish relations have suffered, the government provides succor to Iran and there are many pundits who believe that the country has turned its back on accession altogether. An AKP Turkey is bound to continue this way unless the EU offers a counter weight and proves it has not given up on Turkey.

Is this obstructionism or a genuine desire for peace? Surely mutual recognition is at the heart of any final settlement. But in 1993 the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exists, so why this demand that it be recognized as the nation state of the Jewish people?

Well, it comes down to the refugee issue and the future status of the Arabs in Israel. By declaring Israel the nation state of the Jewish people, this puts to bed the question of a mass-return of Palestinian refugees from the wars of 1948 and 1967. Somewhere between 600,000 and 900,000 refugees left in 1948, either voluntarily, encouraged by their leaders, or forcefully expelled by the newly formed IDF. Today, the Palestinians want between 3 and 5 million “refugees to return” to Israel proper. What does that spell? The end of a Jewish state. National suicide is obviously anathema to the Israeli negotiators.

Likewise by recognizing Israel’s status, and the land of “Israel proper” (pre-67 borders), as the nation state of the Jewish people, it renders any more claims to land within Israel as null and void. The Arabs in the Galilee, the Negev (and indeed across Israel) will be a protected minority in a democracy (as they are today). By determining that the agreed borders are final, and that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, Netanyahu wishes to ensure that in 10 or 20 years time, the large population blocs of Arabs – in both the Negev and Galilee – cannot just decide to declare autonomy or join a future state of Palestine.

Thus true mutual recognition of each other’s legitimate national rights lies at the very heart of conflict resolution. Palestine will be the nation state of the Palestinian people, Israel the nation state of the Jewish people – and any national minority within those states will have the protection of the rule of law, as in a proper functioning democracy. Easy? No?

Here are some arguments for and against a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

For Argument:

• Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Rafsanjani (former president and internationally recognized ‘moderate’) has called Israel a “one bomb state”. Jews take genocidal threats very seriously.

• Sanctions don’t work, and the four rounds of UN, plus addition EU and US led sanctions don’t appear to be any difficult.

• Radical Islam, be it Sunni or Shia’ has been willing to sacrifice martyrs for a greater ‘jihadi’ goal.

• Iran would respond to any attack on its territory with rockets on Israel from Tehran, as well its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Southern Lebanon respectively. Israel would likely suffer thousands of casualties. However, as the argument goes, this ‘relatively small loss’ is nothing compared to the nuclear holocaust that is supposedly on the cards.

• Destroying the nuclear facilities would signal a grave failure for Ahmadinejad and his regime. This embarrassment could well undermine the stability of the Iranian regime, igniting potentially ‘green flames’ that are still burning from the fraudulent election results of last year. Political upheaval in Iran leading to a more moderate democratic regime would certainly be a positive step for the region.

• Iran cannot be allowed to gain nuclear weapons, not only because of the threat to Israel. Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf States do not fancy a nuclear Persian superpower on their doorstep any more than Israel. A nuclear Iran would become the regional hegemon, threatening (albeit passively) all those Sunni nations in its vicinity. This triggers a chain reaction: Nuclear proliferation throughout the region. Nuclear devices would start falling into the hands of extremely unstable regimes, regimes that often support Wahhabists or regimes which simply do not have the ability to stop them. The ‘briefcase bomb’ scares Europeans, Americans and Israelis alike. If Israel can stop this chain reaction with a military strike, they might just be allowed to do it.

Against Argument:

• Israel can’t do this without America’s help. Permission to fly over Saudi Arabia and Iraq as well as American support fighters and mid-flight refueling render a unilateral Osirak style (Iraq 1981) strike extremely unlikely. The current tension between the Israeli and American administrations would almost certainly deter any unilateral steps. Bibi would need Obama’s green light. Any attack without this acquiescence and Ahmadinejad’s dream of irreparable damage between the ‘big Satan’ and ‘little Satan’ has the potential of being realized.

• A strike on Iran is the only ‘sure-fire’ way of guaranteeing rockets on Israel (Hezbollah alone has over 50,000 rockets sitting pretty, aimed at the Jewish state right now). A strike on Iran today, means a war on three fronts for Israel tomorrow (in fact, it would probably arrive later today!).

• A strike on Iran could potentially unite the Iranian people behind the regime through a potent mixture of xenophobia and jingoism. • What are the chances that Iran would actually nuke Israel? o They would be guaranteed a reprisal, either from America’s nuclear arsenal or from Israel’s ‘non-existent’ nuclear-tipped warheads. Would Ahmadinejad or even the Ayatollah’s be ready to risk the deaths of thousands (or potentially hundreds of thousands) of their own citizens to attack Israel?

o Just how “irrational are is the Iranian leadership”? Stalin and Mao, who killed millions of their own people sat on nuclear weapons for years and did not use them. Surely Ahmadinejad’s calls are nothing more than hot air?

o Would Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons when it would mean leaving parts of the holy Islamic soil (as they see it) uninhabitable because of the nuclear fall out?

o Would Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons and risk killing thousands of Palestinians (and Israeli Arab civilians) in the process? Attack or not-to-attack, that is the question!

What would you do if you were Mr. Netanyahu?

In the last week we have witnessed decrees for hanging, stoning and
lashes in Iran. Women, beaten to a pulp for showing their faces in
public. Down the road, a 49 year old Sri Lankan domestic worker was
brutalized with nails and metal objects being hammered into her body
by her Saudi employers.

In Saudi Arabia today, women have few property rights, they must be
accompanied to medical check ups by male relatives, they are not even
allowed to drive. Religious minorities are persecuted left right and
center. In these two countries – one Shi’a and the other Sunni
–religious freedoms do not exist, homosexuals receive the death
penalty, women are second class citizens, freedom expression and press
is limited to those in power and political opposition is silenced and
often brutally repressed.

It is for these reasons that it pains me to see ‘left-leaning’
presidents legitimizing, embracing and doing business (lots of it!)
with these types of regimes. Whether it be Lula Da Silva’s perpetual
hugging and embracing of Ahmadinejad, or even Obama’s bowing down to
King Abdullah, this passive acceptance of gross human rights
violations (and their violators) by so called liberals must end. “But
what about energy needs?” I hear you cry! Anne Korin’s fantastic read
Turning Oil Into Salt might just provide the answers…

My last blog was somewhat pessimistic, so I thought I’d present another side of the coin.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has often said that, unlike a left-wing PM, if he signs a peace treaty, he’ll take 80% of the country with him. This typically Bibi hubris, however, has some historical precedents that undermine the all-out skepticism (witnessed in my last blog) flying around the international media. We have indeed been shocked from the right in the past.

Menahem Begin, former leader of the Irgun and ‘righter than right’ in terms of the Israeli political spectrum, made peace with Egypt. Within those accords he recognized the principle of Palestinian autonomy, an idea that would not be part of the consensus in Israel for another two decades. In Ariel Sharon’s last election triumph, he lauded his opponent Amram Mitzna from the Labour party, who “naively” proposed a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip. Sharon, the father of the settlement movement who ran on a platform of no withdrawals and no concessions, uprooted every Jew from the Gaza strip, including all the Israeli military facilities in 2005. Most recently, Ehud Olmert, who up until a few years before had been situated firmly in the hawkish wing of the Likud party, offered well over 90% of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and – most importantly – East Jerusalem to President Abbas in late 2008.

Even in the last year we have witnessed Bibi flipflopping (controlled flexibility or weak pacification?) in the face American pressure on his left and his coalition on the right. Netanyahu had promised his base that he would not be the Prime Minster to create a Palestinian State. His numerous books refer to the grave dangers of a Palestinian State, over and over again. YET, after just a few months in power,mm his “economic peace” from the campaign had already become “two states for two peoples”. Likewise, his government took the unprecedented step of a ten months building freeze on home construction in the West Bank. Will the coming months show us the flexible, pragmatic side of Netanyahu? Will he be able to stand in the face of his coalition and be the next Begin or even Sharon? Despite the opening of talks on September 2nd, the date for our diaries’ is without a doubt September the 26th. This date paradoxically, will show us all whether a continued freeze on building can thaw relations between the parties, or whether continued construction will lead to the instant destruction of Obama’s beloved peace talks.

The headlines this morning read “Palestinians to Announce Renewal of Direct Talks Within Days”. Really?

Why are we kidding ourselves? Prime Minister Netanyahu has been calling for these talks since he came into office. The Americans have cajoled gesture upon gesture from the Israelis in order to lure the Palestinians to the table. Netanyahu’s government in return has implemented a settlement moratorium (of housing construction over the Green Line – excluding East Jerusalem), removed 20% of security checkpoints in the West Bank, extended the hours of the Allenby bridge crossings and even disappointed Bibi’s own natural constituency by recognizing the principle of two states for two peoples. Still no talks.

Palestinian President Mahmaud Abbas, on the other hand, has been accused by Netanyahu of “climbing up a tree”. Abbas’ demand that Israel cease all building over the Green Line (including East Jerusalem) and recognize in principle the ’67 borders as the outline of a future Palestinian state, is unacceptable to the Likud PM. Indeed, he notes that preconditions per se undermine the very notion of negotiations whereby each party brings their positions to the table ready to ‘give and take’. And what of poor George Mitchell? With Abbas up in the tree, refusing to talk to Netanyahu, Mitchell was thrust into this nasty forest by President Obama to act as a ladder and convince the Palestinian president to come down. Unfortunately Mitchell, instead of being a ladder – or even a bridge – has become more of a doormat.

It has been said that the Palestinian leaders want a peace treaty without negotiations and that the Israelis want negotiations without a peace treaty. The sorry fact today is that neither negotiations nor a peace treaty is actually in either of the main protagonists’ self-interest. Netanyahu’s tightrope act of the last 18 months of tailoring to Obama’s demands whilst placating the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history has not been easy. Any serious negotiations would inevitably require uprooting settlements and further painful concessions – steps that would spell the downfall of his coalition. Some claim that in such a situation he could potentially form a government with Tzipi Livni and Kadima, the biggest party in the Israeli parliament, currently sitting in opposition. However, the likelihood of Livni coming in to save Netanyahu’s sinking ship is slim at best. There is also very little pressure coming from the Israeli public. The security fence combined with a Fayyad-led serious attempt at purging terror cells in the West Bank have kept attacks on Israeli civilians to a negligible number. If it doesn’t feel like war, why the need to push for peace? Bibi knows that the safest way to keep his ship afloat, is to steer clear of the ‘peace-treaty iceberg’, the tip of which is real and meaningful negotiations.

Likewise, Mahmud Abbas understands that time is on the side of the Palestinians. The Palestinian agenda is slowly being adopted by the international community. The conditions and demands of the Palestinians find a conscientious lobby in the European Union, the current US administration and of course across the Muslim and Arab world. Additionally, the Palestinian leadership understands that for every day the status quo – and military occupation – continues, Israel’s legitimacy and international standing are eroded further. Since the two Ehuds’ well-publicized generous offers to the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians paradoxically have come to understand that negotiations and ending the occupation, whilst being in their short term interest, undermine their long-term goals. These long-term goals are still black-and-white in Fatah official documents, PA media and the education system in the West Bank (which still find no place for the existence of Israel).

So even if these direct negotiations do miraculously appear, there will be no final peace treaty any time soon. Even if the grass roots want two states (which is becoming less apparent each day); the leaders (up in their trees if we’re to keep with the fauna analogy) simply don’t. Why? A shrewd combination of political survivalism and the potential realization of end-game, long-term goals. Put simply, it is in neither of the parties’ self-interest – whereas the status quo is.