Much to the surprise and shock of many political prognosticators, Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu and his Likudniks emerged from Israel's recent elections victorious. However, the political composition of the newly constituted Knesset does not consist of a solid majority of Likud's ideological soul-mates, as the previous one did.
In fact, the Knesset actually shifted slightly leftward: the coalition of left-wing parties gained four seats formerly in the thrall of Likud and its rightist compatriots. The number of seats held by the two center parties remained constant.
One of the centrist groups, the Kulanu (Hebrew for "all-of-us") has endorsed the Likud-dominated coalition, giving it a solid majority of 67 seats in the Knesset; the threshold for a majority is 61. But this alliance could prove to be a shaky one. Sharp disagreements over domestic policy between the two parties could have an impact. The Likudniks have a long, bearded history of corruption and graft, as well as
preaching the gospel of selfishness. The income disparity within Israel is as significant as ours here in the US and is apparently becoming more acute.
Bibi's electoral support was dependent on his ability to frighten a significant number of Israeli Jews with his racist dog-whistles. He appears to have succeeded. But how long can it hold together? For starters, Kulanu Party leader Moshe Kahlon was expecting to be appointed as the Minister of Finance, despite his fractious history with Bibi. (Kahlon had been a Likudnik, but apparently broke away to form a new organization, most likely over colliding perspectives on domestic policy. He had previously been the finance minister until Netanyahu dismissed him). There are reports that one of the religious parties, United Torah Judaism, might be given control of finance instead.
Would that decision be enough to scuttle the coalition? Who knows. If domestic issues ever become as great a concern as Israel's 24-7 state of siege (partially self-induced), Bibi could be in trouble. Maybe if he convinces large numbers of Israeli Jews to continue hating on the Palestinians and the Iranians, he could survive.
Then again, suppose Netanyahu responds to international pressure, eases up on the Palestinians and speaks of statehood --- even if it's just lip service. A few of his extreme right-wing partners might well drop him like a hot potato: maybe enough to deep-six the coalition from his right flank.
One way or another, I believe that Bibi's --- and Likud's --- political future may be dicey. There are others who are far more familiar with the complexities of Israeli politics than I. Still, it's a gut feeling.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Bibi the Historian & Foreign Policy Maven
I listened intently to Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's recent speech before the US Congress. Nothing he said really surprised me. Just vintage Bibi: Israel survives in a hostile neighborhood where all their neighbors hate them and want to see them wiped off the face of the map.
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)