|
Sunday Mar 08, 2009
Window on Israel: 'In your face' politics
Posted by Ira Sharkansky
Comments: 5
    
An American friend has sent me an editorial from the New York Times that supports US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's missions of promoting the creation of a Palestinian state, an opening to Syria and pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of West Bank settlements, bring down barriers to Palestinian movement in the West Bank and halt the destruction of Palestinian homes built illegally in east Jerusalem.
My friend is worried that I do not recognize the strength of American sentiment in favor of these actions.
Not to fret. Israelis are aware of international opinion. My concern is that this friend, and other Americans, aren't aware of Israeli opinion.
One should never exaggerate interpretations of an election. There are many reasons for individuals to vote one way rather than another. Nonetheless, there was at least an element in Israel's recent elections that rejected the widely-held and long unsuccessful promotion of a Palestinian state, and its associated consequences for Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many Israelis feel that various governments have tried reasonable proposals, including settlement freezes and efforts to make life easier for Palestinians. Many also feel that the Palestinian cause is hopeless as long as "moderate" leaders reject every Israeli gesture as inadequate, and other leaders encourage their followers to fire missiles at Israeli cities and do whatever else they can to kill Israeli civilians.
There is a component of "in your face" in the selection of Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister-designate. The "in your face" message will be even stronger if he selects Israel Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, which according to the latest reports, he looks increasingly likely to do.
Neither selection may be wise. "In your face" is not the conventional way to get along in politics. It is risky to upset the world's greatest power, and Israel's most important friend. If Hillary Clinton and US President Barack Obama find themselves uncomfortable with Israel's new leadership, imagine the reception in capitals of important countries whose populations are much less supportive of Israel than Americans.
All that being said, there are good reasons for American officials, and all those decent American Jews who want peace for Israel and its neighbors, to pay some attention to the people selected by Israel's voters.
Americans and others say they support a Jewish democracy. This is what Israel's voters seem to have chosen, and at least part of the reason is the perceived failure of the mantras pursued for years by international liberals.
As always, failure has many parents. They include the ascendance of radical Islam, the oil wealth of Iran, the attractions of drugs that originate in Afghanistan and the failure of Americans to deal with the hard core of radicalism whether in places like Afghanistan/Pakistan or the friendly state of Saudi Arabia. There is also the need of American officials to be "evenhanded" if they want to maintain world leadership, and the attractions of business to be done in Muslim countries for Germany, France, Britain and Russia. One is tempted to look for opportunities missed by Israeli governments, and at the constraints created by Jewish settlement.
The new Israeli government seems likely to bother those who think of themselves as decent and supportive of Israel, not only in its cold shoulder to a Palestinian state, but in elements of internal politics. Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox parties are getting ready to flex their muscle. They did not grow as a result of the election, but a Likud government is likely to be more hospitable to their demands than one led by Kadima or Labor. This does not bode well for the desires of non-Orthodox religious Jews in Israel. Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews will be able to find their synagogues and rabbis throughout Israel, but disappointment seems likely for non-Orthodox rabbis who want all the rights they enjoy elsewhere, or women who want to perform at the Western Wall the rituals assigned to men by the Orthodox .
The future is by no means clear. As prime minister, Netanyahu will speak clearly, but may not practice what he preaches. There is a serious land mine ticking within the his likely coalition. Lieberman's party depends heavily on the support of Russian immigrants, and they demand things that the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox resist. Civil marriage and the sale of pork are high on the agendas of both sides, one intensely positive and the other intensely negative.
Moderates like me prefer cool tempers, a quiet discussion of the options and a lack of emotional response when the votes fall in undesirable ways. "In your face" is not the style of politics we find comfortable. For us it may be a time to hunker down as American and European officials accuse their Israeli counterparts of faults ranging from shortsightedness to acting in bad faith, and non-Orthodox religious Jews proclaim violations of religious freedom.
There are several things I'm hoping for: that my American friend and his government will be wise enough to ponder the sources of Israel's election results and decide that pressuring Israel is not the only way forward in our region and elsewhere; that pragmatism will compete with bluster in Netanyahu's coalition; and that enough of this will happen to keep me optimistic.
1 |
Maverick,
Monday Mar 09, 2009
Pressuring Israel may not be sufficient as you say but what else can the United States do? Israel holds the key being a regional power in the M.E. Since its intransigent majority has opted out of the peace process, then perhaps the U.S. should use its muscle by tying its financial aid to a timetable for dismantling all settlements and having formal peace talks with Hamas and the Authority on final borders with a temporary lull in military activity. Or else Israel leaves the only other option open giving Palestinians equal voting rights within a single state.
2 |
Aaron,
Monday Mar 09, 2009
Those like Maverick who call for 'dismantling all settlements' either don't know what they're talking about, or are Jew-haters. How can you call for the 'dismantling of all settlements'? The 'settlers' are entitled to live in the land of their ancestors on land lawfully acquired from the prior owners. The notion that all settlers are living on stolen 'Palestinian' land is a lie. The majority of these settlers are living on land they have legally acquired. The majority of US citizens support the right of Jews to live where they choose, in the land of their ancestors.
3 |
Ray Saperstein, Baltimore,MD,
Monday Mar 09, 2009
Why are West Bank settlements such an issue for the Palestinians? There are over 1 million Arabs living in Israel. Why couldn't Jews living in these areas continue living there, if they so choose, as part of a Palestinian state. The answer is simple. The Palestinians have such hatred of the Jews ingrained in them that their government cannot conceive of having Jews live in their country. So, Maverick, is this the kind of bigoted country the world needs to have more of? Why should the West underwrite the creation of another country that is against everything the West stands for?
4 |
James Hovland,
Tuesday Mar 10, 2009
Sanctions and isolation would be appropriate means of applying pressure. That is after cutting off aid, but before military intervention. We're not going to let anyone push the Israeli Jews into the sea, but we're not going to let Israel push the Palestinian Arabs into the desert either. As much pressure as necessary, is what is necessary. Also, if you haven't noticed this yet, people from every corner of the world are raising their voice about this, and making a stand. It's time for peace, and we're not backing down.
5 |
Sherri,
Tuesday Mar 10, 2009
The majority of Israelis should be the ones to decide if they want to pursue peace with the terrorists of Fatah and Hamas or not. The US has no right to interfere. Would Americans put up with Mexico launching 6,000 rockets into the US, killing and injuring civilians? I seriously doubt that we would.
|
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Post your own comment
