dagblog - Comments for "Israel's Election "

I wish he were more likely to

Bruce Levine — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:33:09 +0000

In reply to The problem for Israel is, it

I wish he were more likely to build a coalition government with Labor. I think the chances are slim because he wants to have his center-right government (which, and I think he's totally wrong here long-term, is expected to make it easier for him to govern). If the relations were better with the Administration, it might have more influence to kind of push things toward that coalition (as Israel's president has made noises about), but from a base political perspective, what does Bibi get by giving up the chance to govern without initial and structural opposition in his govenrment.

The problem for Israel is, it

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:14:31 +0000

In reply to Israel's Election

The problem for Israel is, it is clear they are not an honest broker in the middle east peace process. That really doesn't benefit anyone.. it's too bad, but I imagine that Mr. Netanyahu will f this up somehow with his brazen BS. Coalition governments are hard...this one is going to be really hard.

Here's what Secretary of

Bruce Levine — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:12:51 +0000

In reply to Israel's Election

Here's what Secretary of State spokesperson Jen Psaki said yesterday concerning Bibi's statements and their significance [my bold]s:

QUESTION: Beyond congratulations, Jen, now that Mr. Netanyahu won, presumably on – by a decisive mandate, on the premise of not ever allowing a Palestinian state [is that what Bibi said?], what – one, what is your plan on this track and on the peace process? And second, when the Palestinians go before the United Nations, as they will, will you cast a veto or will you not cast a veto?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Seeking recognition from the international community.

MS. PSAKI: -- we are not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the United – UN Security Council. I will reiterate that it has long been the position of the United States under Republican and Democratic presidents, and it has been the position of successive Israeli governments, that only a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel alongside a sovereign and independent Palestine can bring lasting peace and stability to both peoples. A two-state solution is the only way for the next Israeli Government to secure Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. We believe that it’s in the best interests of the United States, Israel, and the region.

The prime minister, as we all know, in his comments earlier this week indicated that he is no longer committed to pursuing this approach. Based on the prime minister’s comments, the United States is in a position going forward where we will be evaluating our approach with regard to how best to achieve a two-state solution. Obviously, I’m not going to prejudge at this point what that means.

QUESTION: I understand. But will you be a part of, let’s say, an international effort in this case to realize a Palestinian state?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to prejudge what that means, Said.

Here's a final thing I want

Bruce Levine — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:07:37 +0000

In reply to Israel's Election

Here's a final thing I want to get down as a marker for future discussions about where US/Israel policy is going. What I find particularly interesting is that I truly believe that those of us in the left of center blogosphere will be far less likely to be surprised by steps the president is likely to take in the remaining years of his presidency to significantly alter the nature of America's relationship with Israel. I believe this to be so because many of you have been advocating for some kind of a shift or another for years. And many of you should be proud that the president appears to get what some of you have been pining for well before it was cool to be doing so. This is a generalization of course, but worth pondering.

In a way, and I'm not prepared to argue this point, but I am thinking that Bibi, bad or good, continues to be useful as a pretext to convince others not so informed as I believe most of us are through increased communication on the internet, is just a bad man who should not be trusted. And I have generally believed that to be true for many years in large measure. And I believe I've followed his career since its inception.

But, here's the thing, changing the U.S. position on attaining a two-state solution from one in which a negotiated agreement between the parties was an imperative for any peaceful solution, to one now centered on setting forth the terms of settlement through the UN or with the EU (as I've discussed elsewhere in this thread), should not be done on the basis of what the MSM and the DC establishment have unanimously, lazily, or purposely concluded that Bibi has abandoned the 2-state solution. On that point, I think Bibi said what he said for desperate and nasty political reasons. But I submit it was said in the context of the existing circumstances with respect to ISIS et al generally, and the related extremist support in both the West Bank and Gaza -- with Gaza in the full control of Hamas, and with the West Bank which many say would be in control of Hamas were Abbas to permit long-delayed elections. [By the way, Twitter reinforces that much of the MSM is lazy and herd-like and not always very analytical when it comes to all kind of stories.]

Edited to add for clarification -- What I'm saying is that I believe that Bibi will say he was saying that he cannot think of two-states in the face of Hamas, ISIS and the overall chaos in the Middle East. He's certainly right about chaos, and while one may argue that this means there should never be two states, Bibi will say he said (consistent with a point he's made in the past) that you cannot negotiate a new state under existing circumstances because it places the frontline of various Middle East civil wars at its border. One can dispute Bibi's good faith, as I often do, but as to the facts on the ground he has the advantage of being absolutely correct (from the border with Lebanon, to the Golan and that with Syria, and perhaps soon Jordan) it is not the same thing as the problems between Denmark and Sweden.

You may disagree with me and go to the English translation of what Bibi said actually said in Hebrew or you may do the reverse, but I submit that the Administration is harping on the so-called "abandonment of 2 states" because it is helpful to it as pretext for moving ahead with additional steps relating to Israel that are more in line with where most of the international community appears to be on Israel. The pretext is necessary because some people actually believe that the reason things are bad with Israel is because Bibi and the president don't get along, and that underlying that relationship is the intransigence of Bibi, period and end of story. Those folks, the Democrats you see in Congress stand out for example, need to have a villain forcing a change in policy -- changes that many of us have spoken and argued about for years.

If the Secretary-General of the Arab League defended Bibi with his recognition of what was said being totally related to the campaign, so too could the Administration -- but only if it wanted to. Here's Arab League Secretary Nabil Elarby on Bibi's so-called new position:

Netanyahu’s statements would “not be the policies of the future Israeli government,” said Elaraby, the secretary-general of the 22-nation bloc in an interview with AFP. “We will have to wait and see,” he added.

“I believe personally that he made that statement about… no two states to gain the votes of the extremists, particularly those Russian immigrants who went to Israel in the last 10, 15 years,” Elaraby said.

Apparently the remote possibility that Bibi's statement was not a change in policy has been lost on this Administration, as it leaks (or openly reports) now that it has suddenly seen a need to explore changes to long-standing American policy because of what Bibi said in the final days of the campaign. Two responses to that: (1) balderdash; and (2) Administrations in glass houses centered on Iran policy should be the last ones to be throwing stones about the significance of what is said in a campaign.

David Horovitz is the editor

Bruce Levine — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:03:48 +0000

In reply to Israel's Election

David Horovitz is the editor of Times of Israel, on why he believes Netanyahu won:

But the Israeli public on Tuesday delivered an emphatic truth, yet again, to the Labor Party-led Zionist Union: it does not vote from its pocket and it does not, at this time, trust a dovish civilian leader with its life in this hellish region.

. . .

In the mercilessly militant Middle East of today — where ISIS has staked out territory to Israel’s south, al-Qaeda to Israel’s northeast, and Hezbollah and Iran across the entire north — the Israeli public did not want to risk action. It wanted to shut the hatches and wait out the storm. Maybe, like the biblical Noah, to send out the occasional dove, but not to explore off the ship. And that, with the negation of the Palestinian state during the late days of the campaign, is precisely what Netanyahu offered.

True, except when it isn't,

Bruce Levine — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:46:54 +0000

In reply to Israeli politics is even more

True, except when it isn't, or something. I was going to write that you can look at the glass as being 9/10s empty or 1/10 full, but I don't know.

Seriously though as an afterthought (which is how I roll more and more it seems), the twitter world is twittered/littered with glee from these folks on the American right who are celebrating what they seem to see as a defeat for President Obama? Talk about short-term thinking. The wiser ones understand that the remainder of President Obama's term will not be easy for Israel, regardless of who is PM, and that's because I believe the president is likely to publish and endorse -- most likely with the EU -- a framework for a permanent two-state solution. That "executive action" (see what we're learning? :)) will be there when the next president takes the oath of office and remain like an 800 pound gorilla; it will not be easy to disown or ignore. The presence of Bibi and the real disagreement he has with President Obama on substantive issues and in particular Iran will not help.

American exceptionalism.

barefooted — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:20:43 +0000

In reply to Israeli politics is even more

American exceptionalism.

Israeli politics is even more

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:54:07 +0000

In reply to Israel's Election

Israeli politics is even more depressing than American politics.

You're welcome. Just keep in

Bruce Levine — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 03:35:44 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your analysis.

You're welcome. Just keep in mind one thing. . .man plans, and the Lord laughs. Let's see what develops.

Here is an early take by

rmrd0000 — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 03:35:13 +0000

In reply to Interesting article in NYTs

Here is an early take by Jonathan Chait

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/netanyahus-vision-for-post-...