It has been a bad month for Israel. First, Turkey kicked Israel’s ambassador out of the country because Israel has not apologized for last year’s flotilla incident. Then Egyptian hoodlums reacted to a border incident where Egyptian soldiers were killed by overrunning Israel’s embassy in Cairo. Traditionally, Turkey and Egypt have been Israel’s best allies in the region, but they are beginning to look friendless. It’s disturbing that government officials in Tel Aviv seem to be adopting a fatalistic attitude. Instead of making conciliatory moves, they’re digging in.
Israel has expressed regret for the deaths in both cases, but has not apologized for actions that it considers defensive.
The overriding assessment of the government of Mr. Netanyahu is that such steps will only make matters worse because what is shaking the region is not about Israel, even if Israel is increasingly its target, and Israel can do almost nothing to affect it.
“Egypt is not going toward democracy but toward Islamicization,” said Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo who reflected the government’s view. “It is the same in Turkey and in Gaza. It is just like what happened in Iran in 1979.”
A senior official said Israel had few options other than to pursue what he called a “porcupine policy” to defend itself against aggression. Another official, asked about Turkey, said, “There is little that we can do.”
How do you help a friend who isn’t convinced that they have the power to help themselves? It really does remind me of dealing with an alcoholic. You can have an intervention. You can try tough-love. You can wait until they hit rock-bottom and make sure you’re there to lend a helping hand and forgiveness. But sometimes there just isn’t anything you can do.
Israel’s government believes it can go on occupying Palestinian land. It seems to know that everything is falling to pieces, but it steadfastly refuses to admit that it has a problem.
America has been immovable in its friendship, but Israel’s isolation is beginning to undercut our military and diplomatic relations with the whole region, and it not fair to us to put us under such strain.
There is a real risk that people will look back at the Netanyahu government as the most disastrous in the country’s entire history. President Bush could smell of roses by comparison.
You forgot the largest (300,000) demonstration against the government in Israel’s history.
And the international recognition of Palestinian sovereignty is gaining momentum.
You know, sometimes I worry that people will think I’m anti-Israeli, or anti-semitic for writing these kinds of pieces, but the truth is that the Mossad, Shin Bet, and Foreign Ministry are all giving similar advice to Netanyahu.
Haaretz
The Israeli government cannot continue to dance the issues on it treatment of Palestine and Gaza. It asserts the military rights of an occupying power, while denying the human rights responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions of an occupying power. It recognizes sovereignty enough to establish Palestine and Gaza as a legitimate enemy but that far and no farther. That straddling of the Geneva Conventions cannot last forever. And that’s why European nations are beginning to move toward asserting the sovereignty of Palestine and Gaza.
I understand why Israel is mistrustful of Europe. And I understand that they feel like the UN will always be biased against them even if they behave the way the UN expects them to. And I understand why they’re so aggressive and so averse to making concessions.
But they’ve got to start taking tough decisions. They know it but this government will not act.
It’s really difficult not to criticize Israel. In particular, it appears that NO criticism of Israel, regardless of how justified, is acceptable. Look at the kind of reception J Street, a Jewish lobby which is NOT unconditionally pro-Israel, gets. They are called the equivalent of Uncle Tom, etc. It’s really quite disturbing.
Which is funny, considering they are rabidly just as Zionist.
If AIPAC is Gun Owners of America, J Street is the NRA.
They’re Zionist, but they are for a two-state solution and basically advocate the same policies that I advocate. You know, the options for Jews in the first half of the 20th Century were not overflowing with appeal. They just wanted a place where they wouldn’t be massacred. I don’t think that was unreasonable. Keep things in their historical context. At one point, Theodore Herzl actually thought Madagascar was a winning option.
I don’t recall him being a supporter, just German Nazis suggesting and planning it. But if he was that’s something I didn’t know.
I used to be a supporter of the two-state solution, but I cannot support something so immoral anymore. Beyond its immorality, it is more unrealistic than what is bound to happen — an annexation of the land forcing even the most steadfast of Israeli apologists to recognize what Israel is and has been (apartheid), lending credence once again back to the one-state solution.
See former two-stater Mitchell Plitnick:Goodbye to All That
I can’t agree more. One state. The best (political) protection for any religious group as a religious group is a secular state.
Should say “couldn’t agree more.”
Indeed. One. Secular. State. The idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic. And that’s exactly what Israel is coming to find out — they’re going to have to make a choice: Jewish-style apartheid, or an actual democracy.
“There’s a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state — that’s entirely another matter.”
~Noam Chomsky
Actually, Zionism was not popular among Jews in the world until 1945 (or a bit earlier, you could say). The Zionists were freaks, frankly. The United States was the option for Jews, not an easy one but one preferable to millions than Europe. The German Jewish community was very assimilated, so to speak, before the Third Reich, especially relative to Russia or France. The USSR through 1928 or 1929 was actively supportive of Yiddish culture, it bears noting. The most intensely anti-Semitic policy under Stalin would come in 1948 when support for the new Israel became equated with support for capitalist Europe and the United States. Before the Second World War, the push to emigrate was by and large to the US, coupled with the sense that Europe was becoming a better place to be a Jew.
Also, Australia offered up pieces of its country for “Israel,” but the US objected.
Zionism was very popular among American Jews by the 1930s, however it was a vastly more diverse movement than it is today (and BTW, even today it is more diverse than a lot of people seem to realize).
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by “the zionists were freaks”. The nearest I can think of is that before the Balfour Declaration (1917), zionism was rare among orthodox Jews and (for different reasons) not widely supported by the reformed Movement either. But the situation by 1945 was very different, due to the gradual influence of such rabbis as Abraham Isaac Kook (orthodox) and Abba Silver (reformed).
In the 1930s Zionists ranged from fascist revisionists (ancestors of the present Likud) to cultural zionists like Judah Magnes who warned that political zionism would only increase conflict with the Arabs, to marxist zionists who wanted to build a socialist state in Israel in solidarity with the Arab left. Support of the USSR for Yiddish culture continued, in dwindling degree, well after 1928 or 29, but by 1938/39 nearly all Yiddish schools had been closed except in the newly-annexed territories of eastern Poland; and I’m not sure of the relevance of the point anyway, since outside the USSR there was no neat exclusion between Yiddishists and zionists.
The Bundists (a pro-Yiddish, secular socialist party) were historically anti-zionist. but they were decimated by WW2 and the founding of the State of Israel. Today the Bundists support Israel even if, technically, they don’t subscribe to zionist ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundism
Most baffling, you write that “Before the Second World War, the push to emigrate was by and large to the US, coupled with the sense that Europe was becoming a better place to be a Jew.”
The Johnson-reed immigration act of 1924-25 practically cut off Jewish emigration to the US, and it was difficult to get into any other country (probably South America was the best bet). As for the sense that Europe was becoming a better place to be a Jew … are you serious? Yes, there were Jewish parties in Europe TRYING to do that, there was also the Territorialist movement trying to find places other than Palestine for Jews to emigrate; but in reality they were fighting for survival, not under the idea that “Europe was becoming a better place to be a Jew.”
Saying zionists were freaks was certainly more tongue in cheek than it should have been. I remembered a friend in a peace activists’ meeting, circa 2003, saying about relationships with the public at large that, “we have to remember, at this point, we’re the freaks.” He might have said fringe.
I suppose my point is that a lot of people today assume that, Israel having existed for decades by now, and especially with the propagandistic equation of zionism and Judaism in much of the media (and never the distinction between the two) that zionism has always been a majority view among Jews, at least since the 19th century. It wasn’t. The combination of the Third Reich and the unwillingness of other countries to accept large numbers of immigrants, or any for that matter, changed things.
I stress it because it’s very important to me to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism. I am certain that I don’t need to explain this to you, but it’s news to a lot of North American gentiles (of whom I am one).
My background on the subject is from a history perspective: did an MA thesis on Soviet Yiddish film (one masterpiece and some other interesting things) which put the subject right in front of my face.
You mention the Jewish Bund. There’s an organization I’d love to see come back in force. Really, really needed right now. I say this knowing that there is a beautiful Israeli left (a part of it one might say) that continues in that vein.
You’re right, it is very important to distinguish between a world religion over 3,000 years old and a political movement less than 200 years old.
On the US I was thinking late 19th early 20th century.
Well sure, but at that time it was easy to get to America and lots of economic opportunity, whereas in Palestine it was just the opposite. The small Palestine immigration consisted mainly of idealistic youth.
Would you please explain to me what ‘Zionist’ means. Is it simply the same as pro-Israel or does it include the annexation of Palestine (West Bank) and lands going all the way into Jordan and Iraq? Ages ago a ‘Zionist’ was someone who claimed all of Palestine and refused to accept the presence of Palestian Arabls anywhere in Greater Israel.
I take Zionist to mean someone who advocates a Jewish state in historical Judea/Israel. The question of how much is an argument among Zionists.
Even that is not technically correct; there is a tradition of non-statist zionism:
http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2007/08/zionism-without-jewish-state.html
Great link. I love Jerry Haber.
Very interesting link. I wish there were more along his lines.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/
What the world would give if writers like this got some press in the mainstream US media. Could it be that working for real justice in Palestine is in fact the fulfilment of 3000 years of Jewish history and not the negation of it?
Silverstein takes the cake for me, though, because of his stuff on music. He’s got great things to say on that account.
Thanks for the links and keep up the good work.
Turkish troops have fought side by side with our own in any number of wars. They’re our NATO allies, and have frequently played an important mediating role for us with other countries in the region.
What have we ever gotten out of our “alliance” with the Israelis?
What have we gotten from our alliance with Israel?
Some would say that 9/11 was one thing we got from our alliance. Al Qaeda hates us partly due to the Israel thing.
I heard an interesting guy last month – a nuclear physicist from the American Univ in Cairo, who does a lot for humanitarian stuff. He was talking about the revolution. We asked, “What does Egypt think of us?” and even this guy said that the Israel link makes all relationships with the US difficult.
I don’t deny that support for Israel has distorted US foreign policy, but in truth 9/11 has a lot more to do with our involvement with Saudi Arabia than with our support for Israel.
Correct. If hostility to Israel is such a big motivator for al Qaeda, why have there been approximately zero al Qaeda attacks against Israel?
We don’t take everything our political leadership says about their motivations and face value. We recognize that they often pander to try to appeal to a broader audience.
So why do so many people take the PR statements of bin Laden and Zawahiri at face value?
Hostility to Israel is popular in the Middle East, and political leaders and movements like to jump on the bandwagon to make themselves more popular.
Quite the contrary–not to your comment but to the idea that Al Qaeda opposes Israel–they need Israel in the same way Bush needed Bin Laden. Without Bin Laden, Bush could not have been Bush. So too Al Qaeda, mutatis mutandis.
About Turkey’s recent so-called break with Israel, a friend of mine who works in the Turkish Embassy said it’s a big bullshit. Turkey is in bed with Israel on billions of dollars worth of trade and business deals. The big headlines are just for show.
Of course they’re just for show–right now. That’s what diplomacy is–stylized show.
But it is a show for a single audience—the government of Israel. Israel’s move is to respond to the issue with seriousness. If it does not, the stylized show escalates through various other moves until the ambassador is “called home for consultation”. Some more moves and it can get into “sanctions” like pulling contracts.
If Israel digs in its heels, the question is whether Turkey will pursue the issue or drop it. And that depends on Turkish domestic politics among its elites. And to a lesser extent on Turkish public opinion.
How far is Turkey willing to go to protect the rights of its citizens to trade with what Israel pretends is a sovereign nation — Palestine and Gaza — but is engaged in acts of war. Is Turkey willing to go as far as breaking the blockade with its own navy?
Or will Turkey push for ICC investigations of Israel’s abuse of the powers of an occupying country?
Or both?
Or will it just retreat to silence?
Tom Friedman and Mona Eltahawy told me that Egyptian youth had no foreign policy aspirations and that Israel played no part in their uprising, so obviously none of this is real.
Juan Cole has an extensive article on this. His analysis is that a splinter group of the leftist wing of the democracy movement saw the demonstration at the Israeli embassy as a way to put pressure on the military government. And that while the Muslim Brotherhood are building a political campaign structure, the democracy movement is still stuck in demonstration mode.
We’ve seen similar things in the US.
Obama also apparently stepped in and helped save people in the Israeli embassy, which Netanyahu thanked him for. The Egyptians blamed Israel for not evacuating the ambassador as they had advised and then forcing them to turn to the Americans for help.
What exactly Obama did, I’m not sure.
Not sure I believe it’s some “splinter group.” The people of Egypt have had foreign policy aspirations for a while. I read that they have their eyes set on the Saudi embassy, too.
Read Cole’s analysis. What you say is true. But in this specific instance, a splinter group from the Friday demonstration went to the Israeli embassy and tried to occupy it. Seeking to embarrass the military government into changes that the demonstrators have been seeking. Cole is of the opinion that the youth movement better start moving on winning a seat at the table in the upcoming constitutional convention instead of camping on Tahrir Square. His view has some merit in the current circumstances.
anybody who thinks “what happened in turkey” is in even remotely the same category as what happened in Iran needs to have their head examined and their Israeli security clearance revoked.
It may have been a bad month for Israel by your stated metrics, but Netanyahu is going to be emboldened by tomorrow’s election outcome in Weiner’s old district. He successfully got Jewish Democrats here in the US and all of Congress to buy into his lie that President Obama wants Israel to return to 1967 borders without agreed to land swaps. Tomorrow’s win for the Republican will only embolden Netanyahu to continue on the same course. He knows it will further weaken President Obama and lead to the election of Romney who will support him. Of course it’s a long-term suicidal mission, but a clear win in the short-term.
You are saying that the Democrats will not be able to pull this one off?
If that’s the case, the US would be wise not to veto the UN Security Council’s recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.