Newt Gingrich: America's Netanyahu

Conventional wisdom about the presidential elections looks like it may be wrong again, just like it was wrong in 2008. Newt Gingrich just might end up being the Republican nominee, rather than Mitt Romney. Even scarier, the guy might get himself elected president.

If this happens, my two countries, Israel and the United States, will have chief executives who are each other's clones. Politically, they're both on the extremely conservative side (though in Netanyahu's case, that's mainly true about economics and hawkishness, and less about social issues). That's probably why both of them are backed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson: Adelson has given millions to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC and owns a free Israeli daily, "Yisrael Hayom", which many consider Netanyahu's unofficial spokesman.

The differences don't stop there. Netanyahu and Gingrich are both married to their third wives. Gingrich cheated on Wife No. 1 with Wife No. 2, and then on Wife No. 2 with Wife No. 3. As far as I know, Netanyahu was already divorced when he met Wife No. 3, Sarah, but in the early 90's he admitted to cheating on her when he thought a sex tape was about to be made public (in an interview with Sarah, which everybody compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton's famous interview).

In today's New York Times, Frank Bruni writes about many of Gingrich's negative character traits. When I read the article, all I could think of was the fact that it almost sounded like Bruni was talking about Netanyahu. Gingrich and Netanyahu like to falsely insert themselves into important events of the late 20th century (for example, Netanyahu once reminisced about Rehavam Ze'evi's time in his cabinet, even though Ze'evi never joined Bibi's government; other times, he claimed his first government proposed all kinds of initiatives that were actually started under other prime ministers). Also, Netanyahu and Gingrich regularly attack the elites, and just as Bruni can't find a definition of "elite" where Gingrich isn't part of it, I can't find a definition of the word that doesn't include Netanyahu.

As Bruni notes, Gingrich trumpets his Roman Catholicism and attacks secularists, despite having had a six-year affair with his current wife. Netanyahu, too, has whispered in the ears of rabbis that the left has "forgotten how to be Jewish", although he himself is far from being a righteous religious Jew.

I could go on: their animosity toward the media, except when it helps them; their love of deregulation; their de-facto opposition to the two-state solution, and much much more.

Oh, and there's one more similarity: I really would like neither one to be in government.

Sept. 2011: Middle Eastern Hurricane Season

Less then a month after Hurricane Irene struck New York (albeit as a downgraded tropical storm), Hurricane Abbas is scheduled to hit Manhattan around September 20. The United Nations Headquarters will be right in the eye of the Category 3 storm, which is not expected to continue north to Massachusetts and Canada, but rather to go east, gather strength over the hot Atlantic Ocean and hit the Middle East as a Category 5 hurricane at the very least.

Israeli officials fear that the fierce winds will sweep with them rockets from Gaza, as well as Palestinian refugees, who will be thrust uncontrollably onto Israel's borders from the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the fact that the government knows about the hurricane, a new report by MK Shaul Mofaz shows they are doing nothing to mitigate its consequences. Perhaps PTSD (Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder, in this case) is paralyzing them.

Meteorologists point out that Hurricane Abbas is unlike any other cyclone in history. For one thing, it isn't forming near the western shores of Africa, but rather at its final destination - Israel and the Palestinian territories. Scientists have also observed that it is the first man-made hurricane in recorded human history. Some have even said that this wonder, though destructive, may merit the awarding of a Nobel Prize to Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama and several other Palestinian, Israeli, American and world leaders. The problem is that Nobel rules limit the number of people who can share a prize, and the list of people who have contributed to the formation of Hurricane Abbas is endless. Perhaps this will be the first time that "et al" wins a Nobel.

Scientists are not sure which Nobel Prize the creators of this Middle Eastern phenomenon will be awarded. Needless to say, it won't be the Peace Prize. Perhaps it will be the Chemistry (or lack thereof) prize, or a Nobel in physics. Another possibility is the Literature Prize, for all the tales politicians are expected to spin in an effort to convince people that they did not do anything wrong.

The Electoral Power of Israeli Protesters

The 300,000-person protest in Tel-Aviv on Saturday night was an uplifting sight. The Israeli people are angry, and they won't take it anymore!

But then, looking at some polls that came out this weekend, it seems like the protests might be giving a false impression. According to those polls, if elections were held today, the next Knesset would look more or less the same as the current one. The Likud would get just about as many seats as it has in the current Knesset, which is true of the entire right wing & ultra-orthodox bloc. The main difference would be that Kadima would lose some seats, which would go to Labor and Meretz. Also, Ehud Barak and his new party would not get into the next parliament.

According to a Jerusalem Post/Globes poll, if the leaders of the tent protests ran as a party, they'd win 20 seats. But even then, they'd mostly take votes away from other parties on the left and center. They'd take a few seats away from Likud, too, but not enough to deny Netanyahu another term as prime minister. Besides, this is all very hypothetical, since the Tent Party probably will never be established (after all, they say they are nonpartisan). It's also very hypothetical for another reason : the next elections are only in October 2013, and none of the coalition members have any interest in early elections.

The dissatisfaction in the streets and the poll results show one thing: Israelis are not happy with Netanyahu, but see no better alternative. I can relate, though I'd never vote for Netanyahu or any of his coalition partners. While I think Tzippi Livni would be a better prime minister than Netanyahu, I think her party, Kadima, is just as crappy as Likud. The ratio of true liberals to nationalists in both parties is roughly the same.

Instead of dispairing, let's wait and see what happens during the next two years. Maybe the tents will change Israeli politics after all.

McCarthyist Initiative Tanks Again

The Knesset has resoundingly rejected two resolutions meant to set up investigative committees that would have looked into the conduct of human rights organizations and other left-wing groups. Back in February, these resolutions were withdrawn when it was clear that they would not pass. Now, when the Likud successfully passed the anti-boycott law, Avigdor Lieberman wanted to prove he was real right-winger in the government, so he brought back the issue of investigative committees.

Prime Minister Netanyahu voted against the resolution, as did many other Likud ministers and MKs. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin was also a vocal opponent, having also criticized the anti-boycott bill.

For some reason, many on the left saw the anti-boycott bill as the beginning of the end of Israeli democracy, and saw the invesigative committees as the next step towards fascism. The truth is that nothing has fundamentally changed. Israel is still a vibrant yet flawed democracy. We still have free speech - and even on the question of boycotts, we haven't seen yet how judges will interpret the law. Fortunately, it seems that the Supreme Court will address the issue even before the lower courts do, and even if it doesn't strike it down, it will probably instruct judges to implement the law in a way that balances freedom of speech with the economic rights of the targets of the boycott.

Ehud Barak has come up with a good idea, though I wish he would have thought of it sooner. He has proposed an amendment to the anti-boycott law, that would cut out the part about suing individuals, and would only keep the parts about government contracts and tax benefits. That is very sensible, and I hope it passes.

When Prose Writers and Poets Take Over a Newspaper

Today's Haaretz is the third annual Writers' Edition (Hebrew here), marking the beginning of Hebrew Book Week. 53 Israeli and foreign authors have taken over the entire news section, op-ed pages and some of the culture section (but interestingly, TheMarker, Haaretz's economic section, is still in the hands of professional business journalists, at least in the Hebrew edition), plus there is a 120-page book section.

Here are some highlights worth reading:

• Etgar Keret joined Benjamin Netanyahu on his trip to Italy, and although he couldn't get Netanyahu to go off his talking points, it is a well-written behind the scenes look at political journalism (Hebrew here).
• Americans think Avigdor Lieberman is a warmonger, says author and literature professor Nurit Gertz, based on WikiLeaks documents (Hebrew here).
• Sami Michael wants Haifa to be a refuge for persecuted writers. The mayor and city council agree, while the government hasn't done anything to make it happen (Hebrew here).
• Leon Wieseltier says the Arab Spring means Israel needs to make peace with its neighboring peoples, not just their leaders (Hebrew here).
• Natan Zach does not believe Gilad Shalit will be released. He hopes he's wrong. I hope so, too (Hebrew here).
• Nava Semel visits a multilingual library for foreign workers and their children (Hebrew here).
• Ron Leshem is worried about the natural (and unnatural) growth of the illiberal sectors within Israeli society (Hebrew here).
• Mario Vargas Llosa calls for legalization of drugs (Hebrew here).

Netanyahu the Rejectionist

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made sure today that France will vote in favor of a Palestinian State at the UN next September. He rejected the French offer to hold a peace conference, despite the fact that Mahmoud Abbas has already accepted it. Netanyahu's explanation was that he can't negotiate with a government that includes Hamas, and neither can he accept a negotiation based on the 1967 lines.

First of all, despite the reconciliation agreement, Hamas is not yet in the government. Secondly, Israel should continue negotiating with the Fatah representatives in the Palestinian government, and just not talk to the Hamasniks. Also, even if Netanyahu opposes the 1967 lines, he should say "okay, we'll negotiate in France, but not based on any preconditions".

Philip Weiss's Delusions About Jeffrey Goldberg

Jewish Anti-Zionist blogger Phil Weiss is so delusional and so sure of his position, that he is certain that his anti-Zionist views are winning over the Jewish world, as well as the non-Jewish world. Now he thinks Jeffrey Goldberg is about to leave Zionism, just because of Goldberg's frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu. Well, Phil, haven't you learned that Zionism does not equal Benjamin Netanyahu? He's afraid Netanyahu's policies may kill the two-state solution and bring about a one-state solution. That means he sees the one-state solution as bad, not as something he's about to start supporting.

Goldberg can't win. He's a moderate-left Zionist like me, which means the left will hate him for not being pro-Palestinian enough, and the right will hate him for not being pro-Israel enough. Indeed, that very post of Weiss's blog has a rebuttal of the "Goldberg to become Anti-Zionist" view from someone who sees Goldberg's anti-Netanyahu posts as a Zionist conspiracy meant to maintain US support for Israel. Can't it just be that he really doesn't like Netanyahu for the very reasons he writes explicitly?

I never understood why some people think Jeffrey Goldberg is a neocon. Neither can I understand how anybody in their right mind would think he might be joining the Mondoweiss blogging staff any time soon.

Israelis Love Netanyahu

Today's New York Times has an article titled "Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure". Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the truth. The media is indeed unhappy with Netanyahu, as are members of the Knesset opposition. While journalists and MKs are the article's focus, it only briefly mentions what really matters - that polls show a bump in Netanyahu's popularity.

In Ha'aretz's poll, 51% were satisfied with Netanyahu's performance as prime minister (not only regarding his US visit), while 36% were not. That's almost the reverse of his numbers just five weeks ago, when 53% were unhappy with him.

Contrary to the Times article's title, nearly half of Israelis saw Bibi's trip as a diplomatic success, while only 10% saw it as a failure. Nearly half also felt pride at seeing Bibi's address to Congress, and only 5% saw it as a missed opportunity.

Sometimes I think my fellow Israelis don't live in the Holy Land, but rather in La La Land.

Netanyahu's Statement of Principles

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address a joint meeting of Congress today. On the one hand, he claims the speech will surprise the world. On the other, I can't imagine him going much beyond the principles he already articulated in an address to the Knesset last week. Let's take a closer look at those principles and see what he might elaborate on:

1. Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people: This demand is clear, and American politicians, including President Obama, have already embraced it. I think it is an unnecessary demand, since we don't need the Palestinians' approval for being the Jewish state. We just need them to agree that Palestine cannot interfere in the internal affairs of Israel, including by attempting in any way to end its Jewish character.

2. A non-militarized Palestine with Israeli control of the Jordan River bank: I agree with the first part, I don't agree with the second. I don't trust the Palestinians with a military, especially considering the fact that a poll from November showed 60% of Palestinians support the two-state solution just as a step toward a one state solution (a poll I'd mention to Congress if I were Netanyahu).

As for the border with Jordan, while I do trust King Abdullah to secure it, if his regime would fall, the river would become a serious threat to Israel's security. I wouldn't want IDF troops there, though. If they'd stay on a narrow strip along the border, they'd be isolated and endangered. Instead, there should be an international force there. Not an inept UN force, but a NATO force which would also include IDF representation. The same force should also patrol the Gaza-Egypt border.

Netanyahu will probably elaborate on what he meant when he said there would be troops along the Jordan River. Is he giving up the Jordan Valley and its settlements, as he should? If he addresses his vision of the new borders, more details about this area will definitely be included.

3. The refugees will not return to Israel: Indeed, no Israeli leader in his right mind would be willing to recognize the right of return. I would, however, like him to propose an alternative solution to the refugee problem, including a declaration of willingness to pay reparations without accepting responsibility for the Nakba or stating an exact amount the refugees would receive.


4. The settlement blocs will remain a part of Israel: Here Netanyahu may elaborate more on what his definition of the blocs is and whether or not he is open to the idea of swaps, even if they aren't by a ratio of 1:1. This is where he would really define the border between Israel and Palestine, though I'm sure he wouldn't present a map of the exact border. I have a bad feeling his definition of the settlement blocs is much more expansive than my own, and if he is open to swaps, it means he's going to sacrifice more of pre-1967 Israel - a sacrifice I'd rather keep to a minimum.

5. A united Jerursalem shall remain Israel's capital: With this position, we can say goodbye to peace. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, perhaps minus the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Netanyahu won't give an inch of the old city, but maybe he'll surprise the world by declaring today that he doesn't see the Arab villages that were annexed to Jerusalem in 1967 as a real part of the city and that he's willing to give them up. I doubt that's going to happen, though.

6. Palestine will only be established as part of an agreement: Netanyahu should attack a possible UN vote as a vote for violence, saying that recognition of Palestine without an agreement with Israel would encourage a third Intifada. He should point out that a state had already been offered to the Palestinians several times, most recently by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, yet they rejected the proposal without even negotiating its terms. The world should not award such behavior, and must make it clear to the Palestinians that a peace deal is the only way to independence.

7. The peace treaty would constitute an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an end to all claims: Netanyahu should emphasize this principle, which actually overlaps with all the others. Once we reach an agreement establishing a Palestinian State, they can no longer try to alter the Jewish character of Israel, demand more territory, call for a right of return for the Palestinian diaspora, etc. Of course, this goes both ways. Israel will not be able to claim territories in Palestine as its own, claim a right for Jews to return to the West Bank and Gaza, etc.

An agreement that leaves any issues unresolved is a blueprint for disaster. If the Palestinians have a state and a legitimacy to make more demands, they will also feel more confident that they may use force to achieve what they seek.

Benjamin Netanyahu's Sense of Humor

Or maybe it's Chutzpah (in its original negative meaning)?

Netanyahu said to outgoing Mideast envoy George Mitchell that he is sorry the Palestinians made Mitchell's job harder. Well, the Palestinians did make his job harder, that is true. I doubt Netanyahu is sorry about it, though.

And does our beloved PM think that he himself was Mitchell's one lone spot of light in the dark bottomless pit that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ask Netanyahu Questions

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will appear on YouTube's World View program on March 23. Internet users from Israel and around the world can send in their questions via video, text or Twitter by March 21. If I understand correctly, internet users are also the ones who choose what will be asked by voting for questions they like.

Ask away.

Netanyahu's Regression

Haaretz reported yesterday that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to change course on the peace process. He'll deliver a big speech, perhaps before the United States Congress, in which he will declare that he now wishes to reach another interim agreement with the Palestinians. This is probably the big move, the grand initiative, which he promised German Chancellor Angela Merkel he'd make.

Until recently, Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had one basic thing in common. They both expressed a desire to reach a final peace deal and opposed more interim steps. They were far from agreeing on what would be in that final deal, and one or both of them may not have been very serious about reaching it, but at least at the declaratory level, they agreed on a basic goal.

Now, under the guise of a grand gesture that will bring peace closer, Netanyahu is actually regressing. He's doing something I thought was impossible at this low point: he has widened the gulf between Israel and the Palestinians even more. He has adopted Avigdor Lieberman's idea of a Palestinian State with temporary borders, encompassing 60% of the West Bank, which the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected. They understandably fear that the temporary will become permanent.

Netanyahu needs to come up with a real grand gesture. He needs to think of something new that has some chance of winning Palestinian and international support. He can't regurgitate old ideas that the Palestinians have consistently opposed.

Israel's Egypt Policy: Does It Really Matter?

Thomas Friedman is sick and tired of the Netanyahu government. He believes that Israel should have sided with the pro-democracy protesters, and that such a stance would have created a better relationship with the Egyptian people, the leaders of what Friedman calls "the new dynamic popular trend". In hindsight, it is true that Israel sided with a dead horse (Mubarak), but it isn't at all clear that it really matters.

First of all, events are still unfolding. We have no idea what kind of regime Egypt will now have. Will it be a liberal democracy, a flawed "illiberal democracy", a theocracy or a military dictatorship? Other than the unlikely first option, the three latter options are all equally possible. The protesters have won the battle, but not yet the war. If the military retains power, the fact that Israel stuck by the regime will be a positive thing in the eyes of the new leaders.

If democracy or theocracy await Egypt, anything Israel would have done regarding Mubarak would not help the relationship with the new regime. Egyptians hate us. Despite the cold peace between the two countries, Egyptian civil society boycotts Israel. Egyptian individuals who travel to Israel get punished by their professional associations. If Israel called on Mubarak to resign, Egyptians would see it as too little too late, and might even think of it as Zionist meddling.

As Friedman said, the Egyptian revolution had nothing to do with Israel. Similarly, Egyptian hatred of Israel has little to do with Israel's policy towards Egypt. The main problem is that they still see the Jewish State as a foreign colony in the Arab Middle East, as well as their anger at the way Israel treats Palestinians.

The only way for Israel to look more favorable in the eyes of Egyptians, and Arabs in general, is to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. Even then, many would continue to hate us, but less.

How Egypt Affects Gaza

Barbara Lubin, co-founder of the Middle East Children's Alliance told the New York Times that she hopes that replacing the Mubarak regime by a new one would make Israel's policies toward Gaza "more lax". Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

Whether or not it would be the correct reaction, Israel would definitely go the exact opposite direction of what Lubin hopes. Israel would be very suspicious of a new Egyptian regime, even if it won't be an Islamist government. Netanyahu would fear that Egypt would now cooperate with Hamas, and so, he'd tighten the noose around Gaza. He might even go as far as invading Gaza to retake the Philadelphi Route, along the Gaza-Egypt border.

Hosni Mubarak said yesterday that President Obama doesn't understand Egyptian culture. Barbara Lubin doesn't understand Israeli culture, or the Israeli mindset.

The Skeptical Left

Einat Wilf, one of the four Knesset Members who left Labor with Ehud Barak, said that their new Independence Party is to the left of Likud and to the right of Kadima. It's a party for the people on the skeptical left who would like to see peace but aren't so sure it is possible, and do not blame Israel as the sole party responsible for the lack of of progress in peace negotiations.

First of all, it's interesting that Independence is to the right of Kadima. Is the party of Ariel Sharon and Tzippi Livni a leftist party? And a "blame Israel first party" (BIFP)? Of course it isn't. Is what remains of Labor a BIFP? Not in the slightest.

Second of all, as a member of the skeptical left, it would seem I should be a supporter of Barak. I think the Palestinians have their share of responsibility for the failure of negotiations. I am not at all convinced they've completely given up the idea of fighting for a one-state solution even after the Palestinian State is established. However, I'm not blind to our responsibilities, and I don't think we should be providing excuses for the Palestinians. Settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem and the West Bank should not be taking place - most of all, because they're wrong, but also because they are excellent excuses for the Palestinians to refuse to talk to us.

The government needs to do something that would test the Palestinians' will to negotiate. Freeze settlements, give them more control over greater areas. If after big gestures like these they'll still be unwilling to negotiate, the egg will be on Mahmoud Abbas's face, not Netanyahu's.

Barak, Wilf and the other three Independence munchkins aren't pushing the government towards the bare minimum required to shift responsibility to the Palestinians. In fact, they're allowing it to go ever more rightward, toward Lieberman's abyss of racism and paranoia.

Netanyahu and the Negev

Ari Shavit, who is considered close to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, has this to say in today's Haaretz (Hebrew/English):

"[Netanyahu] will not give up sovereignty in settlement blocs in the West Bank, he will not compromise on Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and he will try to spare the settlers. On the other hand, as far as land exchange goes, he will display readiness to go far."

This can only mean one thing. Settlers in the West Bank are much more important to him than the citizens in Israel proper, those living in areas that have been recognized as legitimate Israeli territory since 1948. He will give up a lot of Israeli land, possibly uprooting non-settlers, to keep West Bank lands and appease settlers.

He is most likely to give up lands in the Negev. Instead of telling the colonizers of the West Bank to move to Israel's southern region, he will betray the northeastern Negev. Southerners must understand this and advocate for themselves immediately. Make it clear to Netanyahu - if we must choose between Ariel and Ein Gedi, we'll choose Ein Gedi.

Of course, he might not be thinking of the Negev, but rather of Arab-populated towns on the Western side of the green line. That's Lieberman's wet dream - getting as much of the Arab-Israeli population to live in Palestine. The Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians and the international community will never agree to this, and I doubt Netanyahu would even dare bring it up.

The Obama-Netanyahu $3 Billion Deal

What the hell is President Barack Obama thinking? Yes, it is very important that Israel freeze construction in West Bank settlements, but Obama's way of getting this done is just foolish. His administration offered Israel a package worth $3 billion, which includes 20 state of the art fighter jets in exchange for an additional 3-month freeze. Why just three months? Because during this time, according to Obama's expectations, Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement about final borders, which would mean that it would be clear where Israel can build and where it can't.

Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.

My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?

In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.

For the Millionth Time, Fire Avigdor Lieberman!

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gave a speech at the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly today. He was speaking as the official representative of the State of Israel, of course, and so should have spoken about the Israeli government's official policy. That isn't what he did. Instead, he pushed his own agenda, saying peace with the Palestinians isn't possible in the next few years and that any peace deal would have to include not only land swaps but swaps of the populations on that land (meaning that technically, the people would stay put, only the border would move and, in the case of Israeli Arabs, their citizenship would change). So now, despite Benjamin Netanyahu distancing himself from Lieberman's words, this speech is now taken as the official policy of Israel by many countries. I can't blame them. After all, a foreign minister addressing the UN General Assembly is always assumed to be speaking for his country. That's part of diplomacy - when the president, prime minister or foreign minister of a country says something, it has has official significance.

Avigdor Lieberman has always been a loose cannon. Appointing him to be Israel's top diplomat was one of the most irresponsible things Netanyahu ever did. This speech at the UN should have been the final straw. In a normal country, a foreign minister who strays from official foreign policy at such an important international forum would be fired. That's what should happen in this case. I have no illusions. I know Bibi is too dependent on Yisrael Beitenu to keep his coalition together, and not losing the prime minister's seat is more important to him than Israel's standing in the world.

Ayatollah Abdallah Yussef

Imagine a senior Iranian or Palestinian cleric wishing for the death of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and all Israelis or all Jews. There would be an uproar.

On Saturday night, Ovadia Yossef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Shas party and a former chief Sephardic rabbi of Israel, wished for the deaths of Abu-Mazen and the Palestinian people. Instead of denouncing Yossef forcefully and saying he's a despicable racist, Prime Minister Netanyahu only said that the rabbi's views don't reflect the government's views. The US administration forcefully condemned the Shas leader's statement. Even the Anti-Defamation League, which recently shamefully joined the opposition to an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero, did the right thing this time and condemned the rabbi.

Ovadia Yossef has said some outrageous stuff over the years. For someone supposed to be a man of God, he sure does has a filthy and hateful mouth. In the past he has attacked secular Jews, Arabs, gays and other political rivals in unacceptable ways that go beyond criticism of political views or ways of life. However, it seems to me as if he has gone farther than ever before.

I can understand that Netanyahu needs Shas in order for his government not to fall apart, but he needs to find a way to condemn Yossef's words (and not just lamely distancing himself from them) without creating a crisis in the coalition. The Labor Party, if it had any backbone, would have forced him to condemn this call for genocide, albeit a genocide at the hands of God and not man.

Positive Signs in the West Bank

It is well-known that there is an economic boom in the West Bank. Unfortunately, our government isn't going to seize this opportunity - having a peaceful, stable and moderate Palestinian society with something lose if violence breaks out again - to come any closer to peace.

Thomas Friedman writes about the Palestinian economy in today's op-ed in the New York Times. I think the most significant paragraph is this one:

The most important thing President Obama can do when he meets Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, on July 6 is to nudge him to begin gradually ceding control of major West Bank Palestinian cities to the Palestinian Authority so that Fayyad can show his people, as he puts it, that what he is building is an independent state “not an exercise in adapting to the permanence of occupation” — and so that Israel can test if the new Palestinian security forces really can keep the peace without Israel making nighttime raids. Nothing would strengthen Fayyadism more than that.

Would Netanyahu do such a thing as an interim step? I don't think so, but one hopes Obama might convince him.