Analysis: Why Israelis chose Netanyahu; not just nationalism

[webfact]

Analysis: Why Israelis chose Netanyahu; not just nationalism
By DAN PERRY

JERUSALEM (AP) — It's a mystery to many: Benjamin Netanyahu's campaign gained steam when he ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state, and he seems determined to continue settling occupied land with Jews.

So, why would Israelis again back policies that promise friction of all kinds — and will dramatically dilute the Jewish character of their hard-won state by making it inseparable from the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank?

The answer lies in the details of a conundrum so complicated that the dynamics of democracy seem hardly able to contain it. Tellingly, perhaps, the campaign did not even focus on the grand strategic issue that is now presented as having been decided: Instead the opposition pledged to address bread-and-butter issues, like the high cost of living.

The outcome may be different under circumstances that force the Palestinian issue to the table. If international boycott initiatives start exacting an economic price on a country that appreciates its high standard of living, or if the Europeans who are Israel's top trading partners take off the gloves. Or if the Palestinians rebel, creating a major security headache, or the United States steps in with peace proposals backed by muscle.

Another game-changer would be if the moderate opposition united behind a truly compelling candidate after a succession of leaders who were simply not perceived by enough people as ready for prime time. The last Labor Party leader to achieve an effective brand of gravitas was Ehud Barak, who won in 1999.

Here are some issues that help explain the outcome of Tuesday's vote, in which Netanyahu's Likud won 30 seats in the 120-seat parliament, and parties apparently willing to back him won another 37 for a possible majority:

THE WEST BANK IS VALUABLE, THE REGION MENACING

Very few Israelis see the 48-year-old West Bank occupation as purely a nationalist conceit, greedy and anti-Palestinian, though that narrative certainly has currency in the region and around the world. From a Palestinian perspective, the West Bank and Gaza Strip combined are just about a fifth of historic Palestine — the bare minimum that is acceptable from their perspective.

But what Israelis see is a pre-1967 border that is basically just a cease-fire line from the 1948-49 war that established the country. Without the West Bank, Israel is only 10 miles (15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point. The strategic highland looms over Israeli cities, visible on a clear day from the outskirts of Tel Aviv and surrounding Jerusalem on three sides. They fear that if their army clears out it will be replaced not by peaceful Palestinian moderates but more menacing forces like Hamas — which took over the Gaza Strip soon after Israel handed it fully to the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas in 2005.

The fact that Islamic State militants are menacing the region does not help, and was exploited by Netanyahu during a campaign in which he portrayed the militants as charging toward Jerusalem, with naive Israeli leftists even helpfully pointing the way.

PEACE SEEMS UNLIKELY ANYWAY

On several occasions Israeli governments have offered the Palestinians statehood on close to all of the West Bank and Gaza. A quarter century of futile negotiations appears to stem from Israel's refusal to accept a return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, who potentially number in the millions, and from the tremendous difficulty of even contemplating sharing Jerusalem. The idea of a border running right through the holy city — with Palestinian police controlling entrances to the Old City a stone's throw from downtown pubs and hotels — is unfathomable to many Israelis.

Because so few think a peace deal is likely, the opposition runs away from the issue. If elected they might offer various concessions: perhaps a unilateral pullout from some areas; maybe a push for an interim deal which today the Palestinians refuse to contemplate; in any case, a freeze on settlements. But the issue is so complicated that they have found their position difficult to sell. Many Israelis console themselves with the islands of Palestinian autonomy established in the 1990s in the West Bank: perhaps they might suffice to make the "demographic issue" go away.

THE TRIBAL FACTOR

Israel's fractured politics leave little room for maneuver. A look at the electoral map shows a huge proportion of parliament that is almost guaranteed to go to sectarian and ethnic interests. More than a third of the new parliament will be occupied by parties that target certain groups and have a near guaranteed vote that has little to do with the Palestinian issue: Israeli Arabs, Russian immigrants, traditionally-inclined Sephardic Jews and different shades of religious Jews.

On top of that, major parties that theoretically stand for ideology also appeal to specific interest groups. This is especially true of Netanyahu's Likud Party, which has a tremendously loyal base among working-class Israelis who hail from the Arab world and tend to be hawkish. They still resent the leftist establishment that founded Israel for the reception they got as immigrants a half-century ago. Many speak of the party as a "home" that is "in our blood" and cannot conceivably be "betrayed." On top of that, the religious sector, aligned with the right, has the country's highest birthrate by far, and so can be expected to constantly add to its automatic storehouse of votes.

KING BIBI

Netanyahu, known popularly as Bibi, is a brilliant campaigner who not only does and says what it takes to get elected, but seems comfortable doing so. In the final week of the campaign he realized that the perception of victory, in Israel's fragmented political space, would depend more on his party than his bloc. So he tacked to the right, taking votes from his nationalist ally, the Jewish Home.

On Tuesday, that meant shocking many Israelis by issuing dire warnings that Israeli Arab citizens were streaming to the polls. A few days earlier, he had sounded the alarm against an international conspiracy supposedly amassed to "topple" him. He also energized his base by declaring that if re-elected he would never allow a Palestinian state — a reversal of his own policy of the past six years. But so profound is the cynicism surrounding Israeli politics that most viewed the zigzags as little more than political sport.

Also effective was Netanyahu's controversial appearance two weeks ago on Capitol Hill, where he argued against President Barack Obama's supposedly impending nuclear deal with Iran. Mortified, the Israeli opposition could not disagree with the substance of his speech but warned of a crisis with the United States. The relatively polite response from the U.S. administration was, to Netanyahu's fans at least, another sign that he has things well in hand.
___

Dan Perry is AP's Middle East editor leading text coverage in the region.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-19

[Jingthing]

He ran a brilliant (and rather sleazy) campaign. Pushed all the buttons. He's a great politician. As a Prime Minister, probably not so great.

[Lissos]

Interesting article. Thanks.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[hard124get]

Best option for Palestine. Bibi cannot cannot blame Hamas any longer. He has shown his hand, and US support has dwindled. Nobody likes a liar.

[Jingthing]

Still beats Hamas. That's what Israel is dealing with. Rough neighborhood. I respect Israel's decision. I don't live there. They do.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

Still beats Hamas. That's what Israel is dealing with. Rough neighborhood. I respect Israel's decision. I don't live there. They do.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really mean you respect the decision to continue to oppress 4.5 million people and deny them self-determination.

So Netanyahu got 25% of the vote. One in four Israelis.

It's time to change the system. Only 1 in 4 agree with his policies, yet those are the policies that will be put in place.

NZ has a similar system (MMP, mixed member proportional), and there is deep dissatisfaction with it amongst the people. They tried it out for a few terms, but realised that it just leads to half-measures and an emphasis on politicking rather than doing things. The problem is, the politicians love it as many that wouldn't get a seat under other systems do get seats. I imagine it is the same in Israel...too many politicians worry about their snout in the trough rather than what is good for the country.

It's so very sad that Israel will never flourish while this sort of politics endures.

[arjunadawn]

“It’s a mystery to many” but this analysis will set right the frustrated minds of others; how arrogant. This article has some really useful information and would otherwise provide the reader with some perspective, if it wasn’t so littered with bias. When noting the stumbling-block of returning Arabs post State solution the author never describes the right of return in any meaningful way and why it’s a poision pill; any facilitation of this point results in the disolution of the State of Israel. No leader in history would approve the right of return.

The West Bank was Israel’s, it was always Israel’s, and notwithstanding Jordanian occupation until 1967, (After the Arabs approved the Mandate and then invaded) should remain Israel’s. If the Palestinian Mandate that carved up the region is untenable, or moot, then that Mandate and other mandates that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., should also be moot and untenable. Insofar as they are not, then the Mandate stands with regional precedent and the West Bank is unequivocally provisioned for the Jews. This is an unmistakable fact. Indeed, this Palestine Mandate was approved by the Arabs because as we then see repeatedly, they knew they would attack in any event.

Indeed, what is described as the 1967 borders are actually non permanent armistice lines governing Israeli lands that the Jordanians occupied militarily by use of force since 1948 (after they agreed to this very land being the Jews). The area of armistice by 1967 was entirely within the land already provisioned for the Jews in any event. Insofar as the Jordanians insisted in 1967 that these lines not be permanent, [they] can hardly hold a claim.

1/5, 2/10ths, one half of historic Palestine; it makes no difference as this point compares oranges and bricks- they are simply unrelated. Palestine was a region very much like Maghreb is a region in North Africa or the Arab Quarter in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Comparing what local Arabs have in land mass today with historical regional definitions is disingenuous; it is dishonest.

Israel does not fear being a state 10 miles wide at the narrowest; this is also misleading. Israel knows this single point is also a poison pill as Israel would then, even though a regional military power would have a demonstrable Achilles Heel. This strategic surrender would cost the Israeli state dearly.

It is suggestive of the author’s impartiality when he notes Netanyahu “exploited” the fact the DAESH is a threat to Israel. Why? Because DAESH/IS is a threat to Israel. The Jews are the number two targets of Al Qaeda and DAESH (following illegitimate muslim rulers) and they are forming a transnational standing army just miles away. How can this be “exploited” in a regional forum where discussions revolve around survival? DAESH or Iran- 6 of one, ½ dozen of another- the fact remains Iranian Quds forces are seeding the border areas. These are also existential threats but the author asserts they are “exploited.”

Though the author notes Arabs controlling areas of the old city are untenable to the Jews he does not mention that the Arabs actually have scriptural mandate and a highly evolved voluminous jurisprudence to subjugate Jews (shar’ia), to disenfranchise, enslave, or kill the Jews, and it is the Arabs, too, who do not want to see jews in possession of… anything!

The “international conspiracy supposedly amassed to topple [him]” was in fact an international effort amassed to topple him. Buzz words meant to belittle or impugn Netanyahu’s character like “conspiracy” are beneath any real intellectual discussion; no one really suggested there was a conspiracy as the entire world knew Obama operatives were trying to move heaven and earth to unseat Netanyahu. In the end the "conspiracy" alleged by the author may in fact be criminal instead as it seems US funds were mixed with private funds, and taxpayer advisers aided and abetted V15 to “topple” Netanyahu. On this single point alone the author has no clothes! This could have been “Analysis” but only rises to OPED.

[Linky]

Its a mystery to many but this analysis will set right the frustrated minds of others; how arrogant. This article has some really useful information and would otherwise provide the reader with some perspective, if it wasnt so littered with bias. When noting the stumbling-block of returning Arabs post State solution the author never describes the right of return in any meaningful way and why its a poision pill; any facilitation of this point results in the disolution of the State of Israel. No leader in history would approve the right of return.

The West Bank was Israels, it was always Israels, and notwithstanding Jordanian occupation until 1967, (After the Arabs approved the Mandate and then invaded) should remain Israels. If the Palestinian Mandate that carved up the region is untenable, or moot, then that Mandate and other mandates that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., should also be moot and untenable. Insofar as they are not, then the Mandate stands with regional precedent and the West Bank is unequivocally provisioned for the Jews. This is an unmistakable fact. Indeed, this Palestine Mandate was approved by the Arabs because as we then see repeatedly, they knew they would attack in any event.

Indeed, what is described as the 1967 borders are actually non permanent armistice lines governing Israeli lands that the Jordanians occupied militarily by use of force since 1948 (after they agreed to this very land being the Jews). The area of armistice by 1967 was entirely within the land already provisioned for the Jews in any event. Insofar as the Jordanians insisted in 1967 that these lines not be permanent, [they] can hardly hold a claim.

1/5, 2/10ths, one half of historic Palestine; it makes no difference as this point compares oranges and bricks- they are simply unrelated. Palestine was a region very much like Maghreb is a region in North Africa or the Arab Quarter in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Comparing what local Arabs have in land mass today with historical regional definitions is disingenuous; it is dishonest.

Israel does not fear being a state 10 miles wide at the narrowest; this is also misleading. Israel knows this single point is also a poison pill as Israel would then, even though a regional military power would have a demonstrable Achilles Heel. This strategic surrender would cost the Israeli state dearly.

It is suggestive of the authors impartiality when he notes Netanyahu exploited the fact the DAESH is a threat to Israel. Why? Because DAESH/IS is a threat to Israel. The Jews are the number two targets of Al Qaeda and DAESH (following illegitimate muslim rulers) and they are forming a transnational standing army just miles away. How can this be exploited in a regional forum where discussions revolve around survival? DAESH or Iran- 6 of one, ½ dozen of another- the fact remains Iranian Quds forces are seeding the border areas. These are also existential threats but the author asserts they are exploited.

Though the author notes Arabs controlling areas of the old city are untenable to the Jews he does not mention that the Arabs actually have scriptural mandate and a highly evolved voluminous jurisprudence to subjugate Jews (sharia), to disenfranchise, enslave, or kill the Jews, and it is the Arabs, too, who do not want to see jews in possession of anything!

The international conspiracy supposedly amassed to topple [him] was in fact an international effort amassed to topple him. Buzz words meant to belittle or impugn Netanyahus character like conspiracy are beneath any real intellectual discussion; no one really suggested there was a conspiracy as the entire world knew Obama operatives were trying to move heaven and earth to unseat Netanyahu. In the end the "conspiracy" alleged by the author may in fact be criminal instead as it seems US funds were mixed with private funds, and taxpayer advisers aided and abetted V15 to topple Netanyahu. On this single point alone the author has no clothes! This could have been Analysis but only rises to OPED.

Oh dear me

[arjunadawn]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

[Linky]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

You do realize he is a proven liar. So I wouldn't go boasting of you both saying the same thing. Tomorrow it will be different depending on the agenda of the moment.

It's purely and simply about lebensraum.

[RockyBeerbelly]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

Surprise, Surprise, Fox news gives a racist lair 11 minutes airtime to tell more lies....

[elgordo38]

He ran a brilliant (and rather sleazy) campaign. Pushed all the buttons. He's a great politician. As a Prime Minister, probably not so great.

Run a fear campaign and divide and conquer. In the end the people decided to stay with the Devil they knew rather than the one they did not. This ruse is being used world wide to win elections. Politicians feed on fear. People fear whats happening in the world today and do not want to rock the boat. It was also a smart move to go to the USA and tweek the president's nose. Makes him look like a hero.

[arjunadawn]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

You do realize he is a proven liar. So I wouldn't go boasting of you both saying the same thing. Tomorrow it will be different depending on the agenda of the moment.

It's purely and simply about lebensraum.

Thank you for calling him a liar and not me; really. I will not argue with a point that I maybe cant win- perhaps he has lied. I dont know so concede you may. However, my points remain and are not based on his statements; I found that link after my post. You may still find my observations disagreeable, but I do not lie. I actually believe what I say and it will likely remain the same tomorrow, unless someone persuades me I am a dumbass and missing something important; in which case, I usually admit publicly I was mistaken (I have been proven mistaken on TV in the past). So, Netanyahu lied? Ok; I accept your observation. I dont know for sure. Nevertheless, there is common ground in his comments for what are otherwise my separate observations, and to this point I refer.

[arjunadawn]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

Surprise, Surprise, Fox news gives a racist lair 11 minutes airtime to tell more lies....

Why is Netanyahu a racist?

[dexterm]

In a two state solution I don’t think a Palestinian refugee right of return to their pre 48 homeland is the big issue the OP makes it out to be. Many would accept compensation as an alternative with perhaps a token of elderly Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes allowed to return if they want to. The Palestinians need not accept anything short of the deal over Jerusalem that Ehud Barak offered at Camp David. The only stumbling block at Camp David was land swaps..97% was tantalizingly close but it was not 100%. What a shame Bill Clinton could not have stayed another few more days to twist arms and bang heads together. Israelis and Palestinians could have been living in peace for the last 15 years now.

But in a one state solution...land, Jerusalem, right of return... it’s all irrelevant anyway! Absorb the 2.5 million Palestinians resident in the West Bank and make them equal citizens.

What else can you do with them...keep them under apartheid as 2^nd class stateless residents or herd 2.5 million people at gunpoint into buses to the Jordanian border where they live in UN tent cities, because Jordan won’t accept people as refugees who already have homes and have been living in Palestine for generations. The US, EU and the world community would not allow either of those scenarios if Israel annexes the West Bank.

So problem sorted then.

Edited March 20, 2015 by dexterm

[Seastallion]

“It’s a mystery to many” but this analysis will set right the frustrated minds of others; how arrogant. This article has some really useful information and would otherwise provide the reader with some perspective, if it wasn’t so littered with bias. When noting the stumbling-block of returning Arabs post State solution the author never describes the right of return in any meaningful way and why it’s a poision pill; any facilitation of this point results in the disolution of the State of Israel. No leader in history would approve the right of return.

The West Bank was Israel’s, it was always Israel’s, and notwithstanding Jordanian occupation until 1967, (After the Arabs approved the Mandate and then invaded) should remain Israel’s. If the Palestinian Mandate that carved up the region is untenable, or moot, then that Mandate and other mandates that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., should also be moot and untenable. Insofar as they are not, then the Mandate stands with regional precedent and the West Bank is unequivocally provisioned for the Jews. This is an unmistakable fact. Indeed, this Palestine Mandate was approved by the Arabs because as we then see repeatedly, they knew they would attack in any event.

Indeed, what is described as the 1967 borders are actually non permanent armistice lines governing Israeli lands that the Jordanians occupied militarily by use of force since 1948 (after they agreed to this very land being the Jews). The area of armistice by 1967 was entirely within the land already provisioned for the Jews in any event. Insofar as the Jordanians insisted in 1967 that these lines not be permanent, [they] can hardly hold a claim.

1/5, 2/10ths, one half of historic Palestine; it makes no difference as this point compares oranges and bricks- they are simply unrelated. Palestine was a region very much like Maghreb is a region in North Africa or the Arab Quarter in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Comparing what local Arabs have in land mass today with historical regional definitions is disingenuous; it is dishonest.

Israel does not fear being a state 10 miles wide at the narrowest; this is also misleading. Israel knows this single point is also a poison pill as Israel would then, even though a regional military power would have a demonstrable Achilles Heel. This strategic surrender would cost the Israeli state dearly.

It is suggestive of the author’s impartiality when he notes Netanyahu “exploited” the fact the DAESH is a threat to Israel. Why? Because DAESH/IS is a threat to Israel. The Jews are the number two targets of Al Qaeda and DAESH (following illegitimate muslim rulers) and they are forming a transnational standing army just miles away. How can this be “exploited” in a regional forum where discussions revolve around survival? DAESH or Iran- 6 of one, ½ dozen of another- the fact remains Iranian Quds forces are seeding the border areas. These are also existential threats but the author asserts they are “exploited.”

Though the author notes Arabs controlling areas of the old city are untenable to the Jews he does not mention that the Arabs actually have scriptural mandate and a highly evolved voluminous jurisprudence to subjugate Jews (shar’ia), to disenfranchise, enslave, or kill the Jews, and it is the Arabs, too, who do not want to see jews in possession of… anything!

The “international conspiracy supposedly amassed to topple [him]” was in fact an international effort amassed to topple him. Buzz words meant to belittle or impugn Netanyahu’s character like “conspiracy” are beneath any real intellectual discussion; no one really suggested there was a conspiracy as the entire world knew Obama operatives were trying to move heaven and earth to unseat Netanyahu. In the end the "conspiracy" alleged by the author may in fact be criminal instead as it seems US funds were mixed with private funds, and taxpayer advisers aided and abetted V15 to “topple” Netanyahu. On this single point alone the author has no clothes! This could have been “Analysis” but only rises to OPED.

I don't take your assertion of West Bank ownership, but, in line with the Zionist ambition of "The Promised Land" from the river to the sea, the state of Israel has quite deliberately never defined it's borders, despite the 1947 partition because that would establish a finite land area. They hedge. They prevaricate. They obfuscate. They encroach. They occupy.

It's a deliberate and insidious long-term strategy that they deserve to have thrown back in their collective faces.

And if you want to talk about "might is right".....

[Seastallion]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

Surprise, Surprise, Fox news gives a racist lair 11 minutes airtime to tell more lies....

Why is Netanyahu a racist?

Because of his "The Arabs are voting...get to the polls and out-vote them" scare tactic. Is he a PM of a nation of citizens or a nation of two racial groups?

But his racism is well documented in other videos and speeches.

[arjunadawn]

“It’s a mystery to many” but this analysis will set right the frustrated minds of others; how arrogant. This article has some really useful information and would otherwise provide the reader with some perspective, if it wasn’t so littered with bias. When noting the stumbling-block of returning Arabs post State solution the author never describes the right of return in any meaningful way and why it’s a poision pill; any facilitation of this point results in the disolution of the State of Israel. No leader in history would approve the right of return.

The West Bank was Israel’s, it was always Israel’s, and notwithstanding Jordanian occupation until 1967, (After the Arabs approved the Mandate and then invaded) should remain Israel’s. If the Palestinian Mandate that carved up the region is untenable, or moot, then that Mandate and other mandates that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., should also be moot and untenable. Insofar as they are not, then the Mandate stands with regional precedent and the West Bank is unequivocally provisioned for the Jews. This is an unmistakable fact. Indeed, this Palestine Mandate was approved by the Arabs because as we then see repeatedly, they knew they would attack in any event.

Indeed, what is described as the 1967 borders are actually non permanent armistice lines governing Israeli lands that the Jordanians occupied militarily by use of force since 1948 (after they agreed to this very land being the Jews). The area of armistice by 1967 was entirely within the land already provisioned for the Jews in any event. Insofar as the Jordanians insisted in 1967 that these lines not be permanent, [they] can hardly hold a claim.

1/5, 2/10ths, one half of historic Palestine; it makes no difference as this point compares oranges and bricks- they are simply unrelated. Palestine was a region very much like Maghreb is a region in North Africa or the Arab Quarter in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Comparing what local Arabs have in land mass today with historical regional definitions is disingenuous; it is dishonest.

Israel does not fear being a state 10 miles wide at the narrowest; this is also misleading. Israel knows this single point is also a poison pill as Israel would then, even though a regional military power would have a demonstrable Achilles Heel. This strategic surrender would cost the Israeli state dearly.

It is suggestive of the author’s impartiality when he notes Netanyahu “exploited” the fact the DAESH is a threat to Israel. Why? Because DAESH/IS is a threat to Israel. The Jews are the number two targets of Al Qaeda and DAESH (following illegitimate muslim rulers) and they are forming a transnational standing army just miles away. How can this be “exploited” in a regional forum where discussions revolve around survival? DAESH or Iran- 6 of one, ½ dozen of another- the fact remains Iranian Quds forces are seeding the border areas. These are also existential threats but the author asserts they are “exploited.”

Though the author notes Arabs controlling areas of the old city are untenable to the Jews he does not mention that the Arabs actually have scriptural mandate and a highly evolved voluminous jurisprudence to subjugate Jews (shar’ia), to disenfranchise, enslave, or kill the Jews, and it is the Arabs, too, who do not want to see jews in possession of… anything!

The “international conspiracy supposedly amassed to topple [him]” was in fact an international effort amassed to topple him. Buzz words meant to belittle or impugn Netanyahu’s character like “conspiracy” are beneath any real intellectual discussion; no one really suggested there was a conspiracy as the entire world knew Obama operatives were trying to move heaven and earth to unseat Netanyahu. In the end the "conspiracy" alleged by the author may in fact be criminal instead as it seems US funds were mixed with private funds, and taxpayer advisers aided and abetted V15 to “topple” Netanyahu. On this single point alone the author has no clothes! This could have been “Analysis” but only rises to OPED.

I don't take your assertion of West Bank ownership, but, in line with the Zionist ambition of "The Promised Land" from the river to the sea, the state of Israel has quite deliberately never defined it's borders, despite the 1947 partition because that would establish a finite land area. They hedge. They prevaricate. They obfuscate. They encroach. They occupy.

It's a deliberate and insidious long-term strategy that they deserve to have thrown back in their collective faces.

And if you want to talk about "might is right".....

When I was in Iraq some years ago someone showed me an Israeli coin, maybe a shekel. I dont recall. What alarmed me was that Israel proper did not stop at the Jordan. The map on the obverse of this coin stretched all the way to the Euphrates and Tigris. This single event remained fixed in my mind suggesting that there was something I really didn't understand. I still do not fully get it. Perhaps you do and this is your point.

I am aware of the Zionist arguments and its repugnance to many. I cannot say I am an expert regarding this. Yet with all things in balance I ask myself, "why would a different standard apply to jews than arabs/muslims?" After all, Jews are not the only ones with such nationalist/religious zealotry (pun intended). Jews, churches, etc., are not even permitted in most muslim lands and the islamic ambition is- earth! So, you may be right but its relative.

Seastallion, I dont know. You may be right that there are darker machinations motivating the very things I am narrowly commenting on, and I am thus missing the forest for the trees. Because I cant see it I will take your word- really- that a much more nationalist thread runs through much of what I narrowly comment on. But because I cannot see it, I just may miss your point. This is the best I can do to concede your point, and that perhaps you are correct.

Within the narrow view I do note, my post remains valid to me (yet according to you, it is necessarily incomplete and does not tell the whole story. ok).

[wileycoyote]

Good posting

[arjunadawn]

What does Netanyahu actually say? Apparently, pretty much what I said above:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122905992001/netanyahu-peace-agreement-must-be-negotiated-not-imposed/?playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

Surprise, Surprise, Fox news gives a racist lair 11 minutes airtime to tell more lies....

Why is Netanyahu a racist?

Because of his "The Arabs are voting...get to the polls and out-vote them" scare tactic. Is he a PM of a nation of citizens or a nation of two racial groups?

But his racism is well documented in other videos and speeches.

For this position to be valid one must accept duplicity, hypocrisy and indeed, a double standard. You see, throughout the western world, particularly in America, it is seen as permissible to solicit minorities, based solely on their special minority status, to vote including busing, paying, organizing, and effectively telling them who to vote for. Why then is it seen as poor taste to comment on this reality when it is motivated in Israel?

When the politics of electoral balkanization are being employed, why is it a bridge too far to comment on this? This is utter rubbish. Cultural fracturing is used as a weapon against both opponent and the State throughout the liberal world and to suggest noting this reality is also wrong reveals moral bankruptcy.

[RockyBeerbelly]

Why is Netanyahu a racist?

Because of his "The Arabs are voting...get to the polls and out-vote them" scare tactic. Is he a PM of a nation of citizens or a nation of two racial groups?

But his racism is well documented in other videos and speeches.

For this position to be valid one must accept duplicity, hypocrisy and indeed, a double standard. You see, throughout the western world, particularly in America, it is seen as permissible to solicit minorities, based solely on their special minority status, to vote including busing, paying, organizing, and effectively telling them who to vote for. Why then is it seen as poor taste to comment on this reality when it is motivated in Israel?

When the politics of electoral balkanization are being employed, why is it a bridge too far to comment on this? This is utter rubbish. Cultural fracturing is used as a weapon against both opponent and the State throughout the liberal world and to suggest noting this reality is also wrong reveals moral bankruptcy.

You can try to whitewash all you want, fact is Netanyahu made racists remarks multiple times (the last one on election day). That makes him a racist! I find openly making racist remarks by a PM a bit more than "poor taste" but obviously you and I differ in that. Btw I also detest (electoral) corruption...which in my view is a lot more like bad taste than poor taste.....

[dexterm]

arjunadawn,

President Obama, his press secretary Josh Earnest, Seastallion and I see racism in Netanyahu's video, but you somehow cannot.

Netanyahu said:

"Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves,” he wrote. “Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

“The United States and this administration is deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens,” Earnest said.

He added: “Rhetoric that seeks to marginalise one segment of their population is deeply concerning, it is divisive, and I can tell you that these are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/18/obama-netanyahu-israel-election-white-house

Would you regard as anti semitic a hypothetical Democrat Presidential candidate who somehow or other had upset AIPAC, then went on Facebook and said:

"Jews are heading to the polling stations in droves. Republicans are bringing them in buses.”

I would certainly regard that as anti Semitic, singling out Jews as a particular ethnic/religious group of citizens whose votes must be cancelled at all costs by a greater opposition turn out. I would regard it as racist and undemocratic.

Edited March 20, 2015 by dexterm

[Jingthing]

Racism exists in all populations.

It certainly exists among many Israeli Jews, especially the right wing ones.

It also exists among many Palestinians in west bank and Hamastan (Gaza), who are basically indoctrinated in antisemitic based racism from an early age.

Israeli Arabs deserve better than the comment Bibi made, much better.

These evils on both sides are a given.

Anyway, Bibi's comment was shameful. But he won the election and will be PM again almost certainly. So now is the time that maybe he can try to make it up to his fellow Israeli citizens ... the Arab Israelis.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

Racism exists in all populations.

It certainly exists among many Israeli Jews, especially the right wing ones.

It also exists among many Palestinians in west bank and Hamastan (Gaza), who are basically indoctrinated in antisemitic based racism from an early age.

Israeli Arabs deserve better than the comment Bibi made, much better.

These evils on both sides are a given.

Anyway, Bibi's comment was shameful. But he won the election and will be PM again almost certainly. So now is the time that maybe he can try to make it up to his fellow Israeli citizens ... the Arab Israelis.

I yearn for the day when Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists are judged by the content of their character and not by stereotyping or indoctrination.

[BKKBobby]

“It’s a mystery to many” but this analysis will set right the frustrated minds of others; how arrogant. This article has some really useful information and would otherwise provide the reader with some perspective, if it wasn’t so littered with bias. When noting the stumbling-block of returning Arabs post State solution the author never describes the right of return in any meaningful way and why it’s a poision pill; any facilitation of this point results in the disolution of the State of Israel. No leader in history would approve the right of return.

The West Bank was Israel’s, it was always Israel’s, and notwithstanding Jordanian occupation until 1967, (After the Arabs approved the Mandate and then invaded) should remain Israel’s. If the Palestinian Mandate that carved up the region is untenable, or moot, then that Mandate and other mandates that created Lebanon and Syria, etc., should also be moot and untenable. Insofar as they are not, then the Mandate stands with regional precedent and the West Bank is unequivocally provisioned for the Jews. This is an unmistakable fact. Indeed, this Palestine Mandate was approved by the Arabs because as we then see repeatedly, they knew they would attack in any event.

Indeed, what is described as the 1967 borders are actually non permanent armistice lines governing Israeli lands that the Jordanians occupied militarily by use of force since 1948 (after they agreed to this very land being the Jews). The area of armistice by 1967 was entirely within the land already provisioned for the Jews in any event. Insofar as the Jordanians insisted in 1967 that these lines not be permanent, [they] can hardly hold a claim.

1/5, 2/10ths, one half of historic Palestine; it makes no difference as this point compares oranges and bricks- they are simply unrelated. Palestine was a region very much like Maghreb is a region in North Africa or the Arab Quarter in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Comparing what local Arabs have in land mass today with historical regional definitions is disingenuous; it is dishonest.

Israel does not fear being a state 10 miles wide at the narrowest; this is also misleading. Israel knows this single point is also a poison pill as Israel would then, even though a regional military power would have a demonstrable Achilles Heel. This strategic surrender would cost the Israeli state dearly.

It is suggestive of the author’s impartiality when he notes Netanyahu “exploited” the fact the DAESH is a threat to Israel. Why? Because DAESH/IS is a threat to Israel. The Jews are the number two targets of Al Qaeda and DAESH (following illegitimate muslim rulers) and they are forming a transnational standing army just miles away. How can this be “exploited” in a regional forum where discussions revolve around survival? DAESH or Iran- 6 of one, ½ dozen of another- the fact remains Iranian Quds forces are seeding the border areas. These are also existential threats but the author asserts they are “exploited.”

Though the author notes Arabs controlling areas of the old city are untenable to the Jews he does not mention that the Arabs actually have scriptural mandate and a highly evolved voluminous jurisprudence to subjugate Jews (shar’ia), to disenfranchise, enslave, or kill the Jews, and it is the Arabs, too, who do not want to see jews in possession of… anything!

The “international conspiracy supposedly amassed to topple [him]” was in fact an international effort amassed to topple him. Buzz words meant to belittle or impugn Netanyahu’s character like “conspiracy” are beneath any real intellectual discussion; no one really suggested there was a conspiracy as the entire world knew Obama operatives were trying to move heaven and earth to unseat Netanyahu. In the end the "conspiracy" alleged by the author may in fact be criminal instead as it seems US funds were mixed with private funds, and taxpayer advisers aided and abetted V15 to “topple” Netanyahu. On this single point alone the author has no clothes! This could have been “Analysis” but only rises to OPED.

Eloquent and written with intellect.

Such a waste...

Netanyahu won cause he knows how to win a election.

He has already burned bridges, disrespected the US, alienated Israel (more) from EU

Hes doing a disservice to Israel.

The primary enemy of ISIS is fellow muslims of different sects, theres an awful lot of those to fight against before ISIS would turn its attention to Israel, they aint a threat to Israel, Israel would squash them, you know that.

ISIS geographical reach is limited, they wont be able to do much more geographical expansion. Just look at the map and look at the different players (including their allies) that surround territory that is under ISIS control.

Isolated small groups of affiliates of ISIS can pop up anywhere, but thats it.

Palestine as state has a right to exist, period. No excuses.

[Ulysses G.]

Palestine as state has a right to exist, period. No excuses.

No. It doesn't. Not until the Palestinians make peace and negotiate borders with Israel as they have committed to do.

[Linky]

Palestine as state has a right to exist, period. No excuses.

No. It doesn't. Not until the Palestinians make peace and negotiate borders with Israel as they have committed to do.

Israel will soon have no say in the matter. More and more countries are accepting Palestine. Israel is merely grabbing as much land as they can before they have to toe the line.

[Bwanatickey]

The world could do with another Six day war.

[Jingthing]

Palestine as state has a right to exist, period. No excuses.

No. It doesn't. Not until the Palestinians make peace and negotiate borders with Israel as they have committed to do.

Israel will soon have no say in the matter. More and more countries are accepting Palestine. Israel is merely grabbing as much land as they can before they have to toe the line.

The "world" is going to enforce the borders it defines how exactly?

Dude -- for there to be any kind of realistic solution, it's going to have to involve Israel's cooperation.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Jingthing