Posted in Israel, tagged Abbas Milani, Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanayhu, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor, democracy, Iran, Israel, Israel Waismel-Manor, Israeli domestic politics, Jewish Home, Knesset, Menachem Begin, Miri Regev, Naftali Bennett, New York Times, Shas, Tablet Magazine, theocracy, Tzipi Hotovely, UTJ, Yair Rosenberg, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu, Ze'ev Elkin on April 21, 2014 |
2 Comments »
An edited version of this article appeared first at LobeLog.
They were dueling op-eds, one in the New York Times and the other in the Jewish communal magazine, Tablet. The question being
Nationalistic signs at Salute to Israel Day in New York, July 2006
Photo by Rabih/Public Domain
bandied between them was whether Israel is becoming a theocracy. Not surprisingly, both pieces missed the mark. It’s not theocracy but unbridled nationalism that is the threat in Israel.
The Times piece was authored by Abbas Milani, who heads the Iranian Studies program at Stanford University and Israel Waismel-Manor, a lecturer at Haifa University who is currently a visiting associate professor of Political Science at Stanford. Their thesis is that Iran and Israel are moving in opposite directions on a democratic-theocratic scale, and that they might at some point in the future pass each other. Milani and Waismel-Manor are certainly correct about the strengthening forces of secularism and democracy in Iran, along with a good dose of disillusionment and frustration with the revolutionary, Islamic government that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ushered in thirty-five years ago. But on Israel, they miss the mark by a pretty wide margin.
Waismel-Manor and MIlani posit that the thirty seats currently held in Israel’s Knesset by religious parties shows growing religious influence on Israeli policies. But, as Yair Rosenberg at Tablet correctly points out, not all the religious parties have the same attitude about separation of religion and the state. Where Rosenberg, unsurprisingly, goes way off course is his complete eliding of the fact that the threat is not Israel’s tilt toward religion, but it’s increasingly radical shift toward right-wing policies, which are often severely discriminatory and militant. (more…)
Read Full Post »
Posted in Israel, Likud, tagged Aryeh Deri, Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor, Ehud Olmert, Israel, Labor Party, Likud, Middle east, Netanyahu, Shas, Shelly Yachimovich, Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu on October 25, 2012 |
6 Comments »
I’ve long suspected it, but now I’m convinced: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his mind. His announcement todayof forming a joint list with Yisrael Beiteinu and Avigdor Lieberman reeks of a panic not rooted in any sense of reality. And this time, it’s not about “the Arabs” or Iran, but about the upcoming election. It’s proof positive that the man running Israel, and who is going to continue to run Israel for the foreseeable future, is a frightened, perhaps even paranoid, reactionary man.
Consummating their love and uniting the right: Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu
According to Yediot Akhronot’s web site, YNet, Bibi made the decision to do this because polls indicate Likud would lose a few seats in the next elections (sorry, the report is not available in English at this time). Netanyahu wants to be the leader of the next Knesset’s biggest party, not the second biggest as he currently is. So, he threw in his lot with Lieberman and his explicit fascism.
I think this move is going to backfire on Bibi in a number of ways. First of all, this is going to alienate a number of very high profile Likud members. Some will be seeing this as coming at their expense, especially those in top positions right now who will be bumped at least one rung, perhaps more, lower on the list and in their positions in the next cabinet. Others, like Dan Meridor, Benny Begin and more, are going to bristle sharply at having to work this closely with Lieberman. It would not surprise me to see several prominent Likud figures bolt.
Second, whereas before the so-called super-bloc of “center-left” parties was largely a media invention, Netanyahu has now given it much more impetus. While Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid may still be more interested in making their own mark on the electorate, the more seasoned Labor and Kadima parties are going to find that they have little choice but to join forces now in some way. That won’t matter to Bibi…unless Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni re-enter the fray, which make Kadima meaningful again and would combine well with a Labor Party that Shelly Yachimovitch has kept at a steady second place in polls for months. (more…)
Read Full Post »
Posted in One-State Solution, Zionism, tagged Benjamin Netanyahu, Channel 10, Daniel Ben Simon, Diaspora, Ha'aretz, Haim Weizmann, Israeli Arabs, Jews, Kadima, Knesset, Labor, Law of Return, Meretz, Palestinians, Post-Zionism, settlers, Shas, Shelly Yachimovich, Tal Law, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beitenu, Zehava Gal-On, Zionism on August 3, 2012 |
Leave a Comment »
In this week’s article at Souciant I look at recent shifts in the Israeli political landscape within the context of how two-staters might start to seriously rethink their approach in a post-Oslo world.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged Abe Foxman, AIPAC, Anti-Zionism, BDS, democracy, Gaza, Habayit Hayehudi, Hamas, human rights, Israel, Israel Lobby, J Street, Jewish Community, Jewish Voice for Peace, Middle east, Obama, Occupation, One-State Solution, Palestine, Palestinians, Peace Groups, pro-Israel, Settlements, Shas, Two-state solution, Yisrael Beiteinu on November 4, 2010 |
3 Comments »
A while back, I wrote about “Giving up on Obama.” A natural corollary to that declaration is, as my friend, Rabbi Brant Rosen inquired, “what then”?
Before I answer that, I wanted to clear up a misapprehension some took from my piece. I have, indeed, lost faith in Obama’s ability to confront the considerable political forces and act in the interest of the United States, Israel and the Palestinians and put force behind the nice-sounding words about a two-solution.
But I have not given up on a two-state solution. I still feel as I always have—I’ll take whatever solution will work and will be acceptable to the people that live in the region. And the two-state solution still has the advantage of being the preferred one by the overwhelming majority of Israelis and still, from all indications, a majority of Palestinians. It is also the solution endorsed by the United States, Europe and the Arab League as well as the PLO. If a two-state solution has been rendered impossible by the massive expansion of Israel’s settlements, as many argue, that isn’t very different from one-state proposals which seem to me at least equally fanciful. And, in any case, it remains true that a one-state solution will mean a very long period of time to reorient international diplomacy towards it.
But the issue is not how many states a solution will ultimately encompass. Whatever solution finally comes about, we are very far from that point. We all knew from the first that Obama’s notions of solving the conflict within two years were ridiculous fancy or, at best, empty political rhetoric. Now we also know that he is not the president who will reverse two decades of American deferral to Israel on all central policy matters. (more…)
Read Full Post »