HARPER: NO MORE EXCUSES FOR BIBI

For the past eight years, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been able to retain power with a shrinking and ever-more extremist coalition of settlers, religious parties and his own Likud by fending off critics.  Hardline critics in his own fragile coalition have pressed for even more extreme territorial grabs in the West Bank and Jerusalem and have in some cases demanded mass expulsions of Palestinians from inside the Green Line.  And Netanyahu has been able to explain to them that, while his heart is with them, he cannot go to such extremes because of pressure from the Obama Administration in Washington.  Never mind that the Obama Administration never really put any serious pressure on Israel, and poured more money than any previous administration into Israeli security.  Bibi cultivated his personal animus towards Obama and Obama's personal animus towards him into a balancing act that kept him in power, even as a growing number of Israelis, including within the powerful security establishment, became more and more disillusioned with him.

Well now, at least as of January 20, 2017, even that feeble excuse is gone.  With the appointment of David Friedman as the new U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Netanyahu has an ally, not a critic, coming to town.  Donald Trump has contributed to Israeli settlement schools through his charities, and he vows that he will actually implement what every Presidential candidate promises and then drops once in office: to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

This apparent "blessing" could come at a very high price for Netanyahu.  No longer able to blame the United States for his "moderation" of his coalition radicals, Netanyahu now must defend his position upfront.  And the Attorney General of Israel is expected to soon decide whether to follow National Police investigators recommendations and indict Netanyahu on corruption and graft charges.  The last time he was ousted from power, it was on similar corruption charges.

With or without Netanyahu, Israeli is facing an existential decision: to accept a two-state solution and retain a Jewish majority state of Israel, or to go for annexation and repression of a growing Palestinian Arab majority (former President Jimmy Carter called it "apartheid").  Faced with the same dilemma, Netanyahu's rival Ariel Sharon had decided on the core tenet of Zionism: a Jewish majority.  He unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and even sent in Israeli Defense Force units to clear out the Gaza settlers who refused to accept relocation.  In a speech in Washington a few years back, a retired IDF General told the audience that Israel has similar plans for removing West Bank settlers from areas to be turned over to the Palestinians.  If Israel were to repeat the Sharon example and unilaterally pull out of significant portions of the West Bank--without negotiations or UN intervention--who would object?

The UN Security Council resolution passed this month should serve as a warning: it is becoming less and less feasible to maintain the status quo of creeping settlement expansion and territorial grabs for much longer.  Netanyahu should not count on a President Donald Trump covering his back at the UN.  It's just not on Trump's list of priorities.  If he could throw Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie under the bus, he could do the same with Bibi. 

Comments

[charly]

EU will sanction Israel(or more specific the West Bank) not because of Israel but to create a fight (and distance) with the US. In my opinion this is actual likely to happen.

[pirate laddie]

Pretty much by definition, a nation determines who it allows in. Given recent events in the ME, I cannot dismiss a Russian initiative to liberate at least a portion of the Palestinian people. It's been a century since the Sovs set up an oblast in far eastern Siberia as a Jewish homeland, what's to stop a similar action on behalf of true Semites -- the Palestinians?

Under such a scenario, the only limit to Palestinian emigration would be Israeli recalcitrance. If the GOI sought to keep enslaved Palestinians who want to leave, I'm sure the Russians could find a way (on an escalating scale) to facilitate their departure. One could only marvel at the likely purgative effect this undertaking would have on the Zionists and related elements of the Borg.

[LeaNder]

doubtful. Sanction Israel? Seriously? Against America? ...

Europe will be more busy with its own problems ... Will it survive at all?

I admittedly have my own fears too. In my case related to the US. To go back to a 2012 contribution by Harper, ok vaguely related to this:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/07/harper-another-glass-steagall-moment.html

There would be one issue, I would personally welcome, if Europe showed backbone concerning the treaty with Iran. ...

[LeaNder]

Except that BNW's argument about Palestinians having no passports is not quite correct. The issue is more complex even if we leave out Palestinian-Israelis or Israeli Arabs.

Concerning the "Semite" used in the coinage Antisemites as political fighting slogan and a related party that failed, it was not alluding to the Semites at large at his time, but a specific group considered the inner Semites post German unification.

The author who coined it in 1879, eight years after Germany was united with the help of the Prussian sword, later in his life somewhat regretted. He had earlier been involved in the March Revolution, the German variant of revolt in 1848:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#German_states

[Brunswick]

No Bush's involved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

[Laura]

Bandit, I think you are correct. "there is no `there' there"...Trump has no plan which is why he is so dangerous. It all hinges on who he spoke to last or who flattered him the most. Policy by mirror.

[Phil Cattar]

Certainly what you right has a plausible "feel" to it.There is a lot of pent up rage in the Fertile Crescent already and some not so pent up.

[turcopolier]

Laura

I have asked you before not to engage in invective that is merely name calling. pl