Israel's Awful New Government

[laststeamtrain]

Israel's Awful New Government

By Amjad Atallah

There's a reason no one has ever accused Israeli leaders of being shy. When U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Sen. George Mitchell as his envoy on Middle East peace, he made a point of saying that a two-state solution was the best way to safeguard U.S. interests and secure Israel's future. And yesterday in Jerusalem, as the new Israeli government took office, the new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, began making his counterpoints.

It seems the new Israeli administration -- as evidenced both by its appointments and its policies -- is ready to go head-to-head with the Obama team, and it isn't trying to be subtle.

It's no big news that the new foreign minister, former Moldovan Avigdor Lieberman, has controversial politics (except perhaps by the standards of the Milosovic regime in the 1990s), though they've caused little more than quiet grumblings in foreign capitals. But if there was any lingering hope that his race-centric views and militant posturing were simply campaign tactics, those hopes were dampened by his speech at the handover ceremony at the Foreign Ministry. Lieberman was dismissive of recent peace talks, saying, "The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis; nor did Knesset." All concessions Israel made were in vain, he said. "Those who want peace should prepare for war and be strong."

Netanyahu sent a similar message by appointing his longtime aid Uzi Arad to be national security advisor. Since 2007, Arad, reportedly because the Bush administration considered him a counterintelligence risk, has been denied a visa to come to the United States. You know Arad must have pushed some sensitive buttons to have ticked off an otherwise forgiving Bush administration.

The messages that Netanyahu and Lieberman have sent in the past 48 hours highlight a fast-evolving concern for the Obama administration: The new Israeli government has adopted a domestic and foreign policy almost entirely opposed to that of the United States. And those policy differences center on three issues: Israeli domestic policy toward its Arab minority (which constitutes about 20 percent of Israel's population), Israel's intent to occupy the Palestinian West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights indefinitely, and Israel's desire for the United States to militarily degrade Iran's industrial capability, in particular its nuclear program.

<snip>

And then there is Iran. Israeli leaders and their advocates have already promoted a full-court blitz demanding that the United States "stop" Iran, or Israel will be forced to do so on its own. In part, this is bluster, as few analysts believe Israel is able to attack Iran on its own, and no one believes that Iran wouldn't retaliate, which would force the United States into the middle of the conflict. However, this emphasis on Iran serves another useful purpose for Netanyahu and Lieberman: Not only does it remove Palestinian independence and potential Israeli peace treaties with the Arab world from U.S. focus, but it sets the agenda for the U.S.-Israeli talks that are to take place this May.

<more>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4790

[regnaD kciN]

1. Why Do You Hate Jews...?

:sarcasm:

[cali]

2. Why do you love strawmen?

The pre-emptory accusation that someone will be accused of anti-semitism, is precisely the same thing as an uncalled for accusation of anti-semitism. You're all the same. And it ain't laudatory, dear.

[GoesTo11]

3. Clever sarcasm

But the article doesn't really support its own case.

We know who Avigdor Lieberman is. His party won a lot of seats and that's why Netanyahu includes him in the government He gets a symbolically big but practically small role as foreign minister. The article treats the appointment of Uzi Arad as evidence of something. Actually, Arad is quite an impressive thought leader, and not a nutcase. He was probably associated with Mossad. Here's Arad's bio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi_Arad. Atallah's article is basically just smoke and mirrors scary talk. Atallah likely has some personal history with Arad from the peace negotiations which Arafat rejected. There is a much different read on Netanyahu's government. . He's taken Labor into the government, which is much more of a surprise than that he took in Lieberman, so if we were looking for signs, this indicates that he's going to be more moderate than expected. Netanyahu is more a pragmatist than an ideologue, he is smart and businesslike. If there were a Netanyahu on the Palestinian side, the two sides could hold their noses and negotiate a peace.

[azurnoir]

7. Oh Netanyahu has taken Labor to his bosom

so see he's not so bad at least that how it would look superficially, I'm sure it had not a wit to do with appearances, politics, numbers, and on Barack's part clinging to power

[GoesTo11]

9. Basically what you said

Of course it has to do with political calculations. But the fact that he does this with Labor as well as with Lieberman is evidence that he's pragmatic. You can tell when he's getting ready to negotiate because then he talks extra tough. Just like Assad of Syria is, by the way.

I think Bibi would love to sign a peace agreement and take all the credit and hog the camera at a Nobel prize ceremony. Even though he doesn't want to give up land, he would for that. He would see himself as like Begin. Inflating Bibi's ego a little more would be a small price to pay for peace.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Actually, I think this may be a good thing.

There was no chance of Israel voluntarily ending the occupation no matter who got elected.

Netanyahu and Lieberman aren't going to voluntarily stop oppressing the Palestinians, but nor were Kadima or Labour.

And with a clearly, obviously evil government like this one, possibly there's more chance the US may put pressure on them to do the right thing than there would be with one in sheep's clothing like Livni's? Or am I being overoptimistic?

[bemildred]

5. Yah, it's going to be a "war", might as well get started.

I think there is a lot of concern to shoot down Obama's overtures to Iran behind this immediate confrontation. It's going to be interesting to watch.

[oberliner]

10. Didn't work with Hamas

The Palestinians elected "an obviously evil government" and the US put all the pressure on them that they could but it did not really encourage them to do the right thing.

It would be nice if the Israelis and Palestinians and the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Lebanese and the Saudis and the Iranians and everybody else in the region could get some leaders elected who support progressive values and the cause of peace.

Alas the people of the region seem to embrace the most bellicose of leaders.

[Scurrilous]

6. U.S. pro-Israel lobby wages anti-Lieberman campaign

<snip>

"J Street, a pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., has launched a campaign expressing the organization's concern over the appointment of Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman to head Israel's Foreign Ministry and his party's strong representation in the Knesset.

The Soviet-born ultranationalist became Israel's foreign minister on Tuesday and the next day said new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-leaning government would not be bound by U.S.-backed understandings on a Palestinian state.

He questions the loyalties of Israel's Arab citizens and rhetoric widely seen as anti-Arab has alarmed Palestinians but won him a large following beyond his original Russian-speaking power base.

"J Street is deeply concerned about what Avigdor Lieberman?s recent strong showing in Israeli elections, and the key role he is playing as Foreign Minister in the new Israeli government, mean for the U.S.-Israel relationship," said a statement on the group's website, urging supporters to sign an open letter and call on Jewish community leaders to "speak out forcefully against Lieberman's inflammatory platform and rhetoric and stand up for peace, justice and democracy."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076043.html

(video at link)

[azurnoir]

8. As for America 's upcoming talks with Israel

I would hope Obama is too smart to fall for these "distractions" concerning Iran