I'm loathe to post another diary regarding the Arab/Israeli crisis, since my diaries seem to be leaning heavily on that topic, but current events there demand some attention.
The Israeli Elections of 2009 are upon us, with frightening implications for the prospects of Mideast peace. Those who believed that President Obama could make a successful push for an end to the Arab/Israeli crisis may well be shocked at the leviathan obstacles being presented to him by Israeli political gyrations, gravest of which is the rise of the ultra-right and an apparent meteoric rise of an ethnic supremacist and nationalist ethic among Israelis, with a notable boost in the
fortunes of the radical Avigdor Lieberman, who formerly had risen so high as to hold the simultaneous positions of Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs before a falling out with the government led him to resign. He's back now, vitriolic as ever, and is being embraced by Prime Ministerial candidate Benjamin Netanyahu.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"A week before general elections, the front-runner in the polls Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that he plans to appoint Yisrael Beitenu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman to a pivotal ministerial position in the government that he will establish once elected."
"Asia Antov, the head of the volunteer headquarters and the coordinator of Likud activists in West Bank settlements..." said "...that she discovered that among the Russian speaking crowd, the Likud suffered losses when it pushed extreme right winger Moshe Feiglin to a low number on the party's list. She said that she believed that recent revelation that Lieberman had been a member of Kahane's extreme-right outlawed Kach movement will only garner him votes within this sector."
The Kach movement is a former ultra-right wing Israeli political party considered a terrorist movement by Israel, Canada, the E.U. and the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Though Netanyahu has in the past expressed a distaste for Lieberman, it seems he is either unwilling or incapable of avoiding an alliance with him, which brings into question who is really the ascendant among these two politicians. When Netanyahu is forced to endorse Lieberman's "loyalty campaign" against Israeli Arabs, it becomes clear that he is either willing to embrace unsavory policies to gain an advantage in a tight political campaign or is actually embracing the bigotry of Lieberman himself.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday branded as 'legitimate' rival prime ministerial candidate Avigdor Lieberman's electoral campaign against Israeli Arabs."
The Israeli Supreme Court recently overturned an overwhelming vote by the Knesset to ban Arab political parties from running in the elections, but that has not dissuaded Lieberman from pursuing action against Arab MKs.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"At the beginning of the court's hearing Tuesday, Lieberman also told Tibi: 'In the event that the court allows the Arab parties to contend, the Knesset will need to place limits on [their] lack of loyalty.'"
Lieberman considers Arab political parties to be enemies of the state, as shown by the following statement:
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"'The goals of Hamas and Balad are the same: to destroy Israel,' said Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman MK Avigdor Lieberman. 'The difference between them is that the Hamas is outside of Israel, in Gaza, whereas Balad is not only within Israel, but sits in its parliament.'"
This is clearly incitement against the Arab minority, Balad being an Israeli Arab political party, but although such hate speech is technically against Israeli law it is rarely enforced when Jewish MKs make such statements against Arabs.
Israel's Labor party seems a bit torn about how to guarantee its seats in the Knesset during the upcoming elections. Labor MK Shelly Yamichovich recently seemed unwilling to rule out a Labor-Likud governing alliance simply because she doesn't want to imply support for Kadima's Tzipi Livni, but she wants no part of an alliance with Lieberman.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Ruling out a partnership with Netanyahu is not wise, because it implies support for Livni, while there is no reason to give it to her. But Lieberman is a dark, dangerous phenomenon. This is a person who brings out the darkest urges of part of the Israeli public. His slogan endangers democracy, and he is the moral red line which we must not cross. He is Kahane to all intents and purposes,".
Despite MK Yachimovich's clearly heartfelt plea to resist embracing the racist politics of Avigdor Lieberman, Labor's candidate for Prime Minister Ehud Barak has also shown a tendency to favor right-wing policies in an effort to curry favor at the expense of prospects for a future peace deal with the Palestinians.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Defense Minister Ehud Barak has agreed to approve the establishment of a new settlement in the Binyamin region in return for settlers' agreement to evacuate the illegal outpost of Migron. The Migron settlers will move into the new 250-house settlement after leaving the illegal one they built on private Palestinian land."
"The establishment of the new community violates the conditions of the Road Map, as well as Ariel Sharon's commitments to President George W. Bush in 2003."
Is this the alternative to the right-wing policies of Likud? More aggression, more violations of the Road Map, more concessions to the settlers and more obstacles to peace?
Then there's Kadima, the supposedly centrist party of outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Speaking to Army Radio Thursday, Livni" (head of the Kadima party) "slammed the strengthening in the polls of Israel Beiteinu, saying 'the trend of voting for a party whose entire slate is based on hate, points to a social problem.'"
Well, that's more like it. But it's hardly going to get a lot of sympathy from Israeli Arabs coming from the Foreign Minister, public apologist for Israel's recent war crimes against their relatives in Gaza. And even she gets on the bandwagon of demanding military or civil service from Israeli Arabs, though she also implies an end to exemption for Yeshiva students as well. The difference between these two groups? Israeli Arabs frequently have relatives in the areas the IDF is sent to bomb, and their exemption from service also results in their ineligibility for countless Israeli social programs. It is essentially a form of protest. Yeshiva students tend not to be related to the people the IDF kills, are Jewish religious students often with right-wing ideologies, and are frequently permitted to use social programs despite their exemption from service. But that's a whole 'nother discrimination story.
And of course, with polls indicating a close race between Likud and Kadima, the greatest ability to influence government goes to... you guessed it... Avigdor Lieberman.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"With five days to go until the election, Likud and Kadima both admit Avigdor Lieberman will determine who forms the next government, assuming the polls predicting Yisrael Beiteinu will be the third largest party."
Baruch Marzel of the National Jewish Front (where have I heard the term "National Front" applied in politics before? Hmm...) recently made headlines for being assigned to serve as a poll station supervisor, to the outrage of the residents of Umm al-Fahm, who are refusing to let him enter.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Umm al-Fahm, Israel's second-largest Arab city, will send a letter to the police and the election committee in the coming days requesting the right to block Marzel from serving as a poll station supervisor in the city, saying that he would pose a threat to order and peace in the community. "
Why would the residents object so vociferously to a political appointee supervising their elections? Well, maybe it's because he's got a history of apparent psychotic bigotry and once suggested the assassination of someone sympathetic to the plight of Israeli-Arabs.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"National Jewish Front leader Baruch Marzel, now campaigning for the March 28 Knesset election, said Monday the leaders of the Kadima party are 'traitors' and 'criminals' and called on the Israel Defense Forces to assassinate the far-left leader of the Gush Shalom movement Uri Avnery."
Marzel, like Lieberman, is a former member of the now outlawed extremist Kach movement.
The Arab-Israeli response to all this is somewhat predictable, and comes in the form of the only possible response that a marginalized people can give; confusion and angry threats to boycott the elections.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
Muhammad Kana'aneh, secretary of the Abna el-Balad ("Sons of the Land") movement properly gave voice to the concerns of those who support an Arab-Israeli boycott of the elections;
"'The Arab representation in parliament does not influence decision-making, but it allows the Zionists to boast Arab MKs, including a deputy-chairman of the Knesset and members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee,' Kana'aneh said."
Valid concerns, but the reasoning of those who oppose a boycott is also valid;
"His counterpart from Hadash, Aiman Udeh, said: 'We can't forget that while Israel always has a majority in the Knesset who vote for war, peace initiatives need the support of the Arab MKs.'"
"Speaking for the Islamic Movement, its chairman Dr. Mansour Abbas said that reinforcing Arab presence in parliament could be an important instrument in the struggle to remove the inequality that has plagued Arabs in Israel since 1948."
But in the long run, there is a real question as to whether either course can improve the fate of Arab-Israelis in the face of rising ethnic supremacism among the Jewish majority.
Given the nature of the shift in Israeli politics and the manner in which it coincides with both the extreme violence of the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon and the recent Gaza operation, it is worth examining the belief system under which the Israeli Defense Forces are operating. A recent article in Ha'aretz entitled "Asa Kasher, The philosopher who said 'Yes' to the IDF" points to the "philosophical" motivations under which Israel has engaged Hamas and Hezbollah recently.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
"Kasher's argument is that in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control the overriding principle guiding the commanders is achieving their military objectives. Next in priority is protecting soldiers' lives, followed by avoiding injury to enemy civilians. In areas where Israel does have effective control, such as East Jerusalem, there is no justification for targeted killings in which civilians are also hit because Israel has the option of using routine policing procedures, such as arrests, that do not endanger innocent people."
In other words, don't kill people if it's easy to accomplish your goals without doing so. Why someone would refer to this as a "philosophy", much less presume that it makes a proper legal argument, I have no idea. But let's subject it to the simple test of reversing the positions of the combatants.
According to Kasher's argument, the overriding principle guiding the commanders of Hamas and Hezbollah should be achieving their military objectives, since they do not have effective control in Israel. Next in priority is protecting their soldiers' lives, and only then should consideration be given to avoiding injury to Israeli civilians.
This seems a perfect justification for every Qassam, Katyusha, suicide bombing and sniper ever to target Israel in any fashion. The placing of military objectives and soldier safety above concern for the lives of civilians in such black and white terms essentially eliminates civilian human rights as a priority. It is in accordance with the Sherman Principle, which states that since armies are supported by the civilian infrastructure around them, the quickest way to victory is to devastate that civilian infrastructure. The problem is, it's barbaric and places no value on human life.
The tendency of politicians to wage war easily is plainly evident. It costs them nothing, they seem to feel nothing of the human tragedy it involves, and they wage it incrementally so as to minimize public outrage at the devastation they've unleashed. The notion behind the founding of Israel initially was that it could be established without creating a new Holocaust in the mideast, that it would require neither the mass sacrifice of Jewish nor Arab lives. That theory is proving to be false. By escalating both militarily and in terms of anti-Arab sentiment at home, Israel seems to be indicating that another Holocaust is perfectly acceptable to them, as long as the lives lost are Arabs. Only time will tell how far they are willing to take this, and how willing the United States is to accomodate it.