Doc's Talk: Netanyahu: The Next Year and a Half, a Socio-Economic Look

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Netanyahu: The Next Year and a Half, a Socio-Economic Look

Yisrael Ne'eman

Last month Shaul Mofaz brought his Kadima party into a national unity government coalition with PM Benyamin Netanyahu's Likud. Speculation was rife as to why the two made the agreement. Everyone was preparing for the last vote in the Knesset to legislate early elections for September 4. Mofaz and Kadima were far behind in the public opinion polls and Netanyahu appeared to have the up coming elections wrapped up with some 31 seats. He would form another right wing/religious government while the Kadima centrists and the left would continue sinking further into the opposition quick sand.

But something did not add up. Let's call it multiple contradictions. Did Netanyahu want to remain in a right/religious coalition where the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) calls the shots on foreign policy as far as Palestinian issues are concerned? Did the PM and his party want to be beholden to the Sephardi ultra-orthodox party Shas (11 seats) and their Ashkenazi counterparts in United Torah Judaism – UTJ (6 seats) where rabbinical determinations trump policy decisions by elected officials especially when confronting the Supreme Court decision demanding equality between all sectors in light of the military draft? The "social justice" movement was brewing for another summer of protests not only by the middle class but by the lower classes who see themselves as constant losers especially in the wake of the illegal immigrant surge from Africa. And of course there is the Iranian problem. Should one take action and if so, when? Netanyahu preferred Kadima and Mofaz who having recently replaced the more liberal Tzipi Livne, decided that fateful decisions were not made in the opposition. Is this a marriage of convenience or a confluence of interests? There is a bit of both.

First a word about Mofaz. He is the son of Iranian immigrants who worked his way up to becoming army chief of staff at the end of the 1990s when he defeated Matan Vilnai who was considered a shoe in for the position. He later became defense minister under PM Ariel Sharon until the 2006 elections. Mofaz followed Sharon and former PM Ehud Olmert into Kadima (even though he first announced he would remain in the Likud), made his way to #2 and now leads the faltering party. Kadima retains the same neo-liberal economic ideals as Netanyahu and the Likud but is centrist-left on foreign policy. Under Livne Kadima wallowed in the opposition. Before the next elections Mofaz wants to prove his party will make a difference in overall policy implementation.

The picture at the moment is getting quite a bit dimmer:

The middle class "social justice" movement demos of last summer will return with the housing issue in the forefront. The government promise of free schooling from the age of three is expected to be implemented this September and there is the continual discussion of a tax reform of sorts. Such expectations may prove major disappointments. But a much larger question is in the offering – Will the explosive lower classes take to the streets demanding decent low income (and government subsidized) housing, schools where children actually get an education, a drastic lowering of food prices (which are 20% higher than the average OECD nation), jobs and physical security on their streets? As is known the revolt against the illegal African immigrants, especially from Sudan and Eritrea is here with the accompanying violence. The Knesset right wing, including certain Likud members, is fanning the flames for political reasons but it may blow up in everyone's face since no real solutions are being offered. Putting illegal immigrants into detention is one thing, solving all the other issues is far more difficult. We may be in for a very volatile summer with Israel's under classes in the starring role pushing aside the polite, fairly well connected genteel middle class professionals whose idea of a demonstration includes a trek with baby carriages and some good music.

Let's recall that most of Israel's working class population votes for the Likud and right wing parties. Despite their situation they are loathe to take on the government. If pushed to the wall they may, but first they will take out their anger on the African migrants, tens of thousands of whom are in Israel illegally but obviously must enjoy basic human rights and police protection against bodily harm. We may have a situation of displaced aggression being meted out against this unfortunate group when the real anger is against the government. One would think that their disappearance will greatly improve the socio-economic status of Israel's lower classes. If well organized, lower class anger will pour into the streets and make a difference and if not we may be in for the soccer fan variety of hooliganism, but on a fairly large scale.

The government is constantly stressing its great economic success. The expectation is for a "trickle down" capitalist economy. Unfortunately for Netanyahu the economy is extremely centralized around twenty families or so. Israel's GDP grows by more than 4% yearly since the mid-2000s but the average person feels he is being left out. The overall cry for an economic decentralization and more taxes on the rich will be heard. Officials from the World Bank and the governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (similar to the US federal reserve chairman) have voiced similar criticisms.
So this brings us to the 2013 election year state budget. There is an immediate need for a 7-10 billion shekel cut but this apparently will not be enough. Overall, there is a cumulative 32 billion shekel deficit over the past year or so, much the result of the slowing world economic picture and export decline. There are options of raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations while slashing the defense budget. Or one can cut social services to the lower classes. And any combination of the above comes to mind. The tax burden as usual will fall on the middle class bringing about the exact opposite result of the Trachtenberg Report recommendations for partial budget restructuring following last summer's protests. Expectations were raised while the economic picture worsened.

While economic disparities in Israeli society annoy many, the state legislated inequality in favor of the ultra-orthodox (haredi) communities is infuriating. As is well known most haredi youth continue studying in yeshivas (or pretend to) while Israeli high school graduates go to the army. The haredi population is growing much faster than any other in the Jewish sector, yet they are barely present when asked to serve the country. The Supreme Court ruled recently that the haredim must be treated equally and not be given special privileges. The last government initiative on this matter known as the Tal Law was recently struck down by the Court and is due to expire on July 31. The government is scrambling to find an alternative without violating the Court decision and it is quite probable the Shas and UTJ ultra-orthodox parties will leave the coalition taking 17 seats with them. Augmented by 28 Kadima seats there will be no government crisis. However how will the army draft yeshiva students who refuse military service while enjoying the full support of their rabbis to defy the Court and the State? Will they do the acceptable national service instead or will there be a form of deferment and/or job arrangement which in itself may entail legal difficulties? Here is one more social-political crisis for the summer.

Netanyahu and Mofaz have their work cut out for them on the socio-economic front but this is only half the story. The government must deal with the settler movement and the Givat Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El which pits the hard line right wing and religious against Netanyahu, the center and the left in a battle not only over the future of a neighborhood but in an ideological confrontation over the fate of the State of Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. Add to this the greater picture of the continuing political Islamization of the Arab World and the Iranian nuclear threat and the picture begins to sharpen. Netanyahu prefers decision making with Kadima at his side and does not want to rely on the ultra-orthodox and/or pro-settlement Jewish Home party (3 seats) for support as he seeks out a more centrist position. Mofaz and Kadima must prove they are players in the game and that only they can move the government towards a more secular and middle position, if they fail they the 2013 elections may be their undoing.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk