Doc's Talk: What’s Next for Israel?

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

What’s Next for Israel?

Joseph Puder

The big winner of the 2013 Knesset elections is the 50-year old chairman of the new centrist party Yesh Atid (There is a Future), Yair Lapid. He is now the new political star and king-maker in Israel’s political arena. The optimistic polls gave him 10 mandates days before the January 22, 2013 elections, up from 8 in a previous poll. Lapid stunned the Israeli political pundits with a whopping 19 mandates.

Only a month ago, the Israeli media was abuzz with what it had perceived to be the real contest. The one between Likud-Beitenu and the right-of-center Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) headed by Naftali Bennett, 42, the “wunderkind” of the upcoming elections. The Israeli media reported that Bennett was taking many votes away from the Likud, and emerging as the third party with 14 and possibly 15 mandates. The Likud party, concerned with the Bennett phenomenon, used the last stages of its campaign to vilify Bennett. It did not work. Bennett was halted but not stopped, and the Jewish Home party still racked up12 mandates to make it the fourth largest party list after Likud, the Yesh Atid, and Labor on the left.

The Likud merger with Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beitenu (Israel our Home) party held together 27 and 15 mandates respectively, 42 altogether. The combined party lost 11 seats, a good many of them to Bennett’s Jewish Home party. The biggest loss however was suffered by Ariel Sharon’s breakaway party (from the Likud) Kadima, which held 28 mandates in the previous Knesset and has barely passed the threshold with 2 mandates, a loss of 26, most of which went to Lapid’s Yesh Atid. Defections from the supposedly centrist Kadima party, even before the elections were called, (some like Tzachi Hanegbi and Avi Dichter returned to the Likud) doomed it. The resignation of Tzipi Livni after her defeat in the Kadima primaries to Shaul Mofaz (who became chairman of Kadima) shattered it completely. Livni took with her a number of Kadima Knesset members as well.
As soon as the returns from the polling stations began to show up in the Likud-Beitenu headquarters, Prime Minister Netanyahu called Yair Lapid and told him “We have an opportunity to do great things for the State of Israel. The elections are behind us and now let us focus on bettering the lives of Israel’s citizens.” Lapid rejected the idea of a “preventive bloc” and a “different government” made up of the center-left with silent support from the Arab parties less than a day after the elections results were announced. In doing so, Lapid essentially endorsed Netanyahu as the next Prime Minister, and a coalition with Likud Beitenu. Lapid will most likely be offered the position of Foreign Minister, and his party will be given 4 additional portfolios including possibly the prestigious Education Ministry.
A combination of Likud, Beitenu and Yesh Atid alone will make for 50 seats in the 120 seat Knesset. The addition of the Shas (the ultra-orthodox Sephardi) party into the coalition, provided it accepts the provision of “sharing the burden,” (which is to draft ultra-orthodox Yeshiva students into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), would bring the Netanyahu coalition a total of 61 mandates, the necessary majority to govern, albeit at a bare minimum. Both Netanyahu (and his partner Lieberman) and Lapid consider the incorporation of the welfare receiving haredi (ultra-orthodox) community into the workforce, along with service in the IDF essential.
Naftali Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party, with its 12 mandates, should be a natural member of the Netanyahu coalition, and its inclusion would solidify the coalition with 73 mandates. Lapid moreover, would rather see Bennett in the coalition than Shas. Netanyahu, for personal reasons, might prefer the opposite – Shas first and then perhaps Bayit Yehudi. Bennett and his party have been advocating the annexation to Israel of “area C,” which under the Oslo Accords, is governed by Israeli military and civilian authorities. Netanyahu, fearing international isolation and conflict with the Obama administration, is mute on the subject and would certainly not push it prior to resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran. Lapid is rather ambivalent on this issue. In his election campaign he focused principally on domestic, social and economic issues and virtually ignored foreign affairs.
More pressing for Netanyahu and seemingly for Lapid is how to cut $10 billion from the budget, including subsidies for ultra-orthodox yeshivot. Shas and the Torah Judaism party (Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox) bitterly oppose such a move while Bennett’s party welcomes it. There is also common ground between Likud-Beitenu, Lapid, and Bennett on reforming Israel’s electoral system, as well as in dealing with lowering the cost of living and solving the housing crisis. Young couples in Israel cannot afford to buy a home, and there aren’t enough apartments to rent. Netanyahu promised to deal with the crisis following the 2011 street protests. This is also a major issue for Lapid and Bennett.
While most of the 2013 election campaign dealt with domestic-economic issues as mentioned, the leftist Meretz and Livni’s center-left Ha’tnuah delved into the need for negotiations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu is the clear choice for most Israelis to handle foreign policy. Israelis have become cynical about a real peace deal with the Palestinians, and they support Netanyahu’s action with regards to Mahmoud Abbas. Most Israelis still believe in a two-state solution but recognize that at this time Israel has no viable peace partner, and agree with the status-quo.
There is at the same time public awareness of the external realities surrounding the Jewish state. The neighboring states of Egypt and Syria are driven by an Islamist fervor that is threatening to engulf Jordan (Jordan has the longest border with Israel and its government is Israel’s only true peace partner in the region). Hamas and Hezbollah are sworn enemies dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and its sponsor, Iran, poses an existential threat to Israel. Further afield, the European Union is increasingly more hostile to Israel. U.S. support is therefore more critical than ever.
Obama’s second term however, harbors ominous signs for Israel. His national security nominees are unfriendly towards Israel and seek to appease Iran. Obama’s offensive remark on the eve of Israel’s elections, suggesting that Netanyahu “Does not understand what Israel’s best interests are,” and that his conduct will drive Israel into grave international isolation, was a gross interference in Israel’s domestic affairs and reveals his contempt for one of America’s closest allies. It is apparent that the next four years will be hard for Israel with Obama in the White House. It is likely that Obama might abstain on UNSC votes to impose sanctions on Israel, and may press Israel to make unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, or even push Israel to accept the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. He might again demand a freeze on settlement expansion.

Israel needs a wide national unity government of 96 mandates (Likud Beitenu, Yesh Atid, Bayit Yehudi, Shas, Labor (15), Ha’tnuah (6), and Kadima (2) that would enable Netanyahu to speak on behalf of all Israelis. This will certainly insure that the U.S. Congress and the American people will stand by Israel. It will also limit the damage Obama might be able to inflict. To accomplish that, Tzipi Livni and Shelly Yachimovich (Labor party leader) must put aside their personal ambitions and join Netanyahu for the sake of Israel’s national interest.

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