The most urgent item on the protest movement’s agenda is halting the legislative blitz, which resumed in full force after the government blew up talks with the opposition by violating understandings reached regarding last month’s Bar Association elections. If the reasonableness standard is indeed revoked, that is, denying the legislative powers from banning un-reasonable government decisions, but mainly appointments, a legislative tsunami will wash away the democratic regime in Israel, leaving not a trace.

The chaotic reality dictated by ministers Yariv Levin, Betzalel Smotrich, and Moshe Gafni wakened all the couch potatoes, and coffee shop lovers who rallied as one to defend the remaining liberal space they have hitherto enjoyed. Many of them hold foreign passports. Some already deciding that if the anti-democratic coup d’état succeeds and Israel becomes Hungary or Poland, they will emigrate. For them, this would mark the end of the Zionist enterprise. For the sake of halting the fascist coup they are prepared to take extreme measures, including causing disruptions and even refusing to serve in the military.

There is no doubt that the mass waving of Israeli flags, and singing the national anthem in rallies reveal a nostalgia for Israel in its early days, when the Declaration of Independence indicated a desire to establish a democratic and secular state supported by the family of nations. The current symbols of the state, however, are very far from what they previously symbolized, and embracing their values is incompatible with the “Bibism” that has emerged. The 2023 protest undoubtedly created an entire new camp while setting firm boundaries between it and the opposite camp. The liberal democratic camp is being formed on the fly, annulling the former consensus of Jewish brotherhood dissociating itself from the autocratic right and theocratic-messianic camp.

No more the internal deliberations and soul seeking that followed the 1995 murder of Prime Minister Rabin after the Oslo agreement. Today, members of the liberal camp view the opposing side as the embodiment of evil with whom one must not cooperate, negotiate, and certainly not compromise. In the eyes of the pro-autocratic camp such liberal radicalization poses a danger to the very existence of the Jewish state. MK Yitzhak Pindrus (United Torah) stated that the LGBTQ rights movement is more dangerous to Israel than Hezbollah, and Oved Hogi, an assistant to former Minister Katz laments: “Hitler, you killed 6 million instead of killing (former Supreme Court President) Aharon Barak.” The lines of separation have been drawn and there is no choice but to enter the frontlines of battle.

The advantages of Bibi’s coalition are clear. It controls the government; it is ideologically cohesive; relies on an articulated ideology imported directly from American conservative circles and disseminated by the many-armed octopus the Kohelet Forum think tank. It strives to establish official apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory; actively works to control the gatekeepers and justice system; and strives to control the media, education system and academia to instill its nationalist and fascist values. While the liberal camp was living well in La La land, the aggressive right diligently enacted the “Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People basic law”. Compared to the fans of dictatorship composing the coalition, liberal democrats are in the opposition and divided among themselves. Some strive for a compromise with the dictator, while others now realize that the past decades’ compromises served only to strengthen the fascists, encouraging them to act with all their might to establish a messianic dictatorship in Israel and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet, the liberal democrats radiate admirable strength, determination, and perseverance, expressed in weekly mass demonstrations and other disobedience actions for the past six months. The protest, has so far blocked the proposed fascist legislation. Its members represent the productive, economic and security echelons, without which Israel cannot exist. The protest’s entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity are expressed in a variety of measures and actions that succeed in arousing public opinion, thus undermining the coalition and its governance capacity while even rousing astonishment around the world.

This is the driving force of the liberal democratic camp. It is not a passing electoral phenomenon, but a movement based on grass roots activists rooted deeply within their communities, and they work within them with endless dedication. This camp has the support of the Biden administration, which refused to invite Netanyahu to Washington as long as he continues his attempts to transform Israel into Hungary. The position of the White House is a decisive and beneficial factor in the protest movement’s success.

Yet stopping the coup d’état is not a one-time act. To truly win, the liberal democratic camp must establish a regime that guarantees the rules of the democratic political game for many years to come. It can only do this by establishing a constitution or sustainable basic laws. The latter need to guarantee separation of powers on the one hand, and equality of all citizens irrespective of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, while abolishing the nation state law that enshrines Jewish supremacy.

To establish democracy, the protest movement must reach precisely the same public that the Israeli neoliberal economy has rendered impoverished, marginalized, and resentful. The assumption that the Israeli economy can prosper with a locomotor of 300,000 high-tech workers, while the fundamentalist right establishes its rule and influence on those who have been pushed to the margins and annexes the West Bank, is wrong. The “deal” that allowed economic prosperity for those with privileges, in exchange for their tacit consent to a dark and undemocratic regime, collapsed in the November 2022 elections.

A liberal democracy cannot exist without economic equality. This is also the lesson learned by the American Democratic Party, which since the 2020 election of Biden has led a radical deep social and economic transformation, from a market economy to a welfare economy oriented towards work and production. This is how the Democratic Party managed to beat Trump in both the presidential and midterm elections. The value of equality in Israel must also include civil equality for Arab citizens, who make up 20% of the country’s population. The problem facing the liberal democratic camp is how to “balance” its appeal to right-wing supporters of the government, who have been delegated to the margins, and the appeal to Arab citizens.

Israeli flags, the national anthem and Zionist rhetoric clearly do not welcome the Arab population, which suffers from neglect and institutionalized racism to join the fight for democracy. But that’s not the entire story since the Arab population its institutions and representatives also do not advocate for democratic and liberal values. This is clearly seen in many aspects: the strength of the Islamic movement; the structure of local governments elected according to clan calculations rather than programs; the Arab parties’ narrow nationalism and their support for dictators like Putin and Assad as well as society as a whole that refuses to condemn homophobia.

The values of liberal democracy and equality cannot exist in the long term if they are not accompanied by the value of peace. The right-wing fascist position is clear: peace with the Palestinians is impossible, so they must be defeated time and again, and an apartheid regime must be established in the occupied territories. Conversely, the democratic camp strongly opposes pogroms and the burning of Palestinian villages carried out by hilltop settler youth yet it refuses to touch the issue of peace. Liberal democrats are horrified at the thought of fascists imposing a binational state on them, vow not to send their grandchildren to guard “middle of nowhere holes” like the settlements of Kiryat Arba or Yitzhar, yet ultimately accept the thesis that currently there are no Palestinians with whom they can negotiate.

Even in this claim, admittedly, there is a hint of truth. The Palestinian society controlled by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is very far from liberal democratic principles. The advantage of fascists is that they offer a simple, decisive idea in the form of apartheid. In contrast, the liberal democratic camp knows what it does not want but is unable to define what it does want.

When it comes to the 2 million Arab citizens of Israel the liberal democratic camp advocates full civil equality, even while Arab society and its institutions remain outside the protest. So it should when referring to the Palestinians living under occupation.  The sole answer to apartheid is democracy for all between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It can be said this is currently unrealistic, but there are also those who will say that the drafting of a constitution and enactment of basic laws ensuring Israel’s democratic and egalitarian nature are also unrealistic at the moment.

That is why the liberal camp, which rightly presents a future vision of democracy and equality, must also add to it a vision of peace. Not a peace based on separation according to nationality and race, but one of sharing and inclusion. A peace based on a constitution ensuring the rights of all citizens, Israelis and Palestinians. A peace grounded in an egalitarian economy, which works for the well-being of all citizens between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the only way to inscribe democracy.

The post Demonstration and its Sting first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“We declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,” declared the People’s Council that convened in May 1948, and then written in the Declaration of Independence. The nature of the State of Israel, its principles, and the nature of its regime was supposed to be determined by the “Constituent Assembly” through adoption of a constitution no later than October 1, 1948. This promise to the United Nations, however, was never fulfilled, and instead the Constituent Assembly which was elected in January 1949, enacted the “Transition Law,” which stated that it had become a “Knesset” (The Israeli parliament). The Constituent Assembly failed its duty.

In the absence of a constitution defining their rights, citizens had to settle for the same brief line that became the constitutional basis of Israel. It promised to maintain “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” The word democracy, today proclaimed by everyone, was not even mentioned in the declaration of independence.

Today, 75 years since that historic announcement, the word constitution is on everyone’s lips. The constitutional crisis that split Israeli society in two has given rise to a new recognition among those, whose freedom and way of life this constitutional coup threatens, that their democracy is extremely fragile and must be safeguarded through a constitution that will guarantee the foundations of Israel’s democratic regime. So far, the place of the constitution has been filled by a series of basic laws enacted in the late 1990s, headed by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Relying on this law, Judge Aharon Barak drafted numerous constitutional rulings in what is dubbed the “constitutional revolution,” which angered the ultra-orthodox parties, religious Zionism and the right in Israel due to their liberal approach.

The Declaration of Independence did not clearly establish the relationship between religion and state in Israel. The multitude of Shabbat laws that directly impinge on individual freedom and express religious coercion exerted on the secular public, are based on the status quo letter written by David Ben-Gurion to the ultra-orthodox “Agudat Israel” political party, which establishes Shabbat as the official day of rest. David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the state, but left a black constitutional hole that swallows up the entirety of Israeli society. As Aaron Barak’s constitutional revolution expanded, so did democracy at the expense of religion. It is not only about Basic Law Freedom of Occupation that anchors the opening of supermarkets and public transportation on Shabbat, equality in the burden of serving in the army for ultra-Orthodox youth, laws that allow combat service for women and recognize same-sex married couples. It is also about opening the doors of the Supreme Court to the Arab public in a series of issues concerning their status in the country.

All of these were an attempt to adapt Israel to the twenty-first century, and to normalize it among the family of nations as a democratic state. However, the more the Supreme Court expanded the space of democracy, the more its position was criticized among a growing segment of citizens who were brainwashed by national and right-wing religious demagoguery. In their eyes, and through relentless propaganda, the judiciary came to be seen as the chief obstacle to governance. The more the status of the Supreme Court was undermined, so did the internal division within Israeli society, which today has reached the boiling point. It turns out that the attempt to expand and interpret the Declaration of Independence only deepened the gap between liberals and conservatives. The conservatives strove with all their might to turn Israel into a Jewish state, as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, while minimizing its democratic character. According to the right-wing view, democracy is reduced to rights of the Jewish citizens only. Any decision of a constitutional or political nature that does not receive the support of a Jewish majority becomes illegitimate.

The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was considered the opening shot for creating a new Israeli consensus. The Oslo Accords did not win a Jewish majority in the Knesset and since the majority was achieved with the support of Arab MKs, the accords were illegitimate in the eyes of the right and religious Zionists and the road to political assassination was extremely short. From that historical moment, the Israeli right pushed the liberal opposition into a corner. The demonization of the Knesset’s Arab factions rendered it illegitimate to rely on them to form a ruling coalition. The Naftali Bennett-led Government of Change, which was established in June 2021 with the Islamic movement and disintegrated a year later, was completely boycotted by Netanyahu and his partners. Three members of Bennett’s own right wing faction abandoned him, unable to justify their alliance with an Arab party. Their crossing over to Netanyahu, led to the government’s ultimate collapse.

This consensus is so entrenched that Yair Lapid, the candidate to replace Netanyahu should the latter’s government fall, promises he will not rely on votes of the Islamic movement to obtain a majority, and will allow it into a future coalition only after securing a majority from among the Jewish factions. The protest movement against the right-wing coup also operates by this same principle. The struggle is “inter-Jewish” and there is no place in the protest for Arab citizens, lest the protest be perceived as illegitimate and unpatriotic in the eyes of the general public.

To emphasize the Jewish nature of the country, over its democratic character, the right-wing had to reiterate 70 years after the declaration of independence that “the State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people.” In the Nation-State law approved by the Knesset on July 19, 2018, by a majority of 62, 55 against and 2 abstentions, there is no mention of Israel as a democratic state that grants equality to all its citizens. The Arab citizens were thus denied any part in determining the fate of the country. They are allowed to vote, but not to influence its course.

The coup d’état of Religious Zionism (party of Betzalel Smotrich) goes one step further, acting to disqualify the Arab lists from participating in Knesset elections at all. Its rage is lashed at the Supreme Court, which overturned the Central Election Commission’s decision to disqualify one of the three Arab parties” the National Democratic Assembly (Balad) faction. According to all polls, and despite an increase in support for the Yesh Atid party, Yair Lapid cannot obtain a majority to form a government without including the Arab parties. His promise not to rely on the Arabs to form the government is based on the hope that, after Netanyahu’s departure from the political arena, he will succeed in forming a centre-right government with the remnants of the Likud party. Without a change in the paradigm stated in the Nation-State law, the result will be: neither a constitution nor democracy for all, but the preservation of the oxymoron, defining Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The relationship between religion and state and the relationship between the state and its Arab citizens will remain in limbo.

Therefore, it is quite possible that Yair Lapid’s hopes will be dashed. The liberal current of Israeli society is currently going through such a deep transformation that it might push its leaders to determine that the democratic foundations are the basis for the state’s existence and future.

Added to all this is the fateful question of what will be the place of the Palestinians under Israeli control. Religious Zionism and the entire right strive to impose the Israeli law to what has become in the eyes of the Israeli public “Judea and Samaria.” The first step in this direction was made with the transfer of the Military “Civil Administration’s” powers to Minister Bezalel Smotrich, thus forgoing the Israeli claim that the territories are held by Israel until a solution is found in the future.

As the two-state solution is no longer relevant, today all opponents to the occupation have come out with the slogan, “Democracy for all from the Jordan to the Sea.” This is indeed a correct and legitimate demand, but its realization is only possible in one state, where a liberal and democratic Israeli and Palestinian majority can realize it. This could be  based on the establishment of that forgotten Constituent Assembly which never convened, but this time not to establish a theocratic Jewish state but a democratic state that includes all the people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Relying  on religious and nationalists to ensure a Jewish majority brought us to today’s constitutional crisis, as well as the recognition of the fact that without democracy for the Palestinians, there will be no democracy for the Jews.

The post The Jewish majority alone matters first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Recently Ben & Jerry’s made headlines by announcing it would not sell its ice cream in West Bank settlements. This has ignited a healthy debate over the issue of the Occupation. It is still unclear how the company’s announcement will affect the contract with its Israeli plant, or its NASDAQ shares, and whether this move will eventually lead to the termination of its operations in Israel. What is clear is that the Israeli issue arouses strong emotions throughout the United States, and probably also among Trump-hating ice cream connoisseurs.

We don’t know how much the American public knows about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is certain that it knows enough to identify Trump with Netanyahu, Netanyahu with the Occupation, and the Occupation with the settlements. If the “social” ice cream stands with the tens of millions opposing Trump, this is a sign that it has a healthy sense of smell for business. Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, recognized in 37 countries. Its revenues last year totaled $860 million, and it holds the second-largest market share in the giant UK and American ice-cream markets.

The Ben & Jerry’s business model is so successful that its parent company, Unilever, agreed to sign a clause allowing its board of directors freedom of decision on issues of a “social” nature. It turns out that Unilever also has a well-developed sense of smell for business, otherwise it would not have acquired Ben & Jerry’s as early as the year 2000. Just as Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, so Unilever is a global food powerhouse, employing 180,000 worldwide. It is in fact an oligopoly: one of the ten international companies that monopolistically control the global food market. In letting itself be bought, while “preserving its social character,” Ben & Jerry’s in fact sold its soul to the devil, joining Unilever’s predatory capitalist machine.

Wearing its social cap, Ben & Jerrys at first intended to boycott Israel entirely while adopting the position of the BDS movement. Its official announcement, limiting the boycott to West Bank settlements, stemmed from a compromise with Unilever. The latter, which also operates in Israel, employs 2500 Israeli workers here; it controls dozens of companies in food and cosmetics, such as Strauss ice cream and Thelma. Unilever was not about to shoot itself in the foot, so Ben & Jerry’s position eventually came out tasting “half tea, half coffee.”

Half tea, half coffee is also the position of the Zionist Left, which today, for example, projects the illusion of a future, vague “political process” like a fig leaf over its participation in the Bennett-Lapid government, continuing to sell us two-state solution. MK Michal Rosin (Meretz) appeared on the program “Six o’clock with Oded Ben Ami” to defend the Ben & Jerry’s boycott of the settlements while sparing their creator, Israel. For this purpose, she harked back to the decision of the Netanyahu government to sign a “Horizon 2020 agreement with the European Union, which excludes settlements from any investments that are made through the plan.” Therefore, Rosin argued, the one who harms the State of Israel is “the one who conflates people who oppose selling in the settlements with people who oppose selling in Israel.” Meretz and the EU continue to promote the two-state solution, even though in practice they do nothing to advance it, as evidenced by Meretz’s participation in the Bennett-Lapid coalition.

Comparing Ben & Jerry’s with the European Union is like comparing ice cream and gazpacho. Both are cold, but that sums up the similarity. The EU, like Israel, is formally committed to the Oslo Accords, which do nothing about the settlements, leaving them as a bone of contention.

Ben & Jerry’s is another story altogether. First, it is a business venture and not a political one, and there is no diplomatic connection between it and the State of Israel. It is not committed to a two-state solution or any solution. It is simply protesting the Occupation by boycotting the settlements. Moreover, the July 22 headline of Yedioth Aharonot, “The Anti-Israel Brain Behind the Ice Cream Boycott,” leaves no room for doubt. Beside the headline was a picture of the chairperson of the company’s board, Anuradha Mittal, with several of her Tweets. Ms. Mittal adopts the BDS principle of boycotting not just the settlements but Israel as a whole, including Israelis who fight for justice toward the Palestinians.

Despite Michal Rosin’s claims, the decision to boycott settlements does not stem from support for a “Jewish and democratic” Israel, but from an aversion to the apartheid regime. Therefore, without getting into political gibberish designed to market the two-state program (which has long since disappeared from the political agenda), we may ask where BDS is heading. This is a legitimate question for any political activist operating against the Occupation, whether the action takes place in Israel and or the Occupied Territories. On this issue, BDS is silent. It wants to emulate what was done to South Africa, that is, to boycott Israel until apartheid collapses, without offering a political alternative. The solution in South Africa was “one man one vote.” Of this we hear nothing from BDS.

The so-called Palestinian equivalent of the South African ANC is the PLO, which ended its historic role when it signed the Oslo Accords and agreed to autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, thus perpetuating the settlements, whose fate remains outside the agreement.

In fact, the number of settlers more than doubled after Oslo, but this did not stop the Palestinian Authority from continuing its cooperation with Israel in all areas, including security. Thus we are witnessing an absurd situation: while BDS is calling for a boycott of Israel, it is not calling for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority that cooperates with it. It is convenient for BDS to skip over reality, over the PA, and attack Israel, which, by the way, maintains overt or covert diplomatic relations with most Arab countries.

Before boycotting or taking any action to oppose the Occupation and the settlements, the right thing to do is to determine the political alternative to the Occupation and thus delineate the path of struggle. We agree with most of the BDS movement that the two-state solution is no longer viable. We also agree that Israel maintains apartheid in the Territories, and discriminates against Arab citizens within Israel. We also agree that action must be taken to change this reality. But at this point the question arises: What is the solution?

Here, the Da’am Party bids boycotts goodbye. Da’am advocates one democratic state between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River for all who live there, Jews and Palestinians. To achieve this goal, we oppose the boycott of the Palestinians by the Israeli Right, and we equally oppose the boycott of Israelis, which is what BDS and many Palestinians do in the name of rejecting “normalization.” The solution will not take place through mutual cancellation, but through constant cooperation and dialogue between democratic forces on both sides.

We look to the progressive movement in the United States, which advocates racial equality and multiculturalism, upholds democracy against autocracy, condemns blind nationalism and white supremacy, and favors climate and social justice. This movement can play an important role in bringing Israeli and Palestinian democratic forces together for the construction of a common future. Boycotting Israel and Israelis will not do this. Ben & Jerrys’ position has the good effect of reviving the issue of the Occupation, but it tastes too much of BDS.

The post BDS-flavored ice cream first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

There is no greater contradiction than that between the names of the two parties that organized the new coalition in Israel. Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) heralds change, while heading the government is a party calling itself Yamina (“Turn Right”), which intends to take us back to the days of President Ronald Reagan, who hamstrung the welfare state and opened the neoliberal era. Today, especially after the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is turning strongly to the Left to rebuild the welfare state with ideas from Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” based on a green economy.

Donald Trump sealed the neoliberal era with a jarring chord that threatened, and still threatens, to destroy American democracy. Benjamin Netanyahu worked to distort Israeli democracy to save his skin from criminal charges. Yet the current American cure for neoliberalism is to bring the state back as a key factor in economic development for the benefit of society as a whole. By contrast, Israel turns rightward to the economic conservatism represented by Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked. What future can Israel expect when the cure for populism is the same neoliberal doctrine from which that populism grew?

Bennett did indeed demand that his eight coalition partners put ideologies aside and concentrate on running the country, investing in areas on which there exists consensus, such as education, health, transportation and welfare. The question, however, is who will develop these areas – the private or public sector? Will the rich pay more taxes (as Biden demands in the US) to reduce the gap between them and the poor? How can one reconcile the need to raise the workers’ standard of living with the harm to organized labor entailed by Bennett’s theory? How can the expansive funding of work-shy ultra-Orthodox men be reconciled with the need to raise the educational level of the disadvantaged? How do you reconcile the contradiction between the new billionaires and the need to fight the link between wealth and government, which has already brought two prime ministers to court on criminal charges and is gnawing away at democracy? It turns out that every road, every desk, and every hospital bed amounts to an ideological choice.

Apparently, the only way to bridge ideological gaps is to cling to the past. We have overthrown Netanyahu but will continue in his footsteps, applying his teachings in our own style. We will change the melody but not the lyrics– melody by Bennett, lyrics by Netanyahu. It’s weird, it’s jarring, but it’s possible. Bennett, a supporter of settling Greater Israel, is sitting in the same coalition as Nitzan Horowitz of Meretz and Mansour Abbas from the Islamic Movement. Netanyahu’s mantras – “Iran, Iran, Iran”, “peace in exchange for peace”, “agreement with the Palestinians is not on the agenda”, “Hamas only understands force”, “we have become a natural gas power”, “we are a cyber power”, “we came out of the pandemic first “- continue to resonate.

Despite Bennett’s adoption of Bibi’s lyrics, US President Joe Biden was quick to call and congratulate him, since the departure of Trump’s close friend is a relief for the US Democrats. Biden is already inviting Bennett to the White House, and as the son of San Francisco -born parents he will probably have no trouble communicating with the President. Yet Bennett ought to update his English, because if he continues to mimic Netanyahu’s, he will get a cold shoulder and a raised eyebrow. He may not have difficulty mouthing phrases like “climate change” or “build back better,” but it will be otherwise with issues like “Black Lives Matter” or “human rights,” since he is committed to avoiding ideology. If Biden makes it hard for him and utters the forbidden P-word (“Palestinians”), the raised eyebrow will be Bennett’s, wondering how Biden arrived at so anti-Semitic a concept.

If Biden tries to ask less divisive questions, such as “democracy or autocracy,” Bennett will have no difficulty, since he is the representative of the only democracy in the Middle East and knows what language to choose. But if Biden demands that Bennett take sides— Putin or him, China or the US— that’s another matter. Bennett will immediately recall the dowry left him by Netanyahu: the special ties with Putin that let Israel attack Syria unimpeded. He will also squirm in his seat if Biden mentions the sale of Israeli companies to the Chinese, such as Tnuva, Ahava and the new port in Haifa.

So yes, Israel stands by its best friend, and democratic values do indeed underlie the strategic relationship between the two countries, but they disagree on the meanings of the words democracy and autocracy. Bennett’s school is closer to that of Trump, which advocates democracy for whites only, while Bennett’s is for Jews only. Human rights à la Bennett may be important for Americans and Israelis, but less so for Russians, Chinese and our Arab neighbors, and it is not in our interest to interfere in their affairs.

Upon his return to Israel, Bennett will announce how he bravely withstood American pressure, just as Netanyahu did before him. Israel will continue to stew in its own juice, Jews against Arabs, Mizrahis against Ashkenazis, Haredim against seculars, and will continue to control five million Palestinians lacking in human and civil rights. At the same time, America is turning to existential tasks, such as fighting against climate change, opposing institutionalized racism, promoting social justice, and grounding democracy. After four decades of destroying the welfare state, pushing itself and the world to the abyss, the US is adapting itself to the 21st century. And Israel? Under the national-religious Bennett, it awaits the Messiah.

For those who do not believe in Bennett’s messianic ideology, and who look through the prism of a worldwide Green New Deal, the manifest reality is bleak and dangerous. The agreement of 115 out of 120 MKs in the Knesset to keep Palestinians out of the public discourse, and to refuse to seriously discuss a permanent solution to end the conflict, is foolishness and injustice. Eight years ago, the Left cried out against Bennett’s statement that the Palestinians are “a shrapnel in Israel’s ass,” meaning that it hurts but can be lived with. Today this attitude is commonplace, from Bennett to Horowitz, from Lapid to Michaeli.

The truth is that the shrapnel has blighted the whole of Israeli society. It has corrupted the youth, deepened racism, and undermined the legitimacy of the justice system. It has profoundly changed the attitude of US Jewry toward Israel, causing American youth to hate it for 54 years of crushing Palestinians by means of Occupation.

The headline of the “Economist” on May 29 did not read “Bibi or not Bibi.” It read, “Israel and Palestine: Two States or One.” The answer is clear and unequivocal. After 28 years of the Oslo Accords, the two-state slogan is irrelevant. Bennett said so eight years ago, and this is what the newly changed government heralds.

If Israel wants to be a democracy, it must adopt the path of the American administration, which advocates equal human rights and a “Green New Deal” to protect democracy from autocracy. Advocates of democracy in Israel and Palestine face the historic task of adopting an “Israeli-Palestinian Green New Deal,” jointly eliminating the apartheid regime by founding one democratic state. The international community is ripe for this. It is the only answer to the religious-nationalist and messianic trends that currently dominate the Israeli and Palestinian societies, reigniting the conflict time and again with no prospect of a solution.

The post A Backward-facing Government in Israel first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Jews in the Service of Anti-Semitism” is the title of an article by Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth, published on May 25. Yemini does not spare his wrath against organizations and individuals who harshly criticize Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian people.  Yemini accuses Jewish opinion shapers such as Noam Chomsky and Peter Beinart, as well as the executive director of Breaking the Silence, of adopting Hamas’ version of events and thus encouraging anti-Semitism, even though they are Jews. Yemini’s conclusion is clear: “The illusion that ‘anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’ is disappearing.”

There is no doubt that many opponents of Zionism are indeed anti-Semitic, as evidenced by recent attacks on Jews in New York and Los Angeles in the name of support for Palestine. Things got to the point where Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who leads the progressive wing in the Democratic Party and supports Palestinian rights, tweeted: “We will never ever tolerate anti-Semitism here in New York or anywhere in the world.” She was joined by her friend Ilhan Omar and by Senator Bernie Sanders, who are known for their support of Palestinians.

The problem is that while Israeli critics are accused of encouraging anti-Semitism, a much more dangerous anti-Semitism has grown among fierce supporters of Israel, those who have also identified themselves as ardent backers of former President Donald Trump. On the one hand, the Arab and Islamic public has slipped into Jew-hatred in the wake of the unresolved national conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which has lately become a religious conflict, climaxing around the question of sovereignty over the al-Aqsa Mosque. On the other hand, the anti-Semitism of Trump supporters, as well as the American Right, draws from classical anti-Semitism and Nazism. Paradoxically, among these anti-Semitic Trump fans are people who back the Israeli Right; their support for Israel stems not from love of Jews but rather from hatred of Muslims. Because Israel is seen as anti-Muslim, it has become the object of admiration of outspoken anti-Semites who advocate white supremacy, according to the logic “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

As you may recall, on Saturday, October 27, 2018, Robert Bowers, a white American nationalist with anti-Semitic views, burst into a Pittsburgh synagogue with a semi-automatic rifle, shouting “All Jews must die,” before massacring 11 worshipers. Trump condemned him as did Netanyahu, of course, but the power of white supremacist organizations has only grown since then, with the active encouragement of Trump. The process culminated on January 6 this year, when an incited mob occupied the US Capitol to prevent Biden from being made president. Thus, pro-Trump and Israeli-loving American anti-Semites attempted to stage a coup d’état. Clearly, anti-Semitism, even when it does not threaten Israel, is a danger to American democracy when appearing in its fascist version.

Other bizarre examples from the Trump camp are the performances of Marjorie Taylor Green, a newly elected congressperson from the state of Georgia. During the severe fires in California and the criticism leveled at Trump, Green came out with the delusional announcement that the fires were not caused by humans, rather by secret laser forces from social circles around the “Rothschilds.” On the other hand, Green has recently compared the American medical establishment’s demand for wearing masks to the Nazis’ requirement that Jews wear a yellow star. Her position gained so much popularity among the Republican base and Covid deniers that she added to her Nazi comparison, announcing that a local bakery’s demand that its employees display a symbol of having been vaccinated was also reminiscent of the Nazi demand. While it took Republican Party leaders five whole days to come out with a weak condemnation of what she said, Donald Trump himself said not a word. It’s troubling that even in Israel we have not heard criticism of this contempt for the Holocaust. Green, by the way, is an ardent supporter of Israel, which proves in her opinion that she is no anti-Semite.

The overarching question is this: What has Israel contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States? We will start with Netanyahu’s sweeping support for Donald Trump, including the failure to criticize him or the violent occupation of the Capitol. Other factors have also contributed: How shall we describe the Nation State Law that discriminates against the Palestinian minority within Israel? Or the attempt to evacuate the Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan on the basis of the Absentee Property Law that applies—how surprising!—only to Palestinians? How do we describe Israeli control of 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank while denying their fundamental human rights? How do we describe the hermetic siege of Gaza and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe there? How do we describe Netanyahu’s wild incitement against Arabs and his attempt to delegitimize their electoral power? This is a situation that has been going on for 54 years, and no person with a liberal democratic perspective can justify it, despite Israel’s lame excuse that the situation is due to the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel.

In the United States, the Black Lives Matter movement occupied a central place in American politics. It was Trump who brought about extreme internal polarization, when the racism he encouraged caused a backlash from the Afro-American community, which mobilized and provided victory to Biden. And how surprising, Trump refused to recognize the legitimacy of the black votes just as Netanyahu refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian or Arab votes. But unlike Israel, in the United States the political power of blacks is enormous, and they have succeeded in placing the question of institutionalized racism on the public agenda.

While the Democratic Party, which controls the White House and both houses of Congress, encourages the debate on racism to the chagrin of Republicans, in Israel the very raising of the issue results in a cry of “anti-Semite!” Herein lies the growing gap between liberal American society and Israeli society. While Americans dare to look inward, Israeli liberals flee from this question, as evidenced by their willingness to forge an alliance with racists such as Naftali Bennett and Gideon Sa’ar in the name of removing Netanyahu from the prime ministry.

Since there are anti-Semites who declare themselves to be Zionists, anti-Semitism is not necessarily anti-Zionism. But it’s good to be cautious and say that opponents of Zionism and white supremacy can also be drawn into anti-Semitism, if they wrap all Jews and Israelis in one package. As time goes by and Israel moves further to the right, to the point of supporting Trump, it is no wonder that increasing sections of the American Jewish public are ceasing their blind support for Israel. And so, not coincidentally, many from the liberal Jewish public, including Jewish members of Congress, are among the major supporters of both Afro-American and Palestinian rights. At the same time, clear supporters of Palestinian rights, such as Bernie Sanders, are very careful, and rightly so, not to fall into the trap of anti-Semites who connect Judaism to Zionism.

Criticism of Israel is not only legitimate but necessary. There is no other way to bring Israeli democratic forces and Palestinian democratic forces together. Democratic Israelis condemn any expression of racism by Israel’s messianic Right against Palestinians, just as democratic Palestinians are obligated to condemn any expression of national religious racism and anti-Semitism against Jews. In doing so, the Israelis are doing the Palestinians no favors, but are defending their very right to live in a democratic and secular society that respects human rights. Similarly, condemnation of fundamentalist political Islam and narrow nationalism is not doing a favor to Jews but to Palestinian society itself, in order to break free from patriarchal society and its political establishment, which suppresses all criticism and freedom of expression. The way to fight anti-Semitism in America, as well as in Israel, is to adopt democratic values that unite whites and blacks, Israelis and Palestinians, on the basis of equality and partnership in destiny.

The post Faces of anti-Semitism first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

This article was written before the warfare of May 2021

It has been over 400 years since the first group of slaves from Africa arrived on the shores of Virginia, and yet, against the backdrop of racial tensions between whites and blacks, the issue of slavery has risen again in the United States. A collection of articles appearing in a New York Times supplement in August 2019, entitled “Project 1619,” marked the 400th anniversary of the arrival of that slave ship. The collection soon became the focus of controversy. Black journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who edited the supplement, wrote an introductory article that ignited a heated debate.

Hannah-Jones wrote that the founders declared colonial independence from Britain to ensure the continuation of slavery. Jones also slaughters some sacred cows, noting that the authors of the U.S. Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were themselves slave owners. She went on to accuse none other than Abraham Lincoln of racism, because at one stage he wanted to send the blacks back to Africa.

What has exacerbated the controversy within the U.S. is President Joe Biden’s decision that “Project 1619” will become an optional part of the curriculum in American schools. That decision sparked attacks from Donald Trump, who accused Democrats of educating themselves in self-hatred. Biden even offered to help fund the schools that use “Project 1619” or similar materials. As a result, in late April, Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell sent a scathing letter of protest to the Secretary of Education, urging him to cease his efforts to place such material in schools, stating: “Families did not demand this divisive nonsense. The voters did not vote for it. Americans never decided our children would learn that our country is the very embodiment of evil.”

Interestingly, it was not just the Republican establishment that was alarmed by the Democrats’ attempt to “fix” history. Former Israeli ambassador to Washington Zalman Shoval also intervened in the American debate, adding a “Jewish” angle. In an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, Shoval came out against Project 1619, comparing it to the Nazis and Bolsheviks who, he said, were experts in engineering history to serve their political interests, as well as to Palestinian leaders in their efforts to prove the existence of a Palestinian people. These leaders, he wrote, “ are trying to undermine the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem in particular.”

At first blush, there seems to be no connection between the situation of blacks in America and that of Palestinians here. Blacks were brought to America as slaves and it has become their homeland. The conflict between white America and blacks is essentially racial, not national, and the U. S. has never conquered an African country. Despite this, Shoval found it appropriate to add his two cents and find the common denominator between the American and Israeli historical narratives.

Blacks and Palestinians are compared to Nazis when they demand redress of historical injustice and attempt to present a narrative of their own. It is true that America established the first democratic republic in the modern age, but this democracy was at the same time a regime of slavery. It institutionalized a discriminatory and racist regime of a type we today call “apartheid,” the traces of which are still prominent.

In Israel, too, there is an occasional demand to correct the historical narrative. Aluf Ben, editor of Haaretz, published an article entitled “Stop fearing the Nakba” (April 30, 2021), in which he explained his headline as follows: “A country must not run from its past, even when it’s unpleasant and raises difficult moral questions. It is a country’s duty to its citizens, who deserve to know what happened in the past so they can understand the reasons and motives for what’s happening now, namely the nation-state law, the repeated failure of the ‘Anyone but Bibi’ parties to create a Jewish-Arab governing coalition, Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, and even the housing projects in the country’s periphery…. These are the ongoing results of ‘the birth of the refugee problem,’ the dark side of the War of Independence. We must talk about it.”

Aluf Ben’s article inspired a full-throated Zionist response. On Wednesday, May 5, Hanan Amiur wrote under the headline: “Aluf Ben is right: Stop fearing the Nakba,” saying that “we have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.” There is a parallel in the American situation, where the “old” historians rise against the “new” historians: every statement generates a contradiction from the other side. The truth is that even if this historical debate is necessary, it does not resolve the current situation; what drives historical debate is contemporary reality. The current debate in the United States reflects the differences of opinion between the two parties on both sides of the American political map over a simple question: whether or not there is institutionalized, systemic racism.  

The significant difference between what is happening in Israel and the United States is that the Biden administration recognizes the existence of institutionalized racism. Such recognition was also reflected in the unprecedented trial and conviction of the police officer who murdered George Floyd. The black community in the US voted massively for Joe Biden and provided him with his victory. Biden promised not to forget them because they saved American democracy from a racist, fascist movement led by Donald Trump, a soulmate of Benjamin Netanyahu and the settler Right.

In Israel, Palestinian citizens remain excluded from centers of political influence. In the occupied territories, beyond the separation wall, they lack fundamental human and civil rights. The Israeli Left has always preferred national unity with the Right and the preservation of Israel’s national religious character over democracy. This is where the story of the Zionist Left and the victory of the extreme Right begins and ends. Without participation of the Palestinians in the struggle against discrimination and racism, against religious coercion, against predatory capitalism and the climate crisis, the Israeli Left will not experience a revival. The common denominator between blacks in the United States and the Palestinians here is not a similar history, but the fact that their problem reflects the crisis of democracy in both countries.

In the United States, until the mid-1960s, two regimes existed at once – democracy for whites and apartheid for blacks. So too, in Israel there is democracy for Jews and apartheid for Palestinians. This must be talked about, because the facts are there for all to see. They cannot be twisted without stretching credulity beyond the bounds of reason. These facts are our daily reality, dictating every moment in our political, social, economic and cultural lives. A checkpoint is a checkpoint is a checkpoint.FacebookTwitterשת

Even if Aluf Ben is right that it is important to talk about 1948 to cope with the roots of the national conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, bringing about understanding and cooperation between the two peoples, it is even more urgent to talk about the present and the future. History is being written by each of us. Institutionalized discrimination against the Arab population in Israel is backed by statistics, and the attitude toward citizens of the Palestinian Authority is horrific. For example, Israel has been vaccinated and is emerging from the pandemic, while in the West Bank and Gaza, infection rates are rising. Yet Israel is unwilling to provide the Palestinians with the vaccines that lie unused in its warehouses. Israel maintains a regime of work permits and checkpoints, preventing freedom of movement, and has been imposing a military regime on civilians without rights for more than 50 years.

In the United States, until the mid-1960s, two regimes existed at once – democracy for whites and apartheid for blacks. So too, in Israel there is democracy for Jews and apartheid for Palestinians. This must be talked about, because the facts are there for all to see. They cannot be twisted without stretching credulity beyond the bounds of reason. These facts are our daily reality, dictating every moment in our political, social, economic and cultural lives. A checkpoint is a checkpoint is a checkpoint.

The post Virginia 1619, Israel/Palestine 1948 first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

It started with the TikTok of Palestinian youth, and escalated to an unprecedented exchange of fire between Hamas and Israel. This is not a classic war, because while the leaders take care to be protected and guarded, the residents of Gaza and Israel are the frontlines. The fire is directed at them, the mutual destruction is enormous, and neither side can overpower the other: Israel is too strong, and Gaza too poor and weak. This is an asymmetrical war in the fullest sense of the word and that is why it is so hallucinatory.

What is most delusional about it, however, is that both sides refuse to acknowledge reality. Israel is deluding itself that the Palestinians can be ignored or eliminated, while Hamas is deluding itself that Israel can be eliminated through rocket fire and active resistance. Benjamin Netanyahu and Ismail Haniyeh have been playing this game for many years, even though the harsh reality hits them in the face again and again. The high, bloody price is quickly forgotten and the two leaders return to their hallucinatory lives, until the next round.

Israel was busy forming a government, after four rounds of elections yielded identical results. The Palestinian question did not come up for discussion at all, and the argument was that there remains no more Left and no more Right. The debate is no longer about whether there should be a Palestinian state, since there are no partners to negotiate with, and also because the countries in the region have already made peace with Israel, confirming Netanyahu’s idea that the Occupation is not an obstacle to regional peace.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s U-turn concerning Israel’s Arab population, and his willingness to rely on the Islamic Movement to form a government, stemmed from his assessment that the Abraham Accords with the Gulf states, then with Sudan and Morocco, ushered in a new era, in which Israeli Arabs could finally cut the umbilical cord that binds them to their Palestinian brethren and concentrate on their civilian demands.

Netanyahu failed to form a government because he couldn’t connect extreme right-winger Itamar Ben Gvir with Islamic nationalist Mansour Abbas. Yair Lapid then got the mandate from the President, intending to form “a government of change.” As part of that mandate, Lapid and his partners sought to replace Netanyahu at all costs; they sought to form a broad government headed by Bennett, which would connect the right, center, left and the Arabs. Meretz members took great pains to explain that such a government is essential, and that the common interest among its diverse elements should prevail. According to them, agreement on a national budget , health care, transportation and the needs of Arab society constitute a solid basis for proper functioning of the future government. After a few days of warfare with Hamas, however, Bennett backed away from the “government of change,” taking it off the agenda.

On the other side of the separation wall, an equally important political drama took place. Abu Mazen announced parliamentary elections. Since 2006, no elections had been held in the Palestinian Authority because Abu Mazen refused to recognize the duly elected Hamas government headed by Haniyeh. At that time, Hamas responded with a military coup, removing the Palestinian Authority (PA) from Gaza. Since then, two entities have existed. The first, the PA in Ramallah, cooperates with Israel in matters of security, and the second is Hamas’ rival regime in Gaza, which has set itself the goal of freeing Gaza from the siege that Israel has enforced since Hamas abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.

The division between Hamas-Gaza and PA-West Bank suited Netanyahu well. The Palestinian people have been divided, weak, and lacking a clear representative, so Israel could claim that there is no partner for negotiations. Hamas has attempted to break the blockade of Gaza three times, and Israel has responded with three “rounds of war”: Pillar of Cloud, Cast Lead and Sturdy Cliff. Meanwhile, unemployment, poverty, the COVID-19 pandemic, and shortages of water and electricity have created an impossible situation in Gaza.

What shook up the status quo was Abu Mazen’s sudden announcement of parliamentary elections. His motives are unclear. It is possible that Biden’s election as President of the United States convinced him of the need to legitimize his rule. In any case, after the announcement, it soon became clear that Fatah was split among various factions and would be defeated at the ballot box. 

Without doubt, the elections would have enabled Hamas to return to the Palestinian parliament, take over Ramallah and bring about a “democratic” end to the siege of Gaza. Such a scenario became a strategic danger for Israel. A democratic takeover of the West Bank by Hamas would have rendered it a legitimate force in the arena.

Therefore, Israel Security Agency chief Nadav Argaman raced to Ramallah, warning Abu Mazen that elections would be suicide. Israel cleverly provided him a face-saving pretext for cancelling: it banned East Jerusalemites from voting in the elections. Abu Mazen duly accused the Israeli Occupation of voiding the elections, proclaiming that without the Palestinians of Jerusalem, elections would not take place.

This is where Jerusalem enters the picture. For Hamas, the coordination between Israel and Abu Mazen in cancelling the elections was a red flag, because it eliminated the last hope of ending the siege. Hamas took the position: if the elections are not held because of Jerusalem, we will liberate Jerusalem! As delusional as that may sound, this was the explicit goal voiced by Haniyeh in a long and detailed speech on Tuesday, May 11th.

Hamas’ pretext for war is, as usual, the al-Aqsa Mosque, which been a political card for competing Islamist factions since 1996. In that year, the followers of Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of Israel’s northern Islamic faction, coined the slogan “Al-Aqsa is in danger” as a way of goading Israel’s southern Islamic movement, which had split from the northern branch because the latter refused to participate in Knesset elections. Today, al-Aqsa has become a card for Hamas to strike at the Palestinian Authority and challenge Israel. The goal was and is to end the siege and allow Hamas to control the entire Palestinian arena, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, without restraint.

Hamas is going the same way the Muslim Brotherhood went in Egypt, when it rode the wave of the Arab Spring to come to power, while turning its back on the young people who overthrew the Mubarak regime. It was also the way of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood when, with the help of Qatar and Turkey, it overrode the Syrian revolution initiated by young Syrian democrats, instead suppressing democracy. The result is known. Assad is still in power and millions of Syrians have become refugees. Now Ismail Haniyeh “responds” to the call of Jerusalem’s young people and of the Arabs in Israel. Gaza, he says, cannot remain indifferent to the attack on al-Aqsa. The barrage of missiles on Jerusalem was intended to establish Hamas as the sole factor who determines, decides and speaks on behalf of Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Despite all this, the end of Hamas will not be different from that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Sudan and all other countries where they have tried to impose their rule. The fate of the Israeli Right and its partners from the Center and the Left will not be different either. Five million Palestinians are not transparent. The violence of young Arabs in Israel, 40% of whom do not study or work, will not remain confined to Arab cities and villages. It erupts whenever frustration mixes with national religious feelings.

It is time to take seriously the fate of the Palestinians. Negotiations with Abu Mazen, who has lost credibility with his people, are not a solution, nor are “understandings” with Hamas. Both organizations have proved incapable of running a state and a society, and they do not respect civil or human rights. The solution can only emerge from new democratic forces in the West Bank and Gaza, a few of whom have already adopted slogans such as “Let live!” and “You’ve gone too far!” Such voices, which understand that the problem is not only Israel, but also the corrupt and fundamentalist leaderships that are suffocating them, can be partners for a shared Israeli-Palestinian future.

On the Israeli side, the parties that make up the current Knesset have proven without exception how detached they are from reality. Two cardinal questions were not present in the last four elections. The first is the fate of the Palestinians and the future of the Occupation. The second is the climate crisis. The first will determine the fate of Israeli society and the second the fate of humanity.

The old paradigm of “two states” was buried by the Oslo Accords, while the fight for civil and climatic justice requires the construction of a joint alternative civil movement. It should be based on Israeli and Palestinian environmental and human rights organizations, which can connect these two issues for a just, egalitarian and democratic society including Israelis and Palestinians. It may be difficult today to imagine such a future, but the reality in Israel and throughout the world will eventually force a change.

The post RECIPROCAL DELUSIONS IN GAZA AND ISRAEL first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Israel is looking ahead. The year 2050 is a central theme of the Ministry of the Environment, linking the destiny of Israel to the planet’s future. Climate experts predict a humanitarian disaster if we continue to burn fossil fuels, which are the main cause of global warming. The temperature has already risen one degree Celsius above the pre-industrial level (the year 1850), and an additional degree by century’s end will doom the earth.

On December 9, 2018, the United Nations will launch its 24th climate conference in Katowice, Poland. Many eyes are on this event, trusting that world leaders will take decisive steps. However, the debate goes on. US President Donald Trump denies global warming. Another absurdity is that the host country, Poland, refuses to close its fossil fuel (coal) power stations because they employ 110,000 coal miners. Germany likewise refuses to close them, for it employs many thousands in mining.

Israel is not indifferent to climate change. This week the third Israeli climate conference was held in Tel Aviv with about 500 participants. The attendance of NGOs, MKs, academics, directors-general, and government representatives, including Environment Minister Ze’ev Elkin, attests that a large part of the public takes interest in environmental issues. Although Israel is a tiny country and its influence on the climate is slight, its desire to contribute is clear. Its goal is to formulate a master plan that will respond to the challenges facing Israel in 2050.

Those who missed the third climate conference and want to learn more can attend a discussion entitled “Environment 2050”, which will be held in Tel Aviv on January 15, 2019. Industry leaders, senior government officials, heads of venture capital funds, start-ups, innovation managers, representatives of environmental organizations, academics, and citizens will participate. The race for 2050 has already begun, and all sectors want to be at the starting gate.

The problem is that while the world seeks to battle against a one-degree rise in temperature. Israel is grappling with an equally complex problem not raised at the third Israeli climate conference: In 2050, experts say, there will be 16 million Israelis. But what about the 10 million Palestinians next door in Gaza and the West Bank? How many of the 16 million Israelis will be settlers? What will happen in Gaza when the wells dry up and sewage flows freely? How much electricity will the Gazan power plants generate? How will the city of Jerusalem function with a million Palestinians (whose poverty rate even now is more than 70%)? What kind of transportation network will serve the 5 million West Bank Palestinians in 2050? As work gives way to robotics and artificial intelligence, will there be jobs for them? How many walls and fences will there have to be, and how high, to prevent desperate Palestinians from surging into Israel looking for jobs? Can the start-up nation continue to flourish when the surrounding region is poverty-stricken and backward?

The presence of Environmental Protection Minister Ze’ev Elkin at the third climate conference may signify a bold approach to the future, but that future is conceived as if there were no Palestinians. Elkin told the conference that Israel disagrees with Trump on climate change, but he neglected to say that it agrees with the American president on all other issues, including nationalistic ideology, xenophobia, and the Occupation. Elkin makes no secret of his views. What counts most is not what is good for the earth, but what is good for the Jews according to the Trumplike principle: Israel first.

Considering the precarious political situation, the question is where Israeli environmentalists stand—in other words, what happens to an enlightened Israeli civil society that wants to save humanity but has lost the courage to face local reality? During the 20 years of right-wing government, the word “Occupation” has become a shibboleth, used, in the view of the ruling coalition, by traitors. Proponents of Palestinian rights are perceived as extremists. Right-wingers like Elkin are prepared to act for the sake of the environment and in the same breath to deprive Palestinians of their rights.

Palestinians, like most of the poor and forgotten in the third world, are paying the price of globalization and neoliberal economics. They have no environmentalist movement. Their struggle to put bread on the table leaves little room for the welfare of the planet. They have already lost their country, and with it their dignity. It suffices to look at Gaza today to see what the future holds.

If the right-wing Zionist ideology continues to dictate Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians, Israel will be a footnote to history in 2050. However, if Israelis can have enough foresight to worry about the planet, then let them have enough to create a new political reality; they must see Palestinians as partners not only to save the planet but also to build a modern society for the benefit of both peoples.

Two worldviews are struggling over humanity’s fate. On the one hand, there is the racist nationalism of Trump and his supporters, both in Europe and Israel. On the other hand, there are those who support international solidarity. These consist of governments and movements that advocate cross-border cooperation for the benefit of humanity and the planet. Contemporary Zionism, in the form of both the ruling coalition and the opposition, has chosen to sidestep the Palestinian issue because an outdated national ideology leaves no room for compromise. Whoever wants to save Planet Earth must direct national interest toward a greater interest. Whoever wants there to be an Israel in 2050 must forgo the narrow national interest in favor of a common destiny for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Israel 2050 and the invisible Palestinians first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

After a well-publicized visit to Oman, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the Likud faction in the Knesset saying: “The occupation is nonsense.” This is not a slip of the tongue or a jab at the Left. On the surface, it is a reasonable statement backed by facts. First, the three Jewish wise men responsible for American policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians – Kushner, Greenblatt, and Friedman – are acting on the assumption that the occupation is nonsense. Their puppet master in Washington, Donald Trump, believes he took the occupation off the table when he transferred the American embassy to Jerusalem. He also concocted the “deal of the century” aimed at “recognizing reality,” that is, allowing West Bank settlements to remain intact. According to Trump’s plan, the Palestinian Authority will become an extended autonomy, a state-minus.

Anyone who thinks the “deal of the century” is another of Trump’s sleights-of-hand to satisfy his evangelical voters will be surprised to hear that this inchoate plan receives the full backing of the Gulf states, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (a.k.a. MBS), the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. MBS’s backing for Trump’s deal stems from a change in America’s Middle Eastern policy, namely, ditching the nuclear agreement with Iran and full-throated support for the crown prince’s quiet and violent revolution against his opponents at home. Senior Saudi journalist Abdulrahman Al-Rasheed, a columnist for Asharq al-Awsat, backs Saudi support for Trump and accuses the Palestinians of being unrealistic: “With the passage of time, and because of their constant rejectionist stance and inflammatory rhetoric, their rights have been eroded.” (Asharq al-Awsat, Sept. 18, 2018).

Netanyahu explained to members of Likud that “power is the key” and that “power changes everything in our policy toward Arab countries.” During rare visits, public and clandestine, to the Gulf States, Israeli politicians hear encouraging words from the region’s leaders that reinforce the feeling that indeed “the occupation is nonsense.” The reason is clear. Iran is a strategic threat to Arab regimes, and Netanyahu is a main player in the war to curb Iranian influence. Thus, the Trump-Netanyahu duo is the best guarantee to prolong the stability of those regimes after the tsunami created by the Arab Spring.

The same Abdulrahman al-Rasheed praised Sultan Qaboos of Oman and stated that the days of boycotting Israel have passed. He attributed this to Israel’s role in Syria: “Israel was once considered a poisonous bulge that everyone feared, but now a new balance of military power has been created, and Israel is an important factor in the region’s security” (Asharq al-Awsat, October 28). The new Arab doctrine can be defined as follows: We, the Arab regimes, are undergoing a turbulent period that threatens our very existence. The disappearance of Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq as political entities has created fertile ground for the spread of Iran. Our existential danger trumps the woes of Palestinians, who for the 25 years since the Oslo Accords have not been able to solve their problem. Israel’s military and technological power is extremely important to us as a counterweight to the Iranian threat.

In other words, the Palestinian problem may be off the table, no longer an Arab problem, and Netanyahu may be encouraged by Trump’s support plus the strategic shift in the Arab world, but turning the Palestinian question into an internal Israeli problem does not make it disappear. On the contrary, the Palestinian question falls squarely on Israel’s shoulders, since five million Palestinians have not disappeared.

The occupation may have become nonsense, but the recent downpour of 500 missiles on Israel’s southern cities is not nonsensical. The same goes for the weekly Gazan protests at the fence, not to mention the humanitarian disaster in the Strip. These are serious problems for Israel, and Netanyahu has no solution. He defended his agreement to allow an injection of Qatari cash into Gaza to pay the salaries of Hamas officials in exchange for stopping the demonstrations. “There is no diplomatic solution for Gaza just as there is no diplomatic solution for ISIS,” Netanyahu said, adding that he is willing to pay a political price for an arrangement with Hamas whereby the blockade on Gaza is eased and the border quiets down.

Even if the occupation is nonsense, Netanyahu will carry on paying for his lack of policy and his reliance on dubious friends from the Gulf. The absurdity of his position was revealed in full force this week. He negotiates with Hamas, with whom he admits it is impossible to reach a political arrangement, and he refuses to negotiate with Abu Mazen, who is willing to reach one. Negotiating with Abu Mazen would force Netanyahu to make concessions, which is a red line for him.

Considering the intra-Palestinian conflict, as evidenced in the disconnect between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, an “arrangement” between Hamas and Israel is impossible. The PA objects to any such, including the financial backing by Qatar. An arrangement is seen as lending a hand to the Trump “deal” and abandoning the idea of a Palestinian state. This forces Hamas to declare that it is not deserting the path of armed resistance which negates any settlement with the occupier.

Israel’s strength tempts the Arab dictatorships, but Israel does not address its internal Palestinian problem. Worse, the past week has revealed how fragile Netanyahu’s coalition is. First, the midterm election results in the US were very irritating to Trump, who ignored the political upheaval and hoarsely claimed a “tremendous victory.” However, in reality, women and young people, driven by loathing for him and all he represents, flipped the House of Representatives to the Democrats. Explosive envelopes targeting Democrats, and the carnage in the Pittsburgh synagogue, show where Trump’s incitement leads. Netanyahu should be concerned that the results in the US do not bode well for him and his Gulf cronies.

Second, the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, under MBS’s command, shows how much the position of the Saudi leader has been undermined. The fact that Netanyahu invested much of his political capital in dubious figures like Trump and MBS points to his nearsightedness. Just as Netanyahu claims the occupation to be nonsense, Trump boasts about winning the midterms. The reality is different in both cases. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s resignation foreshadows how much the events in Gaza will cost Netanyahu. The eventual disappearance of Trump and MBS will leave Israel facing an even more difficult political scene. The American democratic establishment is disgusted with Netanyahu, while the Arab regimes on which he relies are weak, corrupt and alienated from their peoples.

Netanyahu is flying solo into a gloomy night. He is responsible for the fate of the 5 million Palestinians under Israeli occupation, even if in his stupidity he calls it “nonsense,” while the future of his cheerleaders in the White House and in the courts of the Gulf is shrouded in doubt.

 * Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Netanyahu’s nonsensical occupation first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The carnage in the Pittsburgh synagogue overshadowed the international scandal aroused by the murder of the well-known journalist and Saudi government critic, Jamal Khashoggi. Although there appears to be no connection between an anti-Semitic slaughter and the murder, President Trump is linked to both events. The Jewish community in Pittsburgh protested Trump’s visit. They view his rhetoric as racist. The fact that he defines himself as a “nationalist” foments division and hatred, encouraging murder.

Trump continues to be a welcome guest in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh. He is doing everything in his power to help his friend, the de facto Saudi leader and crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (a.k.a. MBS), to obscure the latter’s direct involvement in Khashoggi’s death. Trump hastened to announce, “I believe him.” He also trusts Putin, Kim Jong Un, the Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte, and now the newly elected extreme right-wing president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro.

Many were surprised by the crude and amateurish way in which Khashoggi’s execution was carried out inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. As Trump’s protégé, the crown prince must have felt he had complete immunity. When the US president legitimizes lies as a weapon to attack his rivals, there is no reason why MBS’s fabrications should not be accepted too. MBS did in Istanbul what Trump does every day in Washington: eliminating political rivals through deception. This encourages attacks like the sending of bombs to Democrats and the massacre of Jews during prayer.

Khashoggi’s murder is a seminal event with the potential to shake up the Saudi royal family and threaten the throne of the supposedly enlightened crown prince. The mafia-style political hit has revealed his violent and murderous character. Is this the sort of man we can expect to lead Saudi Arabia into the 21st century by making far-reaching changes in the economy, social reforms, and the status of women?

The brutal war in Yemen (a humanitarian disaster), MBS’s detention of Lebanese President Saad Hariri, the arrest and extortion of MBS’s opponents within the royal family, barely raised the global eyebrow. Saudi Arabia’s enormous weapon procurements worldwide, especially from the United States, blinded many to his tyrannical behavior. However, Khashoggi’s murder has changed the equation.

Jamal Khashoggi was not some innocent journalist. An important political figure who once worked close to the royal court, he was an unofficial Saudi spokesperson while Prince Turki Al-Faisal headed the Saudi security services. Although Khashoggi used to talk about democracy, he stressed that the religious regime was the most suitable sort for conservative Saudi society. Khashoggi’s professional journalistic roots lie deep in Afghanistan, where he was close to Osama bin Laden when the latter was a favorite of President Ronald Reagan. However, following MBS’s palace coup, Khashoggi found himself, along with many in the royal court, cut off from power and a foe of the new ruler.

Following the rise of MBS, Khashoggi went into exile to conduct his struggle against the new regime. He chose the Washington Post as a platform from which to blast the new Saudi ruler. Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and one of Donald Trump’s most vocal opponents, owns the Washington Post. Jamal Khashoggi served as a tool of the American liberal wing to attack American policy in the Middle East, especially Trump’s support of MBS.

Khashoggi acted as a journalist steeped in Saudi affairs, exposing the shady sides of the new ruler. This undoubtedly offended MBS, who from his first days has employed an aggressive public relations campaign and invested money in Silicon Valley’s high-tech giants. His goal has been to create a technological revolution for his ambitious plan, “Vision 2030,” which will end Saudi dependence on oil as a major source of income. The vision is to attract large foreign investments to the Saudi economy in renewable energy, education, health, culture, recreation, and tourism.

However, the kingdom’s illnesses obstruct these goals. First, Saudis have grown accustomed to a life of idleness. Ten million foreigners, mainly Pakistanis and Indians, do the hard work. Saudis live on oil revenues. Their daily needs are subsidized and they pay no taxes. This is how the regime maintains internal quiet. Second, Saudi Arabia’s judicial system is based on Islamic Sharia law.It has no modern legal apparatus that can protect the interests of foreign companies. Third, in a country where half its citizens, the women, are unemployed and oppressed, there is little chance of economic growth. MBS’s steps for women are still far from what is needed to enable their integration into society and the economy. Fourth, every word of criticism is prohibited. This stymies cultural and scientific innovation and is contrary to Islamic religious law. Therefore, the transition to innovation is almost impossible. Saudi Arabia will need a lot more than a charismatic leader to propel itself into the modern world.

The Saudis fully understand that the era of oil has passed. Renewable energy occupies a central place in the world’s leading economies, and large amounts of capital are being invested in the development of autonomous electric cars. This threatens the very essence of the conservative Saudi regime. That is why Khashoggi’s murder is not only the beginning of MBS’s end, but it also puts a finishing touch on attempts to combine a royal religious dictatorship with modern economics.

The murder also sends a clear message to Benjamin Netanyahu and all those in Israel who see the Sunni axis as a bulwark against Iran, thinking it relieves them of any need to reach peace with the Palestinians. Officially, Israel has refrained from condemning Khashoggi’s slaying. Supreme security interests motivate cooperation with Israel buffs like Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, and Donald Trump. However, the Saudi regime is built on sand, and its approach to Israel stems from weakness, not power. A self-confident regime does not urgently dispatch fifteen security men on a private plane to liquidate a rogue journalist who has come to its consulate in Istanbul to get papers that will allow him to marry.

Saudi Arabia serves as Trump’s ticket to the Arab world. MBS initially agreed to broker the “deal of the century,” which will give Israel control over the West Bank in exchange for limited Palestinian autonomy. Saudi Arabia, heading the coalition of Sunni Arab states, remained silent when Trump transferred the American embassy to Jerusalem. In exchange, Israel kept as quiet as a tomb when Khashoggi disappeared. Saudi Arabia backed the military coup in Egypt and supported the dictatorship of General el-Sisi, who is also a close friend of Israel.The Saudis also appointed jihad militias in Syria that liquidated the democratic youth who led the revolution against the Assad regime. Saudi money has also helped spread fundamentalist Islamic Wahhabism by funding mosques in Israel and around the world.

Therefore, the decline of the Saudi regime represents, above all, an eclipse of fundamentalist Islam as we have known it since the 1980s. This decline paves the way for the democratic forces that led the Arab Spring to return to the stage and establish a democratic regime. Only such a revolutionary movement, rising from the rank and file, can usher the Arab world into the Fourth Industrial Revolution that is currently spreading throughout the globe.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Khashoggi’s murder will bury the Crown Prince first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.