In his November 18 Knesset speech, Netanyahu bid farewell to President Biden, yet not before settling scores over the bitterness he felt Biden had caused him over the past year. On one hand, Netanyahu is fully aware that without Biden, he—and Israeli society as a whole—would not be standing on their feet today. It is no secret that on October 7, he was overcome by panic; he disappeared, his vociferous government fell silent, and the Israeli society felt leaderless. Ten days later, Biden arrived in Jerusalem to fill the leadership void and offer hope to Israeli citizens.

However, shortly thereafter, the United States decided to micro manage the war from afar and actively worked to bring about political change in Israel. For Biden, Netanyahu became the main obstacle to peace. “He’s lost his way,” wrote Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer, asserting that Netanyahu must be replaced. Yet in the meantime, Biden is on his way out, Schumer is no longer the Senate majority leader, Donald Trump has achieved a resounding victory, and Netanyahu’s political horizon has reopened wide.

Now, in the Knesset, Netanyahu chose to publicly air his grievances, unafraid of an American response. He enumerated what he viewed as the sins of the U.S. administration:
“The United States objected to entering Gaza City, to entering Al-Shifa Hospital, to entering Khan Yunis, but most of all, they strongly opposed entering Rafah. Not only did they oppose it, but President Biden told me, ‘If you enter, you’ll be on your own.’ He said even more than that—he said he would stop arms shipments, including specific weapons that are very important to us. And that’s exactly what happened. A few days later, Secretary of State Blinken appeared and reiterated the same points. I told him in a broad forum: ‘Tony, if we have to, we will fight with our fingernails.’”

This is why the Israeli right has no real reason to celebrate. Israel needs a functional United States, not an unpredictable country that cannot be relied upon.

There was nothing new in Netanyahu’s words—they were already known—but this was the first time they were publicly expressed by the Prime Minister of Israel, a country entirely dependent on U.S. support.

Netanyahu’s reckoning with Biden was accompanied by an equally sharp critique of Israel’s legal authorities. Behind Netanyahu’s demand to investigate leaks from the military and the cabinet lies a strong desire to dismiss the Attorney General, Gali Baharav Miara, who heads the public prosecution. The prosecution’s refusal to grant Netanyahu’s request to delay his testimony in his upcoming corruption trial and the court’s decision requiring him to testify at the beginning of December have backed him into a corner. None of this would have occurred had he succeeded in carrying out his judicial overhaul: changing the Supreme Court composition, granting the Knesset the power to override Supreme Court rulings, and passing any law he deems necessary to cement his position.

Netanyahu gazes wistfully at Trump, who has risen from the ashes and transformed into an all-powerful figure overnight. Trump controls all branches of government—the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. Trump’s campaign was utterly insane in every sense of the word. He rallied dubious figures to his side, such as Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy, whose common denominator is their disdain for the establishment and willingness to wage all-out war against the “enemy within.” If Netanyahu had the power Trump now enjoys, he would crown his son Yair as his successor and send the legal, security, and media establishments packing.

But Trump is not Netanyahu, and the United States is not Israel. What happens in Israel will affect its citizens and its Arab neighbors, while what happens in the United States will impact 350 million Americans and an additional seven billion people around the world. Trump is not returning to correct the injustices of a ruthless capitalist system, as many of his supporters believe, but to ignite a true revolution and upend the status quo. His driving forces are anger over his loss in the previous election, a desire for revenge against the legal establishment that prosecuted him, and against Congress, which impeached him twice—once for abuse of power and a second time for incitement to insurrection.

Trump despises the media for exposing his lies; he hates the medical establishment for siding with science against his conspiracy theories; he loathes the military establishment for remaining loyal to the American Constitution instead of pledging allegiance to him as leader; and he views academia as a breeding ground for “woke” culture corrupting American youth. He paints Biden’s America in distorted terms, claiming millions of immigrants are preying on pets, committing assaults, and stealing. He promises to fix it all, to deport immigrants, and to lower prices. This, he says, will make America great again.

However, reality is far removed from Trump’s delusions. He begins his second term with excellent macroeconomic indicators: low unemployment, controlled inflation, a thriving stock market, and flourishing worker pensions—all thanks to the very institutions on which he has declared war. You can fire the entire military leadership, unleash the Department of Justice against its critics, censor the press, curtail voting rights, dismantle health insurance, eliminate regulatory health agencies, and slash university budgets. Such a plan guarantees chaos. It would destroy the U.S. as a military superpower and as a leader in scientific, medical, and academic innovation. This path mirrors the models of Turkey, Russia, and Hungary—systems that promise perpetual rule but come with poverty, suppression of free speech, and economic and scientific stagnation.

The United States undoubtedly needs change, and Trump’s rise and the overwhelming support he enjoys are proof of that. His re-election underscores the dysfunction of the current system: a cumbersome, undemocratic electoral process; a Supreme Court and legal establishment selected on political tendency rather than merit; capital dominating politics to its extreme advantage; a privatized healthcare system that failed in the face of COVID-19; and the absence of public housing and a social safety net, which condemns working people to poverty. America indeed needs a social and constitutional revolution—but one that preserves democracy and safeguards civil rights. No good will come from the chaos, destruction, and upheaval that Trump is leading it toward.

This is why the Israeli right has no real reason to celebrate. Israel needs a functional United States, not an unpredictable country that cannot be relied upon. Despite the tensions between Netanyahu and the Biden administration, they managed to coordinate efforts against Iran and its proxies and mediated to achieve a ceasefire in Lebanon. Israeli academia relies heavily on collaboration with American academia. Every Israeli medical drug and invention require FDA approval, an agency Trump wants to dismantle. Fighting the next pandemic will be impossible without American vaccines, and if the American economy takes a hit, Israeli companies will be among the first to suffer.

A dysfunctional United States is a threat to the world, especially to nations wholly dependent on its economy and military. It might be possible to annex the occupied Palestinian territory, attempt another judicial overhaul, or mimic Trump’s actions, but the result would be disastrous for Israeli society as a whole. While the future is hard to predict, Trump’s new appointments promise a turbulent and unpredictable path ahead. He will provoke the anger of millions of Americans from all walks of life who will be directly harmed by the disfunction of a failed government.

The million Americans who died from COVID-19 and the January 2021 attack on the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power are stark reminders of the painful price a nation pays for the unchecked egotism of a leader consumed by delusions of grandeur.

In Israel, the people must hold accountable those responsible for the catastrophe of October 7. That stain will not be erased by Trump, nor will he be able to pardon Netanyahu as he pardoned himself.

The post Trump’s Chaos and Netanyahu’s Hopes first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Note: This piece was written days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is more relevant than ever.

When Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid was asked about his position on Ukraine, he was quick to explain the complexity of the situation in which Israel finds itself. Not only are there large Jewish communities in Russia and Ukraine, he said, but of all Western countries, Israel alone is bordered by Russia! Yes, no more and no less. Since 2015 Russia has been present on the northeast border of Israel (more exactly, on what Israel considers its border). At the request of Syria’s Bashar Assad, in the midst of his bloody civil war with democratic forces, Russia took over in Syria with the full consent of Israel and the willing blindness of the West. After that Putin became Israel’s strategic ally, together with Donald Trump, and the two allowed Israel to do as it pleased in Syria, Iran and the Occupied Territories.  Hence the hems and haws of Israel concerning Ukraine.

Putin did not simply take over Syria, he committed genocide and other crimes against humanity there. He transformed entire cities into ruins, causing a humanitarian catastrophe that continues to this day. In December 2016, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled War Crimes in the month of the bombing of Aleppo, in which 440 civilians were killed, including 90 children. All of this came after President Obama drew a red line for the Syrian regime against the use of chemical weapons. This line did not prevent Assad from using such weapons against his citizens, and Obama then made do with a proposal by Putin to remove chemical weapons from Syria in coordination with Israel. This paved the way for Putin’s takeover of Syria, including the Latakia Port and the Khmeimim Air Base. From then until today, the understandings between the Israeli government and Putin are clear: Russia will not deprive Israel of freedom of action in the air above Syria, and in return Israel will not interfere with Russia’s actions anywhere else, which today means Ukraine.

As the crisis in Ukraine worsens, Israel is exposed in all its shame. Bibi Netanyahu, we recall, had warm relations with Putin and Trump, both of whom helped in his election campaigns. Putin gave Israel the bodies of its soldiers who had been buried in Syria, while Trump gave Bibi an embassy in Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights. Putin helped Trump in the 2016 election campaign, and Bibi bluntly intervened in Congress against Obama and the nuclear deal with Iran. This alliance was undoubtedly ideal for Bibi while it lasted. With the rise of Joe Biden, however, the celebration ended, but Israel’s “government of change” refuses to acknowledge the new reality.

According to Israel, the danger to world peace is Iran and not Russia. Israel’s position is that compared to Iran, whose fundamentalist regime seeks regional dominance, Ukraine is an intra-regional problem. Asked about his position on Ukraine, Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he was not at all interested. What interests him, he said, is what is happening in Vienna, where a new nuclear agreement between the West and Iran is afoot. For the U.S. and the West, however, Iran is a regional issue with marginal impact on world peace, whereas Putin, via Ukraine, wants to change the world-order, bringing Europe back to the days before the fall of the USSR. Russia, they point out, is not alone in having territorial claims. So do Serbia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, and Poland (vis-à-vis the Czech Republic). A Russian occupation of Ukraine will take us back to the 19^th century border conflicts.

It is no secret that Putin is using Russia’s army to gain points in the face of his domestic failures. Russia is a backward country that has nothing to offer its people. The USSR disbanded because of the nature of the totalitarian communist regime, whose corruption pervaded all spheres of life. Putin’s Russia renounced socialism and the nationalized economy, but it remained centralized and totalitarian: the oligarchy replaced the communist bureaucracy and took over the country’s resources. It is a failed state not because of the US or NATO, but because of Putin. The oligarchs he nurtured plundered the country’s treasures. They smuggled their wealth to the West, settling in London, Europe and North America with the kind help of Britain, Germany and even the United States. Despite its richness in minerals, Russia’s GDP remains at $10,000 per capita, compared to $60,000 in the United States and $40,000 in Israel. An occupied Ukraine, which is even poorer, will not cure the ills of Russian society, but only aggravate the suffering of Russians and Ukrainians alike.

Putin’s ideology and course of action are very much in line with Israel’s ideology and course of action. Israel also views military power as its chief means of achieving political goals. Its military force imposes the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza, deters Iran and motivates the alliance with the Gulf states. In this respect, the American reluctance to go to war, its hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan and the diversion of attention to the economic confrontation with China are all perceived in Israel as signs of weakness. The prevailing Israeli perception is that the world is a jungle, military power is the guarantee for the existence of the state, and it must not look too closely at friendly dictatorial regimes and the atrocities they inflict. On the contrary, best give them full backing— and sell them Pegasus spyware.

Israel is now torn between loyalty to Putin, its ideological ally, and America, its strategic ally. Biden is a liberal who opposes Trump and everything he represents. He tries to revive the welfare state, seeks to impose taxes on the internet giants, supports the rights of minorities (especially blacks), conducts a conscious climate policy, opposes totalitarian regimes, boycotts Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman (responsible for the murder of journalist  Jamal Khashoggi), abhors the Chinese regime, opposes the theory of racial superiority, and fights xenophobia. All of these qualities are incompatible with Zionist nationalist ideology, with Israel’s citizenship law and nation-state law, and with the apartheid it practices toward Arabs. Thus, Israel’s strategic ally is an ideological adversary, while tactical allies such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Emirates, Morocco, Egypt and Sudan give Israel the leeway to do what it pleases in the Middle East.

The position of the Da’am Workers Party toward Putin did not have to wait for his aggression against Ukraine. It was already determined by the genocide he committed in Syria. Those who did not stop him in Syria now receive him at the gates of Ukraine. Putin is not only the enemy of America and the democratic West, he is the enemy of all those young people in Syria, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and the rest of the world who aspire to live free in the 21st century. The West’s struggle against Putin brings hope back to the hearts of millions of Syrians, Egyptians, and Iraqis who have taken to the streets to overthrow dictatorial regimes under the slogan “Bread, freedom and social justice!” Putin’s defeat will be the victory of all who demand these things. Da’am stands squarely on the side of Ukrainians who refuse to accept a life shorn of human rights like the life imposed by Putin on Russia.

The post Israel: America’s strategic ally is ideologically with Putin 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.

Since Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon’s last visit to Washington, tension between Israel and the White House has only increased. The State Department and the White House refused to have anything to do with Yaalon, who once accused Secretary of State John Kerry of having a “messianic fervor,” and he was left talking shop with his US counterpart, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. For the others, he has become a persona non grata. This boycott of the Israeli defense minister caught most of the headlines, but the important interview Yaalon gave to the Washington Post, appearing on the paper’s website on October 24, was mostly ignored. This interview reveals that the Israeli government has buried Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s commitment to the two-state idea.

In the interview, Yaalon was explicitly asked if he believed in the two-state solution. His reply was military in its brevity: “You can call it the new Palestinian empire. We don’t want to govern them, but it is not going to be a regular state for many reasons.” When the interviewer asked what he meant by a Palestinian empire, Yaalon replied: “Autonomy. It is going to be demilitarized.” There are two reasons for this, according to Yaalon. Firstly, any territory vacated by Israel will be taken over by Hamas. Secondly, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is no partner for peace because he refuses to recognize the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Thus Yaalon takes us back 30 years to when Israel, under Menachem Begin’s leadership, held negotiations with Anwar Sadat’s Egypt over the establishment of Palestinian autonomy – without Palestinian participation.

Netanyahu’s vision

In his recent Knesset speech, Netanyahu substantiated Yaalon’s words. It turns out he is not in despair at all about the political dead-end; on the contrary, he is grasping the changes in the Arab world hungrily, and is greatly encouraged by the new regime in Egypt, which resembles Sadat’s regime: “Because there is hope, change is taking place, slowly but clearly, important change in the central states of the Arab world, who see eye to eye with Israel on many of the challenges we face. They understand that the greatest dangers for them and for us come from radical Islam. Together with them, we will continue to explore possibilities for advancing regional solutions, which can help solve our conflict with the Palestinians. It has always been said that an arrangement with the Palestinians would improve our relations with the Arab world, and there is something in that. But there is also another truth – an arrangement with the Arab world can help us settle our relations with the Palestinians. A regional settlement would benefit everyone.”

According to Netanyahu’s understanding of reality following the Arab Spring, Israel has enemies in common with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan: the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The Brotherhood is the main enemy of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, while Shiite Iran aspires to regional hegemony at the expense of the Sunni states. In Netanyahu’s view, these are positive developments which may enable him to reach a regional settlement while skirting the Palestinian issue. Later, he will impose autonomy on them, as Sadat did.

Netanyahu’s understanding of reality is in direct opposition to that of Europe and the US, who see recent developments in the region as no less than a disaster. From their point of view, Saudi Arabia is trying to prevent democratic change in the region, as expressed in the Arab Spring, and was behind the military coup in Egypt and the murderous suppression of the Egyptian opposition. Media in the US publish information almost daily about serious human rights violations in Egypt and continuously condemn Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime, which has become Israel’s “strategic” ally. In the opinion of the West, the situation in Egypt suggests that Sisi’s fate will be no different from Sadat’s, and that he is leading the country to national and economic disaster.

From the Oslo Accords to autonomy

Netanyahu’s path has no international support because it relies on regimes which are waging a rearguard battle against the democratic forces of change. For this reason it is untenable. There is not a single state in the region or in the world willing to support the Netanyahu-Yaalon vision, because it means the death of the Oslo Accords and all that this entails. Oslo was a response to the Begin-Sadat autonomy plan, and it gave a partial but insufficient answer to the demands of the Palestinians during the first Intifada. Oslo was an interim solution which was to lead to the creation of a Palestinian state, but Israel had no intention of fulfilling its side of the deal by reaching a permanent settlement: it has never indicated what the permanent borders of the future state would be, because the government was not prepared to confront the settlers, and it left other critical issues unsolved such as the fate of Jerusalem.

The Oslo Accords also determined the economic mechanisms that enabled the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which relies almost entirely on foreign aid. The US and Europe funded the wages of the police and civil service as well as economic development projects and infrastructure. But they did this only as long as they believed the aim was to pave the way towards a Palestinian state, and not to shore up autonomy under Israeli occupation. This arrangement was very convenient for Israel: the US trained Palestinian police officers who acted in “security coordination” with Israel, while the Israeli governments strengthened their hold on the West Bank undisturbed, through massive construction in the settlements. However, Netanyahu decided that his political survival was more important than anything else, and he’s killing the goose that laid the golden egg. By casting Abu Mazen in the mold of enemy of the Jewish people and supporter of terror, he has also cast doubt on the continued existence of the PA and of security coordination with Israel.

Now Netanyahu and Yaalon are aiming to go even further. Making the PA an “empire which means autonomy” – the mountain that gave birth to a mouse – puts an end to the idea of a Palestinian state and to the PA itself. So far, there has been no Palestinian leader willing to head an autonomous entity in the shadow of occupation. The separation barrier, separate buses for Jews and Palestinians, land expropriation, magnetic cards, limitations on freedom of movement and arbitrary arrests create a reality which no Palestinian leader can accept. Yaalon is fooling himself and all Israelis, since there is no way of compelling Palestinians to accept autonomy while not continuing to rule over them. Israel has been controlling the Palestinians for almost 50 years, from determining their ID numbers to controlling the water they drink and the electricity they use. The false reality it created through the PA is coming to an end.

In despair, Abu Mazen does all he can to escape Israel’s grasp by what are generally called “unilateral steps,” crawling towards the UN where he will meet the US administration, which will send him away empty-handed as usual. It will refuse to recognize a Palestinian state and refuse to compel Israel to leave the West Bank. The frustrated Americans have no option but to grit their teeth, curse Netanyahu, call him a spineless coward, and… veto Palestinian demands. The strategic alliance between Israel and the US has so far only perpetuated the conflict, and it is now bringing Abu Mazen’s political demise ever closer, together with that of the PA itself. Bankrolling states are warning that if this should happen, they will cease funding the PA. The bill for the occupation will have to be paid by Israeli citizens, who even now find it hard to make ends meet. It is true that Netanyahu benefits from the fact that he has no opposition within Israel, but he faces increasing international criticism as well as millions of Palestinians who are not willing to dance to his tune.

Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post Oslo out, Autonomy in first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

[Published in Hebrew on July 30, 2014, before Hamas captured an Israeli soldier]

The war between Israel and Hamas has been raging for three weeks already, and no one knows when it will end. It has killed more than 1,100 people in the Gaza Strip, of whom 80% were civilians, including 220 children and 120 women. It has wounded thousands and displaced some 400,000. It has destroyed water and electricity infrastructures and hundreds of homes. But like most wars, it did not begin when the first shot was fired. We may take as its starting point June 15, when Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Hamas to be responsible for the abduction of three yeshiva students in the Hebron area, although Hamas denied all involvement. Netanyahu used the abduction as a pretext to make war on Hamas, re-arresting Palestinians who had been released from Israeli prisons as part of the 2011 deal freeing Gilad Shalit. Netanyahu provoked Hamas, and now he is requesting help from the US, Egypt, and even Abu Mazen to get him out of the hole he dug.

The war that was not meant to be

Netanyahu was motivated by narrow political considerations. His war on Hamas had nothing to do with Gaza. The government of Israel had just abandoned nine months of futile talks with Abu Mazen, mediated by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Israel’s refusal to discuss core issues, particularly borders and the dismantling of settlements, had caused the talks to break down. Moreover, Netanyahu had violated his promise to release a group of Palestinian political prisoners. As a result, the White House blamed Israel for the breakdown, and Israel became isolated on the world stage. This was the moment Hamas had waited for: It approached Abu Mazen to form a Palestinian unity government. While Netanyahu reacted by calling Abu Mazen the “head of a terror group,” the US and Europe expressed support for the unity government.

According to Netanyahu’s calculations, the current war was not supposed to happen. Hamas was almost finished: The military coup in Egypt had brought down the elected government of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ main friend there. Egypt’s new president, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, added Hamas to the list of terror organizations. He did all he could to crush it, destroying the smuggling tunnels between the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, as well as closing the above-ground Rafah border-crossing. In the new situation, Hamas’ ardent wish was that Abu Mazen would take responsibility for paying the wages of Hamas government officials and act to lift the siege on Gaza. But Netanyahu, certain that Hamas was on its last legs, took advantage of the abduction of the three students to begin the above-mentioned arrests in the West Bank. He also pressured the US to prevent Qatar from sending money to Hamas that could have been used to pay public servants in the Strip. Today the magnitude of his error is apparent. Hamas has bounced back thanks to Netanyahu’s generous assistance, while Israel’s citizens and thousands of Gazans are paying the price.

The military operation began on July 8. For an entire week, Israel bombed the Strip from the air, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing 250 Palestinians, including women and children. Israel’s Iron Dome rocket-defense system held its own against Hamas rockets and prevented Israeli losses, while the Palestinians received the full force of the onslaught. Netanyahu and his partners – Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon and Chief of Staff Benny Gantz – were sure the war was winding down. On July 15, Egypt came up with its ceasefire proposal: stop fighting now, talk later. Israel accepted it, because it suited its policy of “quiet in exchange for quiet.” The Egyptian proposal was like a gift for Israel, but it signified punishment and surrender for Hamas, because General Sisi was not prepared to guarantee the opening of the Rafah crossing or the lifting of the blockade on Gaza.

Hamas’ rejection of the ceasefire proposal supplied Netanyahu with an excuse to step up the operation, and he sought an acceptable justification for sending in limited ground forces. It seems the US was not willing to give him a blank check, so Netanyahu found a new issue – the tunnels. Since July 18, Israeli TV channels have brought up this subject again and again, until every Israeli has become an expert on the technical intricacies of tunnel construction and the difficulties involved in digging them.

The leftwing is with Netanyahu… the US is not

Using the tunnels, Netanyahu has managed to unite the entire nation behind his war, from the ultranationalist settlers to liberal-left Meretz. The incursion of ground troops created an Israeli consensus which holds that this is Israel’s most justifiable war in many years. The sirens in Tel Aviv brought Hamas into every home, and Israelis were suddenly attracted to Netanyahu’s “balanced reasoning.” The Iron Dome intercepting Hamas rockets above the cities made people forget that it was Netanyahu who set the bloody ball rolling, and all the world’s wisest are having a hard time stopping it. Meretz fell in love with the Egyptian proposal and the possibility of resuscitating the “moderate axis,” which includes Abu Mazen, the Jordanian and Saudi Abdullahs, and of course General Sisi.

The celebration could have continued if two important factors had not arisen. First, unlike the previous Gaza incursion (“Cast Lead”), in which 10 Israeli soldiers died, the current war has claimed the lives of 53 soldiers so far. Second, the international community was not prepared to accept the images of death and devastation in Gaza. Two days after the start of the ground incursion, the magnitude of the destruction became apparent with the flattening of the Shijaiyah neighborhood. Kerry’s response, “A hell of a pinpoint operation,” expressed the revulsion felt around the world. For the first time in its history, Israel discovered that the US does not necessarily stand by it automatically.

Not only was the US administration disgusted by the images from Gaza, it also rejected the Egyptian proposal as the basis for ending the war. When Hamas presented the Qatar-Turkey proposal, which made a ceasefire dependent on lifting the Gaza blockade, the US located itself between the two proposals. For this, it was reviled by the entire political spectrum in Israel, including the leftwing, which had always sided with the US administration against Netanyahu’s government. This is a strange situation; after all, the elements – Egypt, Abu Mazen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and of course Israel – are all US allies. It is an internal “family dispute,” and there is no axis of evil against which to unite.

But in fact, the stand of the Obama administration is consistent. The Israeli Left fell in love with the “moderate” Arab camp, and embraced it in its struggle against the extreme Israeli Right, which refuses any political agreement; however, the US views the moderate camp as problematic and unable to bring regional stability. The US considers the Saudi regime to be a base for the Islamic fundamentalism that nurtured Bin Laden, while the Egyptian regime is seen as a caricature of the Mubarak regime, which came to power following a military coup and resulted in a harsh dictatorship. In contrast, the US sees the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderating influence on fundamentalist extremism (as represented by the Islamic State of Iran and Syria—ISIS). The US believes that the Brotherhood has deep roots in and significant influence on Arab society. It believes that under normal circumstances, the Brotherhood would be willing to play the democratic game, as Islamic parties do in Turkey and Tunisia. The US thinks that the path of General Sisi and his Saudi partner leads only to a dead end—to ongoing political instability, corruption and oppression—and that it fails to address the economic problems besetting Egypt.

Between harsh alternatives

US policy is based on cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood. This explains US support for the Palestinian unity government against which Netanyahu has been waging an all-out battle. But Netanyahu has no alternative to Hamas or a Palestinian unity government. He himself fears Hamas’ total collapse, because ISIS, from the House of Saud, is likely to fill the vacuum; he therefore seeks a way out which will not compel him to make far-reaching concessions.

Thus those who want to strengthen Abu Mazen at Hamas’ expense, on the basis of the Egyptian initiative, find themselves in the same camp as Netanyahu. Only the Palestinian people can strengthen Abu Mazen, but the more that Israel and the Zionist Left embrace him, the more the Palestinian people reject him. At the same time, all those who want to strengthen Sisi at the expense of the Muslim Brotherhood, like many of the secular liberals in Egypt, are joining up with a murderous dictator. Currently, Egypt is negotiating an interim agreement, known as the “amended Egyptian initiative.” The US is trying to bring its quarrelsome partners back together and work out a compromise between Egypt and Qatar. The agreement being cooked up looks something like this: Abu Mazen will get control of the Rafah crossing; Hamas will get the blockade partially lifted; Sisi will earn himself some legitimacy; and Israel will get its yearned-for quiet. In the meantime, the residents of the Gaza Strip are suffering death and devastation for the third time since Hamas took control of the territory.

The war will eventually come to an end, but the problems underlying it will only get worse. The Occupation, source of all evil, will continue to shake up Israel again and again. Those who support Netanyahu’s “justified war,” including the Israeli Left and opinion makers in the media, forget that the world is sick of the Occupation, of gross violations of human rights, of closures and the Separation Wall, of the settlements and settlers, of the checkpoints, of bored soldiers who fire at students, and of the repeated destruction in Gaza.

Instead of waking up only when rockets are fired in its direction, Israeli society must take responsibility for the fact that the government imprisons the Palestinians in its name and embitters their lives. The wide-eyed innocence of many Israelis who repeat the mantra, “We got out of Gaza, so what do they want from us?” is sanctimonious hypocrisy. Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip unilaterally—while continuing to control the air, the sea, and most of the land gateways—as punishment for the Palestinians. It was an attempt to weaken the West Bank and divide the Palestinian people. Tricks like these—plus various alliances, military and technological superiority, and the Iron Dome—cannot purify what is rotten to the core. The Occupation must end and a peace agreement must be signed including both parts of the Palestinian people, those in the West Bank and those in Gaza. Only in this way will Israel regain international legitimacy, and only in this way will it halt its headlong rush towards catastrophe. The more it destroys the future of the Palestinian people, the more it will become a barbaric and Kahanist society.

– Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post Operation “Protective Edge” and the Left’s beautiful friendship with Netanyahu first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Until 2008 the boycott against Israel, known also as the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), was a marginal phenomenon. It began on July 9, 2005 when 171 Palestinian NGOs called for a boycott at an economic and cultural level. Over time, the initiative spread beyond the Occupied Territories to the wider world. But the Palestinian Authority (PA), which maintains diplomatic, security and economic ties with Israel, refused to express support (and refuses until now). The world’s governments likewise withheld support. Here and there, a famous singer or actor cancelled a gig in Israel, and demonstrations were held abroad when Israelis performed there, but these did not have an impact on public opinion in Israel, or on its government, which regularly accused the boycotters of anti-Semitism.

The reason for the boycott movement’s marginality before 2008 was the extremist political message of some of the organizations involved, which called for a one-state solution from the Jordan River to the sea. Most boycotting organizations compared Israel to the South African Apartheid regime, against which boycott had been the obvious step. But Israel’s status in the world—the support it receives from the international community, the US above all, the fact that it has diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and the PA, and the fact that its Arab citizens, despite rampant discrimination, enjoy the right to vote—rendered this political platform untenable, making it easier for its detractors to claim that its only aim is the destruction of Israel.

When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2008, however, things began to change. What had been a marginal movement began growing until it took center stage, especially in Europe. In countries friendly to Israel, such as the Netherlands and Britain, and even in the Scandinavian countries under whose patronage the Oslo Accords were signed, the call for boycott was heard in universities and unions. Obama declared that the solution to the conflict was the foundation of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, even marking a date for the end of the process: September 2011. This gave new impetus to the efforts at pressuring Israel. When the time came, the Palestinians turned to the UN for recognition as a state, but the US vetoed the move. The Palestinians have since backtracked on this approach, but because of the deadlock in negotiations, Europe has become increasingly frustrated with Israel’s refusal to halt settlement construction, and the boycott on goods from the settlements has grown.

When John Kerry became US Secretary of State, the rules of the game changed. The US government gave up on its demand for a settlement freeze as a condition for talks, and pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to enter negotiations, threatening to stop the flow of US aid to the PA. Kerry succeeded in this aim, but Obama’s second term coincides with Netanyahu’s third; Netanyahu has established a coalition which grants settlers key ministries, and Israel’s position has become ever more hawkish position. The sides agreed to reach a final settlement by April 2014, but this date is no different from the other dates that passed quietly. Since Israel adamantly refuses to discuss the core issues and avoids delineating clear borders, the negotiations are meaningless. Despite this, Kerry insists on prolonging them, but knows he cannot do this without determining clear parameters, including borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the refugees. For the first time, Israel is being pressured to clarify its stance on the core issues, which the Oslo Accords had circumvented, thus allowing the settlement project to continue.

Europe and the US are the main funders of the PA. The Palestinian government has recently approved the state budget to the tune of 4.2 billion dollars, most of which come from contributing states and the taxes that Israel collects for the PA. This is a ridiculously small sum, whose main purpose is to pay the low wages of Palestinian officials. The tiny budget perpetuates the poverty suffered by most Palestinians while keeping them quiet. Europe sees little point in continuing this flow of funds when no Palestinian state is in the offing and the conflict escalates. Israeli announcements of settlement expansion, along with Netanyahu’s declarations that he will not dismantle a single settlement and that the River Jordan is Israel’s security border, increase the frustration and wrath of European taxpayers, who indirectly bankroll the occupation by enabling the status quo. It must be remembered that Europe agreed to fund the PA on the assumption that a final agreement would be signed in 1999, according to the Oslo schedule. Now they feel cheated. The more Kerry tries to define the parameters, the louder the outcry from central ministers in the Israeli government, like Economics Minister Naftali Bennett and Defense Minister Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon (who is fully backed by the prime minister).

Israel’s obstinacy has played a part in making boycott an effective tool for pressuring Israel – what Thomas Friedman in his New York Times column called the “third intifada.” While Netanyahu admits that the aim of the talks, from his point of view, is to play for time and ward off European pressure, the Europeans have seen through this game and are applying even more pressure. This time the boycotters are not extreme leftwing groups or radical professors, but a central Dutch pension fund and a central Danish bank. Netanyahu has set up a special committee to address what has become a strategic threat, appointing Yuval Steinitz, Strategic Affairs minister, to deal with the issue. But the pressure is not letting up, and none other than John Kerry is warning Israel of a boycott if the negotiations fail. This has raised a storm in the country, where he is accused of supporting a boycott himself.

The gravity of the growing boycott lies in the fact that unlike the BDS movement, which offered no realistic political path, the new boycott has a political agenda based on the two-state solution. Passively supported by the US, this newer European boycott has two goals:

(1) To bring about political change inside Israel, for it is clear that the current coalition cannot accept any agreement which refers to – or even hints at – the 1967 borders, Jerusalem, or the settlements. In other words, the Jewish Home party led by Bennett has to go. That is why Bennett is making so much noise, aiming to torpedo any agreement taking shape. On the other hand, the replacement of Shelly Yachimovich by Yitzhak Herzog as Labor Party chief, and the orthodox Shas party’s strong desire to get back into the government, make this political trick possible: if Bennett leaves, others will enter. The more Kerry presses and Europe boycotts, the more Netanyahu will feel compelled to take leave of his settler friends. Yair Lapid’s tweets on the likely damage a boycott will cause have also given the impression that his alliance with Bennett, which forced Netanyahu to set up the coalition in its current form, is crumbling.

(2) The second goal is to tie the boycott to a political program. But the question is: What program?

Kerry’s emerging parameters commit the same sin as the Oslo Accords: they offer no clear solution to the problem of the settlements, Jerusalem and the refugees. All Netanyahu is being asked to do is make some adjustments in his coalition. Abu Mazen, however, is being asked to perpetuate a situation in which the PA continues to be dependent on Israel: the “separation fence” will continue to strangle West Bank residents; border crossings will continue to be under Israeli control; and settlements will continue to divide the West Bank. Thus the Palestinian state will be helpless.

To achieve the goal, generous cooperation from Abu Mazen is needed. The interview he gave to the New York Times was intended to indicate exactly this. Abu Mazen is willing to accept (1) the presence of NATO forces instead of the IDF and (2) Israel’s gradual withdrawal from the West Bank phased over five years.

An editorial in the newspaper Al-Quds does not hide the intention behind this declaration, which is to show the world Abu Mazen’s flexibility as compared with Netanyahu’s intransigence.

It is not certain that Netanyahu will manage to make the required coalition changes, and it is even less certain that Abu Mazen will manage to force another Oslo agreement on his people. What is certain is that Kerry’s program seeks to compromise with the occupation instead of putting an end to it. Thus the current threats of boycott, wrapped as they are in the pale political program being promoted by Kerry, leave the bitter taste of yet another wasted opportunity.

– Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post The boycott: To what end? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

When Naftali Bennett compared the Palestinians to shrapnel in the backside of an IDF soldier, undoubtedly many public figures in Israel identifies with his allegory. Bennett, Israel’s newest political star and now Economy Minister, asserted it was better to leave the shrapnel where it is than risk paralysis in removing it. Having seen how the political issue was marginalized during the last elections, and how the social protest movement of 2011 embraced the settlers, it’s clear that Bennett isn’t the only one who believes it’s better to leave the shrapnel firmly lodged in Israel’s backside, which will lead to nothing worse than occasional discomfort. Indeed, Bennett has many partners both inside and outside the Knesset.

Let us not forget how effortlessly Bennett teamed up with Yair Lapid and forced upon Netanyahu a coalition free of the ultra-Orthodox parties, thus leaving two major ministries – the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and the Ministry of Economy – in the hands of the settlers, who are fast becoming the mainstay of Netanyahu’s government. In an interview with the New York Times (May 19), Lapid expressed opposition to freezing settlement construction, claiming that it’s not certain Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is a “partner for peace.” The idea that the conflict is unsolvable is accepted by a majority starting from the right wing coalition and ending at the Labor Party, and this has indeed made the Palestinians mere shrapnel in Israel’s behind.

Since Obama’s visit, US Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying to kick-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. So far, Israel has made no reply to all his visits and entreaties to enter serious talks. Bennett announces that the Palestinian issue is not on the agenda and Lapid backs him up, while Tzipi Livni fumes on the sidelines declaring she refuses to be a fig-leaf for an extreme rightwing government. However, that’s exactly what she is. Since the conflict is unsolvable, we can finish the business and build under every tree and on every hilltop, until the two-state solution becomes a forgotten dream.

The settlers’ victory

The settlers’ victory is so sweeping that they’re willing to bring up the issue themselves while the opposition mumbles and stutters, devoid of any alternative program. Buoyed by the knowledge that retaining the “settlements blocs” and the city of Ariel has become part of the consensus, the settlers continue their settlement efforts, supported by Netanyahu and Likud-Beiteinu. According to their vision, the settlement blocs will be swallowed up by settlement throughout Area C, and the Palestinians will receive nothing but the enclaves under Palestinian Authority control. While those on Israel’s Left gave up grappling with the issue, the settlers continue marching forward, sure in the knowledge that those who now agree to the settlement blocs will eventually agree to annexation.

Of course, this sliver of shrapnel will hurt more than Bennett lets on. Just recently Bennett was compelled to denounce the work of his wayward followers who sprayed “Arabs out” in the Arab town of Abu Ghosh, a town close to Jerusalem within the Green Line and thus Israeli. This was the work of a loosely united group who sign themselves off as “price tag,” which is a reference to the price Palestinians will pay each time the settlers are hurt. Last week something similar happened in Jaffa’s cemetery. Who knows where it will happen next? Interestingly, the omnipotent General Security Services (Shin Bet) haven’t been able to locate a single suspect. The reason is clear: when all settlers hate Arabs and wish only for their “disappearance,” “price tag” is a general term for any act which satisfies a person’s racial urges without obliging him to be part of a formal organization. Moreover, “they haven’t killed anyone yet,” as Netanyahu put it as he explained his opposition to branding “price tag” a terror organization.

Warped fantasy of annexation

Those on the Left who welcomed Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip are now stuck with the tragic consequences of their support. Sharon got out of Gaza in order to keep hold of the West Bank. When Hamas took over the Strip, the Palestinian Authority ceased representing all Palestinians, and the “Palestinian partner” disappeared. Gaza will become a Palestinian state if the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt opens the Rafah crossing for its Hamas brethren. Then, when the Palestinian question has been “solved”, the settlers will be able to annex the West Bank.

The post The settlements: shrapnel in Israel’s backside first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

At the outbreak of the revolution in Syria two years ago, the Israeli government announced that events there were none of its business and it would not interfere. Forty years of quiet on the Golan Heights had led Israel to prefer Assad over any conceivable replacement. Now, however, when the rebels rule wide areas, when the Syrian army is falling apart, and when the regime’s survival is in the balance, Israeli policy appears to have shifted from passivity to active intervention.

The pretext is to prevent the transport of Iranian arms through Syria to the Hezbollah, but the real purpose of the policy change is to influence the future of Syria in case Assad falls, as Israel thinks he will; Israel wants to push a future Syria away from its alliance with Iran. The weakness of Assad’s regime, especially its loss of control over areas bordering Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon, has created a new strategic situation. “The free Syrian army” has established a territorial base on which it can erect an alternative administration. This development has led Hezbollah to enter the fray, and that, in turn, has opened the chink through which Israel could worm its way in.

Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria began in secret, with Nasrallah denying it absolutely. But the battles in the city of al-Quseir near Homs, and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni villages by Hezbollah, have exposed his interference. Hezbollah has lost all its political capital in the Arab world. Indeed, the “guru” of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yussef Kardawi, has gone so far as to damn Nasrallah and call for American intervention. Such a moment, with Assad in free fall and Nasrallah in disgrace, offers Israel a golden opportunity to demonstrate its power and thus ensure deterrence.

Israeli intervention

Israel makes a simple claim: We aren’t attacking the Syrian regime—we’ve gotten along fine with Assad and appreciate the quiet he’s maintained on the Golan. Our problem is with the Hezbollah and the arms from Iran, which threaten our security. However, this claim suffers from several flaws: First, the arms warehouse that Israel blew up was beside Assad’s palace; the fireworks panicked people in Damascus and severely harmed what little is left of Assad’s prestige. Second, what sense does it make to strike in the heart of Damascus—rather than simply wait for Assad’s fall, an event that in any case will cut off Hezbollah’s military lifeline? Instead, Israel chooses the very approach which the US and Europe avoided for fear of chaos.

Assad’s initial reaction has been to preserve the calm with Israel. There were several hours of tension, and then, as a sign that no reprisal was expected, Israeli PM Netanyahu boarded a plane for China. Al-Hayat reports that before the flight he spoke with Russia’s Putin, assuring him that the target was Hezbollah and not Assad. Putin passed the message to Assad, and apparently he also repeated his demand on Hezbollah that it not interfere in Syria (a demand made earlier by his Deputy Foreign Minister in a face-to-face meeting with Nasrallah). Israel emerged unscathed, but with hunger comes appetite, and Assad’s present restraint is no guarantee as to what the response will be the next time.

America on the Defensive

The bombing of Damascus occurred a few days before the visit of the American Secretary of State John Kerry in Moscow. After an Israeli intelligence officer revealed that Assad had used chemical weapons, crossing the red line set by President Obama, the White House went on the defensive. Obama acknowledged that such weapons had indeed been used but he claimed a lack of definitive evidence concerning the culprit; in addition, he ruled out putting American soldiers on Syrian soil. To all who demand US military intervention in Syria, above all to Senator John McCain, Obama has always replied that this would be dangerous and complicated.

Kerry’s visit became crucial. On top of 70,000 killed and four million refugees, Hezbollah and Israel have now taken Syria as their battleground. After meeting Putin and holding nighttime discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Kerry released an innocuous statement that leaves the situation as is: America and Russia have again agreed on the Geneva approach from last June, which calls for talks between the regime and the opposition. Assad’s future remains in dispute: the Americans want him out while the Russians support him.

The Russians and Americans have also said that they will convene an international conference by the end of this month that will bring about negotiations between the opposition and the regime, but no specific time or agenda have been announced. Kerry does not believe that Assad can take part in a transition to democracy after the mass killing of innocent civilians, while Lavrov thinks that an opposition victory would break Syria into ethnic cantons.

And so the routine of horrors goes on. The regime continues with its ethnic cleansing, now in the village of al-Baida and the city of Banias, where the Alawite shabiha slaughtered men, women, and children with knives and the survivors fled.

Internal chaos

The American refusal to provide military aid for the democratic opposition has contributed greatly to the internal chaos. Al-Qaeda-affiliates, though in the minority, are able to set the tone. They unwittingly supply the regime with grist for propaganda, for Assad can argue that he is fighting a joint al-Qaeda–Zionist plot. The fact that the US line is unclear, while Iran and Russia continue to arm the regime, sows confusion within the Syrian opposition.

This state of things is evident in the fact that soon after Moaz al-Khatib was elected to head the National Coalition of the Syrian Opposition Forces, he quit. He had agreed to enter negotiations with the regime, but the latter had responded by rocketing civilians. When the West nonetheless remained unwilling to supply arms, al-Khatib resigned. Until today no replacement has been found.

The world’s hands-off policy has led to general confusion that also affects nearby countries. Iraq is on the verge of civil war between Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the west, and Shiites in the south, while Iran stirs the kettle. Lebanon is split between the supporters and opponents of Assad. The Syrian regime seeks to built an Alawite state, some of the rebels in the north dream of a Sunni emirate, and the democratic opposition gropes in the dark. For fear of the turmoil in Syria, Turkey has smoothed things out with Israel after the troubles of the Marmara affair, while achieving reconciliation with its Kurdish minority.

The Israeli bombardment does not contribute to regional stability, nor even to the security of Israel itself. It is the latest chapter in a lengthy process, which began when Israel stuck its hand into strife-ridden Lebanon in the early 1980’s, supporting the Maronites, an act that would spawn the Hezbollah and years of bloodshed. Syria’s fate lies solely in the hands of its citizens, who have demonstrated their readiness to risk their lives for democracy and social justice. That is the reason why they first went into the streets to demonstrate, and that is the reason they keep on fighting.

A democratic Syria is the historical imperative dictated by the Arab Spring. The hour demands that the world spare further suffering by supplying arms to the opposition and providing safe zones for civilians, so that the Syrian people can fulfill its right to peace and freedom.

The post Israel, Assad, and the world first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.