Statement by the DAAM Party

The war between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other, which has been underway since February 28, has shaken the Middle East and reverberated throughout the world. As missiles strike across the region and drones explode in the skies above its cities—while Israeli civilians repeatedly run to bomb shelters—a fierce debate has emerged in Israel and internationally regarding the nature of this war: what caused it, and what consequences it may bring.

The statement of the DAAM Party presented here seeks to clarify the sequence of developments that led to this war. It challenges several widely accepted assumptions that have become entrenched within liberal and progressive discourse and points toward the direction that the forces of peace and democratic progress in Israel must adopt in order to defeat the far-right government in the upcoming elections.

DAAM is a joint Jewish-Arab political movement whose members are citizens of Israel committed to Israeli-Palestinian peace based on equality and mutual recognition of rights. Founded in 1995 by Jewish and Palestinian activists, the party promotes social justice, and Jewish-Arab cooperation as the foundation for a democratic future. For peace to rise, mutual recognition is a fundamental principle.

From the early 1980s onward, the founders of DAAM were active participants in the struggle against the occupation, a struggle that reached its historic peak with the outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987. The party’s position regarding Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and the regional war that followed is grounded in the same principles that have guided its activity from the beginning: opposition to oppression and reactionary forces on all sides, defense of democratic values, and commitment to a political future based on equality between peoples.

The War Against Iran Is a Direct Continuation of October 7

The war that erupted on Saturday, February 28, 2026, began with a coordinated American-Israeli strike against Iran. This confrontation cannot be understood in isolation. It represents the direct continuation of the events set in motion by Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

For many years Iran systematically cultivated Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as key components of a broader regional network of militias and proxy organizations. Through these forces Tehran expanded its influence across the Middle East while avoiding direct military confrontation with Israel.

This network included Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Assad regime in Syria; Shiite militias in Iraq; the Houthi movement in Yemen; and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories. Together these forces formed what Iran calls the “Axis of Resistance.”

Through this system of proxies—most of them non-state actors—Iran sought to destabilize its rivals while steadily building strategic leverage across the region. The aim of this alliance was never aimed at reaching a long lasting peace in the Middle East.  Ultimately, Tehran aimed to ignite a broader confrontation that would destroy Israel from several fronts and establish the regime of the ayatollahs as the dominant power in the Middle East.

For years the Iranian regime succeeded in pursuing this strategy with relatively little resistance. Its regional standing grew considerably during the past two decades, particularly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had served as a major obstacle to Tehran’s expansionist ambitions.

The failure of the American project in Iraq left a deep trauma in U.S. public opinion. A broad political consensus gradually emerged in Washington that large-scale military confrontation in the Middle East should be avoided whenever possible. This approach was reflected most clearly in the Obama administration’s policy of containment toward Iran, culminating in the nuclear agreement signed in 2015.

Under the diplomatic cover provided by that agreement, the Iranian regime strengthened its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and encouraged a growing belief among its allies that a decisive confrontation was approaching—a final “day of judgment” aimed at destroying the State of Israel.

When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched their coordinated assault on Israeli communities near Gaza on October 7, they were implementing a broader regional strategy whose objective extended far beyond the Palestinian arena.

The immediate participation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen in attacks on Israel—what they described as a “war of support”—demonstrated that the assault was not an isolated operation but part of a wider strategic plan. The war that has unfolded since then, reshaping the lives of millions across the Middle East, is therefore the direct consequence of the murderous gamble undertaken by Hamas in the service of Tehran’s strategic ambitions.

The Iranian Regime Refused to Recognize the New Balance of Power

Over the following two years Israel worked to repel the assault launched by Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting the leadership of both organizations and destroying much of their military capacity.  Days after the agreement on a cease fire in Lebanon the Assad Regime in Syria collapsed like a card castle. A central pillar of the “Axis of Resistance” where Iran invested Billions was gone. 

A joint American-Israeli operation in June 2025 severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities and its nuclear program. Two and a half months later, in October 2025, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Gaza and all Israeli hostages were released. The war that had begun on October 7 appeared to have reached its conclusion.

The results of the war in Gaza were clear and decisive, and neither side had a clear interest in renewing the fighting. Yet the Iranian regime refused to acknowledge this reality. Since the June 2025 operation it promoted a narrative claiming that the “Axis of Resistance” had actually won the war and that Israel had been defeated—arguing that Israel itself had requested the ceasefire after suffering heavy damage to economic, medical, and military infrastructure in its major cities.

The leadership in Tehran refused to draw the strategic conclusions required by its defeat and the defeat of its proxies. It ignored the historic significance of the United States joining— for the first time—an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

At the end of December 2025 the regime’s weakness became dramatically visible when a massive popular uprising erupted in Iran. New social groups joined the protests, including merchants from the traditional bazaar.

Demonstrators chanted “Death to Khamenei” and demanded the overthrow of the regime that had ruled Iran through repression for nearly half a century and driven the country into poverty, hunger, and stagnation.

More than thirty thousand citizens were massacred by the repressive machine within a matter of days in a desperate attempt by the regime to crush the uprising.

Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump demanded that Iran enter negotiations, backing his demand with the deployment of significant military forces to the region. In February 2026 negotiations between representatives of the United States and Iran opened in the Sultanate of Oman, with the goal of reaching an agreement that might prevent a military confrontation. There was hope that such an agreement could also stabilize the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Many observers expected the Iranian regime to recognize the new balance of power and to abandon its megalomanic  strategic ambitions, including its nuclear project. Trump repeatedly stated that he preferred a negotiated settlement to military confrontation. Yet the leaders in Tehran chose to ignore what had become evident. The destructive arrogance that had characterized Hamas’s leadership and led Yahya Sinwar to launch the disastrous October 7 attack, also shaped the position of the Iranian regime. Its negotiators rejected American demands. The message quickly spread to Iran’s allies. Both Hamas and Hezbollah adopted similarly uncompromising positions.

Hezbollah declared that it would not surrender its weapons to the sovereign Lebanese government and would not allow the ceasefire with Israel to be implemented. Hamas rejected the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for its disarmament and continued to obstruct progress toward implementing the reconstruction plan for Gaza.

American Isolationism Allowed Iran to Grow Stronger

All available indications suggest that the Iranian leadership believed it could prevent an attack and secure a favorable agreement without making major concessions. Tehran’s calculation relied on widespread public opposition to war within the United States, including strong opposition from the Democratic Party as well as from segments of the isolationist wing of Trump’s MAGA supporters within the Republican Party.

Iran also assumed that the Gulf states—concerned that war could threaten their oil infrastructure—would exert pressure on Washington to avoid military confrontation. Tehran’s strategic gamble was that the United States would continue its traditional policy of containment, which had dominated American policy for more than a decade.

Indeed, for years Iran succeeded in maneuvering Western governments by exploiting Washington’s reluctance to enter into direct confrontation.

The nuclear agreement signed in 2015 lifted many of the sanctions imposed on Iran and opened economic opportunities that had previously been unavailable. But, under the international legitimacy granted by that agreement, the Iranian regime expanded its ballistic missile program, developed deadly drone technologies (aimed against Ukraine as well), and provided massive financial and military support to militant groups in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and the Palestinian territories.

Even the October 7 attack did not prompt the Biden administration to abandon this flawed policy of containment. In April 2024, after Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel for the first time, the Biden administration sought to restrain Israel’s response, arguing that a regional war had to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, the regional war that Washington sought to prevent had already begun.

The aggression of Iran and its proxies against Israel—combined with the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian citizens during the recent uprising—cannot simply be ignored. Such passivity risks sending a dangerous signal to the world that the use of force is sufficient to deter the United States.

In February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening Europe. China is preparing for a possible invasion of Taiwan. Both are watching developments in the Middle East closely, waiting to see how the United States responds to Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia’s behavior provides a clear example. In 2019 Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities in Ras Tanura during Trump’s first presidential term. The United States chose not to respond and offered little meaningful assistance to its ally.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states concluded that Washington might not defend them and began signing agreements with Iran and strengthening ties with China and Russia.

Even during the negotiations between Washington and Tehran in February 2026, the impression remained that the American administration was eager to reach an agreement and avoid military confrontation.

Yet Iran apparently believed that any concession regarding the foundations of the “Axis of Resistance” would undermine the regime itself. Consequently, Iranian negotiators arrived at the negotiating table in Muscat and Geneva with a rigid and defiant position.

Under those circumstances, Trump ultimately chose the military option.

The Objectives of the United States and Israel

As the war continues, an important question remains:
Will Israel and the United States succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime? Will the Iranian people take to the streets again?

Will Iran eventually become a democratic state capable of peaceful relations with its neighbors? At this stage of the war, any definitive answer would be premature.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated networks function as a powerful military-economic structure dedicated to advancing Iran’s expansionist ambitions while enforcing domestic repression.

This organization possesses enormous economic interests inside and outside Iran and has little intention of relinquishing them. In many ways it operates as a violent, mafia-like structure—a state within a state.

These forces are currently driving the continuation of the war and refusing to acknowledge the emerging balance of power.

Although Israel and the United States have stated that they would welcome the fall of the regime, regime change was not among the official war aims. The declared objectives were more limited:
the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, severe damage to its ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and the neutralization of its regional proxies.

A fourth objective involves weakening the regime’s internal repression mechanisms—particularly the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

If these goals are achieved, it may create conditions under which the Iranian people could again rise against the regime.

The American Public Struggles to Confront Global Changes

The attack launched on Saturday morning, February 28, came as a complete surprise to the American public. War with Iran had not been part of the national debate. In Israel, by contrast, the public had been preparing for such a possibility for months, as the government repeatedly warned about the growing likelihood of war.

When Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress on February 24—only four days before the attack—he devoted only a few minutes of a two-hour speech to Iran. It is therefore unsurprising that American public opinion was shocked and unprepared when the war began. Domestic concerns dominate American political life: economic challenges, rising costs of living, immigration issues, and political scandals.

Polls conducted after the attack revealed widespread skepticism about the war and deep concern about another prolonged American involvement in the Middle East. Many Americans do not view Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region as a direct threat to U.S. national security.

Yet from a geopolitical perspective it is difficult to deny that the United States—as the leading power of the democratic world—cannot remain indifferent to Iran’s attempt to impose a fundamentalist regional order and eliminate Israel, one of Washington’s closest allies.

The failure of the American administration to explain clearly to its own public the reasons and objectives of the war represents a serious leadership failure.

Israeli Public Opinion Supports the War but Will Not Forget October 7

Some small forces on the Israeli left—including the Communist Party, Hadash, Ahmad Tibi, and Balad—oppose the war and appear disconnected from the prevailing mood of Israeli society. Like segments of the left in Europe and the United States, they call for an immediate ceasefire and effectively align themselves with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

By contrast, the major opposition parties in Israel support the government’s military actions, recognizing that Iran represents an existential threat not only to Israel but to the entire region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to transform the war into a political asset and to gain electoral points. He is presenting his close relationship with Trump as proof that he is the only Israeli leader capable of persuading the United States to cooperate militarily with Israel at such an unprecedented level.

The evidence of polls conducted after the attack on Iran was launched suggest that Bibi’s cards have not changed. Israeli political camps remain largely unchanged: Netanyahu’s supporters continue to support him, while his opponents remain firmly opposed. This is largely because a majority of Israelis strongly oppose Netanyahu’s domestic policies and his ongoing attacks on democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary and the free press.

Trump’s public attack on President Isaac Herzog and his call for Netanyahu to receive a pardon provoked widespread anger among Israelis, many of whom saw it as an attempt by Netanyahu to use the war and his relationship with Trump to escape his corruption trial.

Even if the war with Iran ends in a clear military victory, Israel’s political landscape is unlikely to change dramatically. Many Israelis fear that Netanyahu will attempt to use electoral success to further weaken democratic institutions while advancing the agenda of the far-right, the settler movement, and ultra-Orthodox parties.

The Political Task Ahead

The task facing supporters of peace and democracy in Israel after the war—regardless of its outcome—is to unite all opposition forces in order to replace the dangerous right-wing government led by Netanyahu.

The broad civic movement that filled Israel’s streets for nearly a year prior to  October 7 in defense of democracy continues today to oppose Netanyahu and his extremist partners. At the same time, the opposition camp still struggles to present a coherent political alternative.

It remains divided and lacks unified leadership as well as a clear policy toward both the Arab world and the unresolved Palestinian question.

Despite these difficulties, the democratic camp must unite and bring about the defeat of Netanyahu’s government.

Partnership with MK Mansour Abbas and the broad political forces he represents in the Arab community in Israel, is essential to securing a democratic majority and preventing Netanyahu from returning to power for another destructive term.

DAAM Party calls upon all its members and supporters to mobilize politically to end Netanyahu’s rule and bring about a political transformation in Israel.

Even if the government that replaces him does not fully adopt the peace program envisioned by DAAM, it would nevertheless represent a crucial change—one that safeguards Israeli democracy and creates the conditions for deeper processes that could eventually open the way to a just Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The post Iran’s Regime Is Now Paying the Price for Its Strategic Mistake in Backing Hamas’s October 7 Attack first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The UN Security Council resolution adopting Trump’s 20-point plan and authorizing a stabilization force in Gaza declares that once the Palestinian Authority enacts reforms and Gaza’s reconstruction moves forward, “conditions may be ripe for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” The very mention of a “Palestinian state” triggered political panic in Israel. Netanyahu, opening this week’s cabinet meeting, stated bluntly: “There will be no Palestinian state.” He then reassured his right-wing ministers that the “conditions” mentioned in the document are impossible to meet.

Hamas rejected the resolution as biased toward Israel, failing to meet the Palestinian people’s basic demands and imposing an international mandate on Gaza. Its refusal only reinforces the conclusion that no Palestinian state is actually being proposed, and that the plan is not meant to be implemented — it is political lip service. The Palestinian Authority, which calls itself the “State of Palestine,” welcomed the decision, claiming it “cements the ceasefire and guarantees the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state.”

Despite his categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu also issued an English-language statement praising the resolution and lauding Trump’s leadership. Indeed, the phrase “credible pathway to self-determination” has raised new expectations — on top of the hopes generated by the Oslo Accords in 1993, celebrated with endless speeches and ceremonies, culminating in a Nobel Peace Prize. Thirty years later, we received the massacre of October 7.

The resolution’s own wording exposes how bleak the situation is, and how detached its conditions are from reality. It leads to two obvious conclusions: first, the Palestinian people lack leadership capable of establishing or governing a state; second, the international community — including the 142 countries that recognized Palestine in the recent UN General Assembly vote — understands that making PA reform a condition stems from the fact that the Palestinian administration is rotten to the core. Corrupt, authoritarian, allergic to democracy, dependent on security agencies tied directly to Fatah — and totally devoid of public support.

Demanding reform from the Palestinian Authority is like demanding reform from the Iranian, Egyptian or Saudi regimes — it simply will not happen. These flawed, degrading traits are part of the political DNA of most Arab regimes. As for Gaza, it is one giant terror infrastructure, above and below ground. That is why its murderous rulers are expected to surrender their weapons and cede authority to a committee of Gazan technocrats who would begin reconstruction with Gulf funding.

This convoluted architecture — likely impossible to implement — stems directly from Israeli policy, or more precisely, from the absence of one. Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are both products of long-term Israeli strategy. To separate the strip from the West Bank and prevent a unified Palestinian state, Hamas became a “strategic asset.” It grew stronger with Qatari funding and Israeli acquiescence, until October 7 turned that “asset” into a nightmare still convulsing Israeli society. The PA, sheltered by Israel’s Shin Bet, is likewise considered useful: it spares Israel from administrative and economic responsibility for Palestinian civilian life.

The longstanding policy of Israel’s political-security establishment — embraced by all parties in the Knesset — is to avoid responsibility for Palestinian welfare in Gaza and the West Bank. The Security Council resolution therefore tries to fill the vacuum that would emerge if Hamas were to relinquish control, relying on clumsy phrasing that includes a supposed “pathway” to statehood. Yet Hamas has already rejected the resolution, adding it to the long list of UN initiatives dumped in the trash since Resolution 242 in 1967.

And that’s not all. The resolution may not advance Palestinian statehood, but it does advance a strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It reflects Riyadh’s interests, wrapped in Trump’s plan and blessed by Israel. Israel’s unwillingness to confront the consequences of the Gaza war — or take responsibility for reconstruction — forced it to accept the Saudi option.

Thus the only concrete outcome of the resolution is the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, turning it into a strategic U.S. ally alongside Israel. Not only Saudi Arabia — viewed in Israel as a “moderate Sunni state” — benefits, but also Qatar, a major sponsor of Hamas, now enjoys Trump’s protection. Mohammed bin Salman, who seeks the mantle of Arab world leader, must insist on the demand for a Palestinian state to fend off claims that Saudi Arabia is willing to normalize relations with Israel at the Palestinians’ expense, as happened with the Abraham Accords.

October 7 reshaped the region’s geopolitical map. Netanyahu boasts that he reshaped the Middle East by weakening the Iranian axis, but he has no plan to capitalize on that. For his government, recognizing a Palestinian state would be “a reward for terror” and a victory for Hamas.

Israel therefore claims that if normalization with Saudi Arabia requires establishing a Palestinian state, Israel will forgo normalization. Saudi Arabia’s position is the exact opposite: for Riyadh, the Gulf states’ neglect of the Palestinian cause in pursuit of peace with Israel is what opened the door to Iran and its allies, who accused them of betrayal and paved the way for the October 7 attack.

The Gaza war has not only isolated Israel internationally; it has also inflamed the Arab masses against their rulers, creating dangerous political instability. The Security Council resolution tries to square the circle — offering Saudis a supposed path to Palestinian statehood and offering Israelis a path to removing Hamas from Gaza.

So where does Trump stand in this regional chaos? Trump is, as always, Trump — concerned only with Trump. A Palestinian state interests him as much as last year’s snow. Nor is it clear what he wants for Gaza: months ago he said the strip should be emptied of its population; today he chairs a “Peace Council” for its reconstruction. What’s clear is that the vast wealth of the Gulf — the palaces and gold-plated toilets — attracts him more than anything else.

Trump is trying to “square the circle”: intervening in Israel’s judicial system to help his friend Netanyahu and seek him a pardon; refusing, however, to sacrifice his ties with Turkey’s Erdoğan or Qatar’s Emir Tamim. And he has even acquired a new friend — Syria’s president, once wanted by U.S. authorities as an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist leader. Even Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya received condolences from Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, after his son’s death in an Israeli strike in Doha.

With U.S. policy devoid of any moral, ideological or political principle, nothing meaningful can emerge from Trump’s 20-point plan. Selling advanced jets to Saudi Arabia, embracing Syria’s ruler, and courting Hamas backers like Erdoğan and Qatar’s emir — all of it produces chaos, not solutions. Israel’s extremist government is fully dependent on Trump. It has no regional or global allies, no diplomatic strategy, and fights fiercely against Israel’s own democratic institutions. Its sole aim is to survive and try to derail Netanyahu’s trial. But the situation is complex. The Security Council resolution will not create a Palestinian state — not now, not anytime soon — but the messianic fantasies of Israel’s far right have hit a dead end. Trump, their only hope, has ruled out outright the possibility of annexing the occupied territories to Israel. “Enough is enough,” he declared — and on that point he is right. People are sick of endless conflict, settler violence, attacks on democracy, and the racist, fascistic rhetoric.

It is time to remove this destructive government — and at the same time, start thinking seriously about our future and our relationship with the Palestinian people. The fact that a Palestinian state will not arise any time soon does not mean five million Palestinians can be denied basic rights indefinitely. The first step toward shaping the future is to change the present: the failed government of October 7 must go.

The post The Pathway to a Palestinian State Is Blocked first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

A great honor was bestowed upon Benjamin Netanyahu when, this past February, he became the first foreign leader to visit the White House after Donald Trump’s reelection. He returned home energized and invigorated. His bet on Trump had paid off — big time. The gift Trump offered Netanyahu? A fantastical plan to transfer two million Gazans out of the Strip and turn Gaza into a flourishing Riviera. And Netanyahu, true to form, didn’t hesitate to present this dangerous delusion as his long-awaited “day after” vision — a plan the army and the opposition had long demanded from him.

The warm ties with the White House gave Netanyahu the sense that he was on top of the world. After all, Trump had won the election despite a conviction for sexual assault, with more cases pending over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, won clearly by Joe Biden, and his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. If Trump could beat the system, why not Netanyahu? All he had to do to extricate himself from his ongoing corruption trial was to mimic Trump: launch an all-out assault on the judiciary, the police, the prosecution, and the media — and aggressively push forward with a judicial overhaul, just as Trump had undermined American democratic institutions.

But there’s a key difference between Trump and Netanyahu. Trump rode into the White House backed by a populist movement centered around the conspiracy theory of the “deep state”: a clandestine alliance of Democrats, state institutions, the Justice Department, and national security agencies that, according to the theory, colluded to distort the will of the people and steal the election. In fact, nearly half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged, and that President Biden’s win was illegitimate.

Trump repeatedly declared that if reelected, he would dismantle the deep state. And indeed, upon his return to the White House, he surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists and shadowy operatives, appointing them to some of the most sensitive posts. The Attorney General, the FBI Director, the Deputy Director, and other senior officials worked tirelessly to delegitimize the very institutions that form the foundation of American democracy.

Netanyahu, as we know, has always believed that what’s good for America is good for Israel — and what’s good for Trump is definitely good for Bibi. In a speech to the Knesset, he even recounted whispering to Trump during his White House visit that “Israel has a deep state too.” Trump’s response was never disclosed — but surely, a con man knows a fellow con man when he sees one.

Not long after their meeting, in March 2025, Netanyahu posted on X (formerly Twitter) in Hebrew:

“In America and in Israel, when a strong right-wing leader wins elections, the deep state — serving the left — manipulates the justice system to thwart the will of the people. They will not win. Not in Israel, not in America. We stand strong together.”

Sara Netanyahu joined the chorus. In an interview with Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, on Fox News, she aired her grievances, describing Israel’s deep state as:

“Relatively small radical-left elites, funded by foreign governments, holding key positions of influence. They use other means — particularly abuse of the judicial system — to try and topple a democratically elected government.”
And with a nod to the host, she added:
“Look at what they did to President Trump and his family. They did the same to my husband, to our family, to our sons — bringing ridiculous, false charges.”

But here’s where the plot twists. It turns out that the Trump-Netanyahu alliance may not be helping either of them. Last week, Pandora’s box was opened, and the chaos inside is now spreading fast. Trump and Netanyahu, both self-styled victims of the deep state, are now at the center of a strange and stormy scandal consuming the U.S.: the Jeffrey Epstein files — the same ones that have been the foundation of Trump’s favorite conspiracy narrative on his road back to the presidency.

For those less familiar with the intricacies of American politics, Jeffrey Epstein was a businessman arrested for running a sex-trafficking ring of underage girls with Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of media tycoon Robert Maxwell (once the owner of Israel’s Maariv daily). Epstein died by suicide in jail in 2019 before his trial began. He was known to fly prominent figures to his private island in the Caribbean, where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves. His acquaintances included Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Israeli ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and many celebrities and business moguls. Trump and Melania were also photographed socializing with Epstein.

How did Netanyahu manage to drag Trump into what Trump’s base calls a reckless military adventure? Enter Epstein — again. The conspiracy theory now claims Epstein was a Mossad agent, evidenced by his ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her father’s alleged Mossad links. From there, it’s a short leap to accusing Israel of holding the Epstein files and using them to blackmail Trump and other officials. Because how else, the theory goes, could Israel have persuaded Trump to attack Iran against his will?

According to the conspiracy theory, Epstein held on to incriminating footage and client lists — mostly Democrats — to blackmail them. During his campaign, Trump promised to reveal everything. Once elected, he appointed Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Kash Patel to head the FBI, tasking them with following through. But despite their early declarations that the Epstein files were “on their desks,” they abruptly announced that no such files existed.

So where does Netanyahu fit into all this?

He has no direct link to Epstein — and yet, somehow, he may end up as the story’s main casualty. The rift between Trump and far-right media firebrands Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon blew wide open following Israel’s recent strike on Iran. Israel’s successful elimination of top Iranian military and nuclear officials, and its near-total control of Tehran’s airspace, put the Trump administration in a difficult spot.

Initially, Trump distanced himself from the attack, claiming he wasn’t in the loop. But once the military achievement became clear, he flipped and sought to bask in the glory. That decision sparked backlash from his own base. Bannon was spotted entering the White House just before the American strike. Carlson warned of U.S. entanglement — even the risk of triggering World War III. The far right began accusing Trump of being manipulated by Netanyahu, who was dragging him into another Middle East war — despite Trump’s campaign promises to avoid conflict and pursue a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Which begs the question: how did Netanyahu manage to drag Trump into what Trump’s base calls a reckless military adventure? Enter Epstein — again. The conspiracy theory now claims Epstein was a Mossad agent, evidenced by his ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her father’s alleged Mossad links. From there, it’s a short leap to accusing Israel of holding the Epstein files and using them to blackmail Trump and other officials. Because how else, the theory goes, could Israel have persuaded Trump to attack Iran against his will?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s public denial — that Epstein had no links to Mossad and that Israel possesses no such lists — didn’t help. The conspiratorial genie was already out of the bottle. Trump’s denials and his attempts to dismiss the scandal as a Democratic hoax were met with scorn and disbelief from right-wing influencers whose blogs boast millions of followers.

Now, the hard-right Freedom Caucus in Congress is jumping on the wave, demanding steep cuts to Israel’s defense aid. Their argument: Israelis enjoy high living standards and universal healthcare, while Americans suffer under crushing costs and a broken system. Why, they ask, should billions of taxpayer dollars continue to flow to Israel? America First, once directed at the rest of the world, has now been turned inward — at Israel.

In a final twist of irony, the very deep state narrative that carried Trump to power is now being turned against him. Millions who once believed his every lie now follow his far-right successors, who claim Trump himself is being blackmailed by Netanyahu — the same Netanyahu they say is stirring conflict in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and now Syria.

And they are not alone. The progressive left in the Democratic Party — and even parts of the center — have long soured on Netanyahu. Now it seems he and Israel are losing what little bipartisan support remained in Congress.

This shift is already influencing Trump’s foreign policy recalibrations, with increased emphasis on ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, even Turkey. Trump finds himself ensnared in his own web of falsehoods, while Netanyahu’s grand bet increasingly looks like a broken reed. The departure of ultra-Orthodox factions from the Israeli government, and threats of a far-right exit over ongoing hostage negotiations with Hamas, suggest Netanyahu’s ship of state is slowly sinking in the murky waters it created — and the rats are already looking for safer shores.

The post The Deep State Turns on Netanyahu first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Joe Biden said an unequivocal “no.” Bibi Netanyahu is not invited to the White House until further notice. In other words, until his constitutional coup d’état disappears. Netanyahu’s answer, “don’t interfere in Israel’s internal affairs,” was not long in coming. In response, media commentators tried to interpret this American “no”. Haaretz’s lead editorial defended Biden, explaining that his motives are pure and he speaks “as a supporter and lover of Israel.” Some explain the “no” due to the president’s Irish temperament or his advanced age, and some even attributed it to an unfortunate slip of the tongue. On the other hand, Bibi’s son Yair had accused the CIA of being behind the protests, a statement that must have angered the president. Everyone anticipated a quick fix from the White House that would lower the flames. A statement was indeed made, but the flames did not subside.

Right wing commentators mentioned the long-standing friendship between the two old friends. It was claimed that Biden is a Zionist, that even in the days of Clinton and Obama there were crises, but that strategic relations are stronger than any dispute because Israel is a strategic asset that the US cannot give up. In short, the US needs us more than we need it. So, we can raze the Palestinian village of Hawara, establish a private militia for Minister of National Security Ben Gvir, annul the disengagement law and fire the defense minister without breaking the bank, because Bibi knows the Americans better than they know themselves. As you may recall, on March 3, 2015, Netanyahu addressed Congress in a defiant speech aimed at thwarting Obama’s attempt to reach an agreement with Iran. It was Netanyahu back then who crudely interfered in internal American politics and contributed his part to Trump’s electoral victory. Since then, Bibi and Trump became identical twins, with Trump starring in Likud’s election posters and Bibi starring in countless White House ceremonies.

Precisely here lies the explanation for Biden’s resounding “no”. The American president may love Israel, but he loves America more. Biden is leading a historic crusade to save the soul of America from the clutches of American fascism as represented by Trump. Something momentous occurred on January 6, 2021, the day Trump’s supporters broke into the Capitol, and Biden’s struggle is primarily aimed at saving American democracy which, it turned out, is not a given. The Israeli right-wing did not take the event seriously and continues to admire Trump, seeing him as Israel’s best friend ever.

Not only Israel underestimated Biden. Also, Russia did when it invaded Ukraine without any hesitation. And where did Israel stand? On the side of democracy or on the side of autocracy? A Putin victory in Ukraine, as well as a victory of Bibi’s constitutional coup, will affect American politics itself as Trumpism continues to threaten America’s democratic regime. This is why US policy has changed. In Israel, they refuse to understand that today’s America is not the America of Clinton, Bush and even Obama. While Biden is moving at a dizzying pace for radical social change based on the Build Back Better program, Israel is moving in the opposite direction, towards neo-liberal conservatism and extreme theocracy. Biden’s “no” accurately reflects the chasm that has opened between the two countries.

The American political language underwent a radical change: the language of the conservatives, who censor movies and books, prohibit abortions, hate the LGBTQ community and are hostile to blacks, compared to the liberal language, which calls for ethnic inclusion and a social safety net for all. It is not difficult to guess which language is spoken by the Israeli government of Smotrich, Ben Gvir, Levin, and Bibi himself.

In a brilliant article published by the New York Times on March 27, Aron Heller compared the American right to the Israeli right. The equivalent of Republican red is Netanyahu’s coalition, which defines itself along identity lines and includes the ultra-orthodox, religious Zionism and low-income Mizrachis . In contrast, the democratic blue is represented in Israel by the upper middle class, educated Ashkenazim living in the big cities and in the center of the country. Heller shows how the American right-wing platform took over Israeli society through extremist emissaries with American citizenship, starting with Rabbi Meir Kahane in the 1980s and ending with founder of the Kohelet Forum and its chairman Moshe Kopel in the last decade. These representatives live in the settlements and take advantage of the growing rift in Israeli society to impose their libertarian views straight from the Federalist Society, which through Trump forced the most conservative Supreme Court to overturn the right to abortion. It’s no secret that Kohelet has been managing the entire ideological array of the Knesset right for years through position papers and laws it writes for Knesset members. Now they want to jump to the next level and take over the Supreme Court as well.

Like Trump and the conservatives in America, Netanyahu adopted piggish capitalist policies, creating one of the biggest social gaps in the Western world. “The Second Israel” was built within the 40 years of Likud rule. The false claim of Likud spokespersons is that even when in power Likud does not actually rule because the centers of control are in fact in the hands of the elites. This matches the perception of Trump who sees the army, police, prosecutor’s office and the media as part of the “deep state” and fights against all signs of the democratic regime. As in the US, the lower class in Israel also flocks to the charismatic leader, despite his belonging to the same “elites.”

Biden is confronting fascism through a social program designed to correct history and win back the workers who supported Trump through a social budget that is one of the largest in history, reminiscent of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hundreds of billions of dollars are invested in infrastructure, factories and social programs to build “from the bottom up,” instead of the “trickle down” theory folly that allows the rich to get richer while the poor wait for some of this wealth to trickle down to them. We paradoxically witness how “Bibi-ism”, which is rooted in poverty and social gaps, continues to foster elitist capitalism while insulting the outstanding “hi-tech nation” against whose perpetrators it conducts a campaign of violent incitement from every possible megaphone.

Yet Israeli fascism is not fed by social gaps alone. It is deeply rooted in racism and hatred of Arabs, who serve as ideological fuel that drives the deep right. The Kohelet Policy Forum, which represents pure capitalism, also represents a messianic ideology that views annexation of the occupied territories as realization of their desires. They long to see Israel in the form of a Jewish kingdom whose constitution is Jewish religious law, and which represents the supremacy of the Jews over other nations. Unlike the US, in Israel the right-wing ideology has infiltrated the public discourse. Liberals stopped talking about the occupation, put up with ignoring the voice of the Arabs in the Knesset (see our former article “only the Jewish vote counts”), normalized apartheid, gave up on solving the Palestinian problem, and contented themselves with managing the conflict and “economic peace” until they reached the current abyss and said “enough is enough”.

Like American liberalism, Israeli liberalism is also facing a historical test today. Biden’s “no” is decisive, and includes all types of racism, misogyny, and violation of human rights. One might say that Biden issued a red card not only to Bibi Netanyahu and his Messianic ultra-orthodox coalition, but also lit a warning light to the protest movement.

The future of Israeli democracy will not be guaranteed until it ceases to be a privilege granted only to Jews. It must also include the Palestinians, meaning all people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, regardless of religion, nationality, race or gender. It is true that democracy needs to be anchored in a constitution, but it must be comprehensive and not incomplete. Democracy cannot ignore five million Palestinians living in its backyard. It will have to be inclusive, uniting the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, within the framework of one egalitarian and democratic state.

The post When Biden Says No, He Means It first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Last Sunday, Israel entered a state of mania. Within three days, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid succeeded in organizing a regional conference in Sde Boker with the participation of foreign ministers of four Arab countries, and in the presence of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. That same evening, this mood darkened following the murderous campaign of two Umm al-Fahm residents in the Israeli city of Hadera, and on Tuesday it darkened further due to the murder spree of a West Bank resident in Bnei Brak.

This is the Israeli reality that has accompanied us for over twenty years. Yes, we live with “shrapnel in the butt.” The current prime minister came up with this metaphor back in 2013, when he explained that Israelis must get used to the fact that there is no solution to the Palestinian question, and it should be treated as “shrapnel in the butt” that cannot be removed and must be lived with.

The countries that decided to normalize relations with Israel seem to have warmly embraced Bennett’s position and, with the encouragement of former US President Donald Trump, jumped on the peace bandwagon. Not out of love for Mordechai, but from hatred of the Persian Haman. The Palestinians have thus been transformed from a problem that preoccupied the Arab world for decades into an internal Israeli problem, and Bennett’s new Arab partners can only look sadly from the sidelines at their new friend’s entanglement with this unresolved problem.

Each of the countries that came to Sde Boker is carrying its own shrapnel: the Emirates are carrying the war in Yemen, the Moroccans the conflict with the Polisario Front, the Egyptians the conflict with Ethiopia around the al-Nahda dam on the Nile, while Bahrain is facing a Shiite majority fighting for full civil rights. What unites them with Israel is hostility toward the Biden administration which, unlike Trump and Netanyahu, strives to renew the nuclear agreement with Iran, in their eyes abandoning them.

There is no doubt the Sde Boker conference was challenging for Anthony Blinken, who came to the Middle East straight from Poland. He had previously accompanied President Biden on a round of meetings with NATO allies in Brussels, aimed at uniting ranks against Putin. In fact, the whole of Europe is today facing the most fateful confrontation since the end of World War II. Putin, an uninhibited and bloodthirsty dictator, decided to redraw Europe’s borders by invading Ukraine, with the aim of overturning its democratic regime.

From the beginning of his tenure, Biden defined the current historical period as a struggle between autocracy and democracy. It should not be forgotten that the United States itself underwent Donald Trump’s coup attempt after he refused to recognize the election results and tried to overturn them by violence. Blinken may have been sitting around the same table in Sde Boker, scattering smiles, but he understood that he was facing a hostile front, unwilling to mobilize in favor of the American effort.

Most politicians in Israel admire Donald Trump, the engineer of the “Abraham Accords” and the one who abolished the nuclear agreement with Iran. In Israel, Biden’s division of the world into democracies and autocracies is seen as naive at best, and despicable at worst. The Chinese and Russian regimes are partners of paramount importance to Israel, and the Arab regimes constitute a guarantee of its security. Democracy is the biggest enemy of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, which vigorously suppress any democratic movement in the Arab world, as we saw after the outbreak of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Dubai highlights the Gulf states’ commitment to the region’s tyrants. Their regimes are not just allies, but an important component of Israel’s national security.

It is no coincidence that Israel and its Arab partners refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Saudi Arabia, for example, is openly working to thwart sanctions against Putin by refusing to increase oil production, which would compensate for the price rises suffered by those who boycott Russia. Like Putin, both Saudi Arabia and Israel hope Trump will return to power in 2024. While the world is mobilizing to save democracy in the war against Putin, Israel is busy organizing regional conferences as a front against Iran and the Biden government.

Israel and the Gulf states are attempting to convince the world that Putin is their friend and ally, while Iran is the true existential danger. The fact that Putin invaded a neighboring country without provocation, and is preparing the ground for using weapons of mass destruction there, is not discussed in Israel. The danger of a third world war does not worry the Israeli leadership. It is currently at war with Iran, which aims to produce nukes in the future, whereas Israel, according to foreign publications, holds dozens, if not hundreds, of them. The ruthless dictator Putin is also waving nuclear bombs—5000 of them. Thus, while celebrating regional peace, Israeli leaders ignore the collapse of world peace.

Israel’s complete disregard for the Palestinians living under occupation, as well as for the murderous nature of its allied Arab regimes, explain its neutral stance in the current war on European soil between democracy and tyranny. Israel is becoming disconnected from the democratic world as a result of the apartheid regime it imposes in the West Bank and Gaza. Its moral compass has gone ever more awry, while it explains away its rights violations with security needs and the need to preserve the Jewish character of the state. Thus, every leader, even if he is a dictator and a murderer, becomes a desirable ally, from Donald Trump to Putin, from Mohammed bin Salman to Abd al-Fattah el-Sisi, provided he is willing to ignore crimes against the Palestinians. In contrast, any democratic leader who condemns abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Israel becomes an enemy and an anti-Semite.

Donald Trump has committed criminal acts. He connected with the white supremacy movement, forged close ties with Putin, tried to dismantle NATO and the European Union, and most importantly, tried to dismantle democracy in America itself. All of this left the American people, the sane and liberal majority, in a state of deep trauma. Biden’s fight against Putin is a war for the soul of American democracy and world peace, so for the first time since World War II he has managed to create a very broad front to stop Putin.

It is not Iran that has worked to bring Trump to power and to collapse American democracy, but Putin, Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman. It is no wonder that the Biden administration is working resolutely to settle the Iranian nuclear issue through an agreement, directing all resources against those who truly endanger world peace. Israel, with its decades-long occupation and its discriminatory laws against Arab citizens, cannot partner in a camp that fights for the soul of democracy.

The world today is changing diskette. It understands that economic interests cannot come at the expense of fundamental principles like freedom and human rights, because in the end such a process brings an end to democracy. Israel is in the process of disengaging from this new world while still reciting clichés about its “special” situation. It is not a state like all other states, but a Jewish state. This bizarre self-definition entails imposing an apartheid regime and enacting racist laws to preserve its Jewish character. In other words, its Jewish character outweighs its democratic character. This is why, when the future of humanity is being determined – either autocracy or democracy – Israel remains “neutral.”

The post The Desert Autocracy Conference first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Since 1948, Israel has nurtured an ethos according to which its very existence is imperiled. Even before it was born, the country was in danger of extinction because Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan rose up to annihilate it.  Since then, a new oppressor has risen periodically, threatening to “throw us into the sea.” Once upon a time it was ‘Abd al-Nasser, and when he disappeared, it was Saddam Hussein. After Saddam was defeated with American help, it has become the turn of the Iranian tyrant, who is developing nuclear weapons to eliminate us and proclaim a Shiite victory throughout the Middle East.

In the past, however, it turned out that things were not quite as they were mooted. The monarchical and backward Arab regimes which invaded in 1948 did not truly intend to conquer Palestine, and their armies mirrored the weakness and decay of their regimes. In 1967, ‘Abd al-Nasser entered the war in an ill-conceived way and was utterly defeated. The “existential threat” turned out to have been imaginary, while Israel expanded its territory threefold. The bluff of Saddam Hussein was revealed when the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, claiming he had “weapons of mass destruction.” What he had, it turned out, was a factory for cap pistols. This adventure cost the Americans many billions, with thousands of soldiers killed and wounded, and it took away their desire to continue fighting in the name of an “existential danger” to Israel.

Yes, the world is fed up with Israel’s “existential danger,” so Barack Obama decided to reach an agreement with Iran and limit its ability to develop nuclear weapons. Israel stomped its feet in anger. Netanyahu went all the way to the US Congress to incite against Obama, but in vain. Nothing helped until Donald Trump came on the scene, and Israel breathed a sigh of relief. The agreement with Iran was rescinded, Trump imposed severe sanctions on the Iranians, and the Mossad did in Iran as it pleased, from the assassination of scientists, through cyberattacks, to the theft of the nuclear archive.

The end is known – Trump was defeated by Biden, in Iran an even more radical president was elected, the centrifuges work overtime, and all parties to the original nuclear deal have returned to the table in Vienna. Once again, Israel is alone, and once again it is trying to convince the world that an “existential danger” is at its door.

But the world has moved on, and Iran’s existential threat to Israel has given way to more tangible existential threats. The Biden administration has set new priorities for the world, with three existential threats that demand vigorous, global action. The first is the climate crisis, which threatens the existence of life on earth. The second is the pandemic. And the third is the threat to democracy from totalitarian regimes like China and Russia, not to mention the neo-fascist currents headed by Donald Trump.

Iran’s place in the range of threats is marginal, and the new Israeli government’s cries of “existential danger” fall on deaf ears. For Israel, climate change is an anecdote, the pandemic is something we can live with, and there is no concern about totalitarianism. Israel’s conciliatory attitude toward the Chinese, its warm relationship with Putin, its longing for Trump, and its alliances with Bin Salman, al-Sisi, Abdullah, and the Emirates show where its heart is.

In fact, the “Abraham Accords” with the Gulf States tell the whole story. While Iran is verbally threatening Israel, in practice its eyes are fixed on the Arab regimes, led by Saudi Arabia, for which Iran really does pose an “existential danger.” It was this threat that threw them into the arms of Israel, with the generous assistance of Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Iran has managed to undermine Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, all on the pretext of liberating Jerusalem. To judge from its actions on the ground, it poses an existential danger not to Israel, but to millions of Arab citizens who are forced to leave their countries and become refugees. Israel is not a target and never was. It is and was a pretext. Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon are the real targets, and they are paying the price for Iran’s expansionist aspirations.

At the same time, while the Iranian regime is playing the Israeli card to make gains abroad and suppress domestic opposition, in Israel the word “Iran” has become a code to continue inflating the defense budget at the expense of the resource-hungry sectors that are needed to reduce social gaps. However, the world is no longer buying the security bluff, and many Israelis are fed up with it too.

In an opinion piece against raising the budgetary pension for members of the standing army (Haaretz, November 28), Iris Leal writes: “In a land beset by enemies, everyone gripes about the cost of living, the labor market, wage gaps and the housing market, yet time and time again we vote on one issue along: security. Existential dread drives most of Israel’s citizenry, and the people’s army is the apple of their eye.”

To this Leal adds, “The overwhelming rage at Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s decision to raise the budgetary pension of already retired standing-army personnel surprised even him. Gantz is still living in times when every word uttered by the Israel Defense Forces is accepted as true by definition, every demand met, and every hint of resistance quelled through emotional blackmail and unsubtle warnings of the military catastrophe on the horizon.”

And what would the Israeli army have done if the sanctions imposed by Trump on the Iranian regime had indeed achieved their goal? What would have happened if a new Iranian “green revolution,” like the one suppressed by the regime in 2009, had established democracy there? There is one answer: the Arab Spring would have returned in full force. And what would have happened if the second revolutionary wave had overthrown al-Sisi’s regime while eliminating Iranian militias in Iraq and Hezbollah’s control of Lebanon? The answer is clear:  all of Israel’s autocratic allies in the region would have fallen, one after the other, starting with the Saudis. Democracy is the real existential threat to the Saudis and the Emirates, who supported all the coups to quell the Arab Spring. In the end, it is not the Iranian regime that poses an existential danger, but the possibility of a democratic revolution, which will raise the Arab world from its ruins, the same ruins that Israel and its accomplices thrive on.

The overthrow of the Iranian regime is an existential interest first and foremost for the Iranian people themselves, who suffer from political and cultural oppression, as well as deep poverty. It is also in the interest of the Arab peoples whose countries were destroyed by Iranian intervention. It is in the interest of the Palestinian people, who are groaning and fighting against Israel’s denial of their basic rights. In contrast, the Israeli interest is to keep the Middle East devastated, backward, poor and oppressed, in order to continue maintaining its schizophrenic regime, which ranges from democracy for Jews to apartheid for Palestinians. The world has already moved on to another era while Israel continues to educate itself from faded pages written during the Cold War, which depict it as the bulwark of the democratic West in a totalitarian sea. The world is changing, but Israel and its partners in the region, and with them the Iranian regime, remain mired in the past.

The post “Wolf! Wolf! Iran! Iran!“ 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.

Last November, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman visited Saudi Arabia, sat in a spacious armchair in the palace of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, aka MBS, and went on to write a piece in The New York Times under the bombastic headline: “The Saudi Arab Spring, at last.” In fact, it was nothing more than an embarrassing, obsequious op-ed. It glorified the Saudi prince who described the economic reforms he was introducing into the kingdom as an “Arab Spring.” In practice, the archaic Saudi kingdom has been and remains the Number One Enemy of the Arab Spring. There is no connection between MBS’s reforms and real democratic change in the kingdom.

Recently, Friedman was invited by the Israel Defense Forces to act as the mouthpiece of the Israeli propaganda machine, warning of a war between Israel and Iran on Syrian soil. A very senior military officer (perhaps the Chief of Staff) openly admitted to Friedman that Israel had targeted a military base in Syria, an assault in which the head of the Revolutionary Guards drone unit, with the rank of colonel, was killed.

In other words, from Israel’s most senior officer to America’s most senior correspondent, Israel – without explicitly saying so – declared war on Iran. The Iranians had no choice but to “take off their kid gloves” and state via the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson that “the Zionist entity will receive an appropriate response.” It appears that the bad years in Israeli-Iranian relations are over and the worse are about to begin. What appears to be the end of the Syrian civil war is becoming, before our eyes, the beginning of a new war for the future of Syria, with Iran and Israel as major competitors.

Since the outbreak of the popular uprising against Assad, Iran mobilized in his favor and has done in Syria as it does at home. Israel, on the other hand, played the game of “neutrality”; its official position calls for “no interference in the Syrian civil war.” The meaning of this “balanced” position can be understood as follows: The genocide carried out by the Syrian regime is not Israel’s business. The longer the war lasts and the greater the destruction, the better for Israel.

This cynical game reached its peak in 2013, when US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, struck a deal on dismantling chemical weapons in Syria, following a large-scale chemical attack in the Ghouta suburbs. The assault, which claimed more than 1400 lives, crossed President Obama’s “red line,” and the US administration vowed to respond militarily. But Obama shilly-shallied. Putin jumped at the opportunity, and instead of an air strike against Assad’s regime, Obama agreed to a dubious accord to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons.

Assad took advantage of the non-attack and continued to massacre civilians by more conventional means. The Netanyahu government celebrated the removal of the chemical threat to the citizens of Israel, where the era of gas masks ended. The chemical deal was accompanied by the flight of millions of Syrians from their homes because of murderous, indiscriminate bombings, and the Syrian refugee crisis changed the political map in Europe. But Israel’s worldview was and remains very narrow: The deal is good for the Jews even though it is bad for both the Syrians and those countries to which millions of them have fled.

Israel was not the only land to celebrate the miserable deal which freed Obama from having to attack and saved Assad. Iran also celebrated. The accord to dismantle chemical weapons in Syria turned into a prototype for dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, an accord that Israel strongly opposed and was unable to block. Iran became an ally of the United States and a legitimate player in the war against ISIS. Iran also partnered with Assad and the Russians in the war against the Syrian opposition. For seven years, Iran sank huge sums into reviving the Syrian economy; Hezbollah turned into a major player in the civil war, losing 1700 fighters; and Iran bankrolled Shiite militias in Iraq to the tune of 20,000 fighters. Throughout that period, Israel took delight in seeing Hezbollah hemorrhage in Syria and become too bogged down to engage Israel. Its air force thwarted the transfer of “game-changing” weapons from Iran to Hezbollah – with the silent acquiescence of the Russians.

Not only did Iran gain a foothold in Syria but the Russians, invited in by Assad, became the real landlords there. They carried out horrific aerial attacks on Syrian cities, the foremost being Aleppo, and saved Assad’s regime from certain defeat. Here, too, Israel looked on from the sidelines and did not utter a word about atrocities occurring just kilometers from its northern border. Netanyahu decided that the best strategy was to maintain a secure hotline with Putin.

The agreement with Putin is simple: Israel will not act to topple Assad and will not object to the Russian takeover of Syria. In exchange, it seeks freedom to act against attempts to transfer arms from Iran to Hezbollah. Putin, for his part, wants Israel to accept the Russian presence in Syria, but this presence also requires close cooperation with Iran. A Russian presence requires Iran’s consent because Russia does not have many boots on the ground; without Iran, Assad’s regime will again be in danger of collapse.

Israel has no interest in seeing Assad toppled. In this respect it is in lockstep not only with Russia, but with the Americans. After the unconvincing air strike in response to Assad’s recent chemical attack in Douma, the Americans declared that they had no intention of replacing Assad. In fact, Assad has gained immunity from all factions operating in Syria and continues to survive as Syria bleeds. So we have reached a situation in which no one wants to overthrow Assad; every player needs him to serve its own interests. Israel wants to go back to the status quo ante consisting of the long-term cease-fire it has enjoyed since the 1973 war. Iran has completely opposite plans: Seeking to become a regional power, it is creating an Iranian corridor through Iraq and Syria to the Lebanese coast. Israel must accept the fact that Assad’s Syria exists in theory alone and that the country is divided between Iran, Turkey, the United States and Russia.

Israel’s attempts to pry the Iranians from Syria are leading to a head-on collision with them and indirectly with the Russians. The Israeli message to the Russians is straightforward: If you want to keep Assad in power in order to gain legitimacy for your airbase in Khmeimim and a naval base in Tartous, get rid of the Iranians. The choice is either Assad or Iran, Israel will not allow any arrangement at the expense of its strategic interest.

However, despite warm relations between Netanyahu and Trump, and the latter’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump’s announcement that he intends to withdraw from Syria “very soon” leaves Israel, on its 70th birthday, flying solo. It seems that Teheran is not interested in an open war with Israel, given stiff domestic opposition to its Syrian adventure. Putin also is afraid of opening a front against Israel, while Netanyahu is reluctant to involve the IDF and the home front in a war that could prove to be costly and destructive. It might be impossible to square the circle: each side is entrenched in its position, and all of them together are being pushed to the edge against their will.

The Syrian Spring broke out with the hope of regime change and the establishment of a modern democratic state. Assad gassed civilians; Iran enlisted Hezbollah; Putin built military bases to expand his empire; Obama refused to support the democratic Syrian opposition; Saudi Arabia and Qatar armed extreme Sunni militias; Israel watched and relished; all of them wiped out any hope for a democratic future in Syria. The only way to stop further bloodshed, and a war between Israel and Iran, is the withdrawal of all foreign forces. If there is any hope for a democratic future in Syria, Assad must go. Currently this option is not on the agenda. Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Khamenei, and Netanyahu do not believe in democracy. Syria has become a reflection of the world at the beginning of the 21st century.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Israel’s undeclared war on Iran first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

A document by the Central Committee of Da’am, January 2018

The decision taken by US President Donald Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution, a Palestinian state alongside Israel. By this recognition, Trump removed the illusion that the American administration is a trustworthy mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For years, especially since Oslo, the American policy was twofaced: On the one hand, the US reprimanded the Israeli construction activities in the settlements, and on the other hand it thwarted any anti-Israeli decision that stems from Israel’s violations of the international conventions following its fervent construction work in the settlements. The 25-year-long expectation for progress in the negotiations, as well as the two-state solution mantra, have been contributing decisively to strengthen the Israeli right and in fact were eliminating any chance to build a Palestinian state. Under this smokescreen, the Separation Wall was constructed, settlements were expanded, and the West Bank has changed totally. Today, the Israeli settlements contain more than half a million settlers. Trump’s victory in US elections expressed the end of the lie that the American administration is interested in a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, the Da’am party – which had decisively objected to the Oslo Accords – announced that following Oslo’s death, the conflict enters its last phase and hereby Da’am endorses the solution of one democratic state.

The election of Trump as the US President reflects a deep change in the American and international policies. In fact, the very first steps taken by Trump – including the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, as well as his decision to cancel the American participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership – expressed his desire to renounce the leading international role of the US and to adopt a policy of nationalist separatism instead of openness and integration in the world. Trump’s America First slogan expresses a racist and conservative outlook in face of the economic crisis that victimized millions of American and became widespread in the entire world. In 2008, the world was exposed to the lie that the neoliberal, borderless market economy can benefit the entire society. The crisis’ outcome was the opposite: the rich became gigantically richer while the poor were impoverished and reached the bottom. Today the situation is that 42 of the richest people in the world hold a fortune equaling that held by half the people living upon earth (according to data published lately by Oxfam).

Among these things, the Trump administration relates to Israel’s right-wing government as ideological partner in terms of its electoral base where evangelic Christians play a central role and adopt the Zionist ideology out of religious motivations. In the US itself Trump renounces the internal commitments taken by Obama, e.g. the healthcare law, immigration, women’s rights, taxation, etc. In addition, he seeks to change the US foreign policy, first and foremost the nuclear agreement with Iran and the American approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Against this background we should understand the way in which three religious Jews, known for being close to the settlers, were nominated to be the President’s advisors to the Middle East: Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was nominated as special envoy to the Middle East; his private advocate, Jason Greenblatt, was chosen to be special Ambassador to the negotiations’ affairs; and David Freedman, an outspoken and vocal supporter of the settlers, became the US ambassador in Israel. Therefore, it was clear that Trump’s victory means a deathblow to the two-state solution following the stands taken by Israel’s right-wing parties and government that wish to maintain the status quo for a long time.

While Israel was praising and glorifying Trump’s recognition in Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) decided to boycott the American mediation and refused to meet with Vice President Mike Pence when the latter visited the region in January 2018. The details of the “deal of the century” promised by Trump in his meetings with Netanyahu and Abu Mazen indicate that the White House decided to adopt the Israeli stand in full. Trump’s plan, which was published in the media, was greeted by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two regimes that exert incessant pressures on the Palestinian Authority to accept the American plan, including the announcement on the town of Abu Dis as the Palestinian capital. Regarding borders and settlements, the plan provides recognition to the settlement blocs and at the end of the day recommends annexing 10 percent of the West Bank territories to Israel. Thus, the Palestinian state will be subjected to Israeli patronage and control as the Israeli military will continue to rule the Jordanian border and control all the passageways. Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian negotiator, argued that the plan forces the Palestinians to be satisfied with the status quo as final. In his opinion, the plan determines that one state with two regimes will be forged, namely that the US will eventually recognize and legally legitimize Apartheid.

The Palestinian people in the vise of pressures

The two-state solution was buried following the Oslo Accords. Israel’s recognition of the PLO and the fact that Israel recognized it as an organization instead of recognizing a Palestinian state reflected a concession that eliminated the possibility to build the very Palestinian state. The new Palestinian authority (PA), created as an entity which replaces the PLO, was made dependent on Israel due to the financial Paris agreement. This situation together with the military coordination brought about a new political reality of “coexistence” between Israeli occupier and the PA which is tied financially and militarily to the occupation. The PA was transformed from a temporary entity, meant to pave the way towards a Palestinian state, into a permanent and privileged body which is not in line with the struggle for independence from the Israeli occupation. Thus, using the two-states slogan was and continues to be a camouflage to the symbiotic relations between the occupying state and the subordinated PA that pretends to represent the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Israel’s occupation.

In addition to the fact that the Oslo Accords have perpetuated the occupation and the settlements, enabling Israel to enlarge the latter, they have brought about a devastating outcome: the Palestinian split between Fatah and Hamas, between the West Bank and Gaza. Instead of becoming a unified entity, albeit temporary, in its quest to become a sovereign state, the PA became a matter of internal struggle between Fatah and Hamas. Although Hamas objected to the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA, it decided to use the democratic elections held in 2006 in order to exploit Palestinian frustration with Fatah’s corruption. Hamas participated in the elections and its gamble was correct as it won the majority within the legislative council. Since 2006, no elections have been held. As a result, Hamas transformed its government into a “resistance government.” The two parties blame each other for the new situation; Hamas’ claims that Fatah refuses to accept its authority and undermines its rule brought about a coup against the PA in which Hamas gained control over Gaza strip. Thus, the PA became subjected to controversy which deepened the internal Palestinian split and yielded a sheer destruction from which the Palestinian people suffers until now.

There were times where it seemed that the bloody struggle between the two Palestinian factions and their mutual hatred are stronger than their hostility to the Israeli occupation. Each side has been adhering to its rule, coordinating its interests with the occupation, insisting to maintain its authority and refusing to renounce its privileges at the expense of the suffering faced by the people living in the West Bank and Gaza. The speech delivered by Abu Mazen in front of the members of the Palestinian Central Committee in January 2018 (which was convened after Trump’s recognition in Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and due to the leaks on the “deal of the century”) demonstrates that Abbas sticks to his rule and leaves the door open to the return of the US mediation. He doesn’t change anything in the economic agreement, and the military coordination keeps the split with Hamas alive, with the excuse that the PA must be “empowered”, namely that Hamas should renounce its rule in Gaza and be disarmed.

In the struggle between both sides we must determine that the Fatah’s PA and the Hamas rule in Gaza constitute two dictatorial regimes just like the corrupted Arab ones which were swept by the Arab Spring (although the task was not fully accomplished). Both Fatah and Hamas, which are fighting each other over political power, are besieged: Hamas suffers a siege exerted by the Egyptian military rule, the PA in Ramallah and Israel, while the PA lost the support of the Egyptian and Saudi regimes after they decided to line up with Trump and Israel. This situation illustrates the absurdity of the Fatah-Hamas split since this struggle turns on the question who will rule the autonomous Palestinian zone that is bound to Israel while the latter besieges them from every side. These two regimes are far from the one-democratic- state paradigm and continue to spread the lie that the road towards an independent Palestinian state is open, as if the struggle is centered around the nature of this state – a Fatah-style dictatorship or an Islamic one, a state next to Israel (Fatah) or a resistance state (Hamas).

Three conditions for establishing one democratic state

With no Israeli will or international mechanism to build two states, we must assert that the very existence of the PA constitutes an obstruction to the one-state solution, which will be the sole alternative to the Apartheid regime that is currently being forged. By cooperating with the occupation, the PA provides it a cover, hereby strengthening the Israeli right and giving it a monopoly over the Israeli political arena. In fact, the PA’s existence serves the Israeli right twice: Abu Mazen, who insists upon rejecting the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, is presented as a no-partner for peace. The Labor party as well as the centrist parties endorse this claim. On the other hand, the PA’s mere existence, which continues to be committed to the military cooperation with Israel, produces a sense of security among the Israelis. In addition, there is a widespread illusion in Israel that the Palestinian people prefers the PA and rejects the scenario of anarchy which might exist following its collapse. Therefore, we can see a consensus that argues this this strange coexistence – a Palestinian Authority that lacks any authority and depends upon the benevolence of the omnipotent Israeli rule – will last forever as long as the Israeli government guards the PA’s existence and prevents the annexation of populated territories near Israel.

The PA’s existence provides a pretext to the Israeli Left, represented by the Communist Party/Hadash and Meretz, to go on supporting the two-state illusion by claiming that the PA is a genuine partner for peace. Hadash leans on the fact that the Communist Party has been endorsing the idea of two states since 1948. In 1992, Hadash forged the parliamentary block that enabled Yitzhak Rabin to form a government, even though he lacked a majority in the Knesset. A year later, it zealously supported the Oslo Accords by claiming that they would bring about an independent state of Palestine; Hadash considered Yasser Arafat a leader whose positions must be endorsed unequivocally. Today, the positions of Hadash stand in great contradiction with the moods in the Arab world: it expressed reservations regarding the revolutions of the Arab Spring, positively supports the regime of General el-Sisi in Egypt, and consistently defends the murderous regime of Assad in Syria. In addition, it delivers unconditional support to Abu Mazen. On the other hand, Meretz believes that Israel must have a Jewish majority (with democratic rights for the minorities within it), hence introducing the two-state solution as a proposal for national separation: a Jewish state for the Jews and an Arabic state for the Arabs. In their eyes, the idea that the two nations would live together upon equal basis is not in line with the “threat” where the Jews might lose their numeric supremacy.

Another party, Balad, which stands in severe confrontation with its partners in the Joint List over their missing seat in the Knesset, started an internal discussion on the solution to the Palestinian problem after a substantial group of party members realized that the Trump declaration and the steps taken by the Likud government signify the end of the two-state solution. Balad, a coalition between different political groups unified in their nationalist views, finds it hard to reach a clear position which would finally determine its support in the one-state solution. The controversies within the party on the one-state solution resemble the internal debate held among its members regarding the Arab Spring, especially with regard to Iran and Syria. The fact that Balad is heavily reliant on Qatar makes restricts its ability to adopt an independent position. In most cases, Balad is characterized with more than two positions regarding critical questions while its members are unified only in their opposition to the Israeli government and their criticism of the PA.

Because of this complex situation, and since there are no Jewish or Arab forces that adopt the idea of one-state despite the total failure of the two-state solution, we are faced with the question: upon what is the Da’am party based once it raises the one-state banner? The simple answer is as follows: With no two-state solution, there is no other way but to introduce an alternative, rooted idea which will serve the interests of the societies, the Israeli and the Palestinian alike. The more complicated answer involves the dialectic reasoning that sees the struggle for one democratic state as ideological, political and economic. The conditions enabling us to build a broad popular movement – Palestinian and Israeli – from the two sides of the ‘Green Line’, which will call for one democratic state, depend on defeat of the evangelical right in the US and in Israel alike. This question is not reduced to the way lives would be conducted between Israelis and Palestinians, but to the way they would be conducted on the international level. It is an existential struggle between conservative, self-isolated and racist forces and revolutionary forces that are open to the world and are internationalist in their essence.

Though some liberal circles are revolted by the occupation and by the mischief it causes to the Israeli society, we see that 50 years of ongoing occupation along with the legitimacy given to the settlers and the political right demonstrate that Israeli society alone is incapable of providing the required political forces that can end the occupation and build a joint society in one state. Therefore, there are three preconditions which can secure the feasibility of changing the political paradigm: First, a deep change in the industrial countries and the defeat of the racist forces that wish to revive the past with slogans like “America First.” Second, the defeat of the dictatorial Arab regimes based on the victory of the Arab Spring that demands democracy and freedom. Third, a deep political change in Palestinian society itself, expressed in the founding of alternatives to Fatah and Hamas. This change requires an economic factor, namely the transition to a modern economy based on renewable energy and internet, and a social one, i.e., a transition from traditional society to a modern one where women are fully equal. It seems, prima facie, that this one-state solution is not realistic, since the three conditions are impossible right now, but we must bear in mind that the historic period wherein we live is saturated with revolutionary changes, and the material condition of this period, the third industrial revolution, heralds deep historic changes.

Democracy in a state of emergency

The well-covered visit of Vice President Pence in Israel during January, his firm promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the warm official hospitality with which he was welcomed, point out the close strategic relations between the Israeli right and its American counterpart. The sheer Israeli refusal to advance towards any arrangement with the Palestinians, the Israelis’ objection to any withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, are based on the unequivocal support Israel enjoys from the US evangelical right, the electoral core of the Republicans. The victory of Trump was enabled due to a deep split within the Republican party between different sections; it was so deep that the party found it hard to elect an agreed Presidential nominee. Trump exploited this split, and though he was never a party member and was even considered to be a Clinton supporter, he managed amazingly to beat all other candidates. This internal split in the Republican rank-and-file, together with the parallel split in the Democratic party between those who support Hillary Clinton and those who endorse her rival, the leftist Bernie Sanders, indicates how severe is the crisis America has been undergoing since the collapse of the banks and the investment firms in 2008.

The 2008 crisis exposed the devastating meaning of the bank managers’ greed, as well as the corruption of the big firms; it revealed that the bipartisan political regime has been serving in fact the capitalists at the expense of the ordinary man and woman. The Americans lost their faith in the Washington-based democracy. The political polarization brought about a situation where many people endorsed two candidates who promised “to drain the swamp” and fight the banks. On the one hand, Trump and his close advisor, Steve Bannon, represented the far-right, and on the other hand Bernie Sanders spoke for the radical left. Both promised to fight Wall Street, and after Trump was elected the polarization worsened and all the bridges between the American right and left were burnt. Thus, on the one hand, the middle states in America are characterized by conservative views and endorse Trump, while America of the Eastern and Western coasts – rich New York and California – reject Trump’s agenda.

However, the struggle is not just about geography but also about seeing the future. New York and California represent the economic future: they constitute areas that operate and concentrate technological innovations, hereby creating the new economy expressed in the internet and startup firms vis-à-vis the old firms that are based on the traditional industries that lose their economic weight in favor of robotics and artificial intelligence. The capitalist, neoliberal system has arrived at a dead end by creating mass unemployment, erasing hundreds of billions of public capital and pension savings, expanding environmental pollution and risking the very planet. Thus, the poverty became widespread and the politics as well as the politicians were corrupted. Today, there is no politician whose conduct is not dictated by the capitalists. It is true for Israel as much as it is true for the US. We must conclude, therefore, that many supporters of the right wing in the US, Britain, France and Israel originated from the working class, e.g. the workers of Teva (an Israeli firm bought by international capital, which is no longer national based) who lose their jobs because of the competition over cheap labor coming from China, or due to the transition to robotic work. Today, there is an international audience that sees the democratic regime as one that does not serve the citizen, by claiming that the economy (neo-liberalism) works for the benefit of the capitalists and impoverishes the worker. It is a situation which forces the society to look for alternative, revolutionary solutions.

Thus, Trump has promised to his base of support, the industrial workers who became unemployed, to return to the previous century by withdrawing from the globalization, building tariff walls, fighting imports from China, erecting a steel wall to prevent immigration from Mexico, and reducing the corporate tax from 35 to 21 percent, a move that would create a budget deficit for the US. These steps could create international chaos, trade wars between Europe, Asia and America, and a new economic crisis. A recent report by the Bank of Israel has warned against economic collapse due to the chaos forged by Trump in the international economy. It will be created by the zero-interest rate, which encourages taking unlimited loans from the banks, which in turn brings about an artificial rise in the value of stocks and real estate. In short, a financial bubble.

At the regional level, we see that the recent demos in Iran, which have been demanding to overthrow the regime, as well as the demos in Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco, prove that the very causes which produced the Arab Spring continue to exist. Even the regimes in the industrial countries have entered into crisis: In Germany, as of this writing a government has not been built yet; Spain suffers from Catalonia’s separatist aspirations; in France the two major parties have collapsed; Belgium has sunk into governmental crisis, and Britain is torn due to the Brexit controversy. However, the situation in the Arab world is much worse. In spite of the failure of the Egyptian youth movement to build democracy, the military regime has lost its credibility following the fact that it is ideologically terrorizing the people and because of the poor economic conditions; in Syria, the Assad regime is incapable of regaining its control over the country; in Yemen the war continues and this is also the situation in Libya; and in Iraq the people cannot enjoy even one single day of peace. This situation demonstrates that the process that was launched by the 2011 Arab Spring is still underway.

In the Gulf states, we see a severe political crisis that erupted in Saudi Arabia after an internal coup d’état was launched by the contender Mohammad bin Salman. It is evident, therefore, that an historic age came to its end there. The internal changes, the distancing from the radical Wahabi current, the arrests of the royal family members and the decision to indict them for corruption, the decisions to open the cinemas to women and to let them drive, their presence at football games – all these developments did not arise out of nowhere. They constitute the Saudi acknowledgement that the “allowances’ state” based on oil revenues and the Sharia regime cannot exist any further because of the decline in oil prices and the huge budget deficit. Nonetheless, the Saudi monarchy, like Iran, is unready to cope with the third industrial revolution that aspires to realize economic and political democracy, to provide civil liberties, to let people express their thoughts and obtain uncensored information.

The political coup in Saudi Arabia along with the socioeconomic reform in the country, as well as the demonstrations held in Iran, prove again that the Arab regimes are about to collapse. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Middle-Eastern political arena has been nothing but a hostage in the struggles between the Saudis and the Iranians. Iranian and Saudi money managed to corrupt the Arab regimes and the popular movements, from the PLO to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. In this context, the fact that this money has vanished, together with the collapse of the corrupt regimes, means that political Islam too is about to collapse, for it is fed by this same money, with which it managed to brainwash people, mainly the poor. The third industrial revolution, based on renewable energies, will enable the intellectuals who led the Arab Spring – the generation of the internet and the social media that took an active part in the info revolution – to reoccupy the public arena and become a political force, leading their countries towards a democratic change based on a new cooperative economy.

Netanyahu and Trump will fall

The energy revolution as well as the info one abolishes national borders and racial conflicts; they unify people on a new basis with governmental intervention. Netanyahu represents the old, neoliberal line that brought about social gaps within Israeli society; that line caused the housing crisis as well as price increases, because state-owned firms were privatized in favor of gigantic monopolies. Like other citizens in the industrial countries, the Israeli feels how the big capitalists, who took over all the financial resources by bank loans, became bankrupted but did not have to pay debts amounting to billions. Moreover, the political establishment became entangled with corruption stemming from the close relations between politics and capital.

These affairs cannot be removed from the political agenda and have already put senior ministers and officials behind bars. Netanyahu himself is being subjected to probes because of his relations with one of the major capitalists. Even his close associates, including family members, are subjected to police probes on corruption allegations following the German submarines affair. Trump is being investigated too for plotting with the Russians and other corruption allegations. There is no wonder that we see the two being investigated as both represent the interests of the rich and use demagogy against the ruling elites; they turn their criticisms toward the US Democratic party and the Israeli Labor Party, which leans on the Ashkenazi elite.

The corruption itself stems from the dead end to which the Israeli Right has sunk. Netanyahu and the Right do not present new ideas, neither on the conflict with the Palestinians nor on economics. For Netanyahu, his surrounding reality is nothing but “fake news” á la Trump; he finds in the Arab Spring a chance to anchor Israel’s strategic relations with dictatorial Arab regimes like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He thinks that democracy does not suit Arab society. Although these regimes are hanging by a thread due to their incapacity to cope with years-long economic and social problems, Netanyahu wishes to form a strategic axis with them. He believes that the demonstrations in Iran express the desire to return to the Shah period and renew strategic relations with Israel against the Arabs; he rejects the idea that the Iranian workers and youth, like their Egyptian fellows, struggle for the same cause, namely to overthrow the dictatorial regimes and build an alternative democratic society quite unlike the Shah’s dictatorship. For the Israeli Right, the true threat is not Iranian missiles but democratic change in Iran and Arab world, which will isolate Israel as a religiously fundamentalist occupying state.

At the economic level, for 30 years the government has been using the same methods, despite the fact that Israeli startup firms have been contributing decisively to the development of new technologies, e.g. internet, robotics, autonomic car, block chain and biotechnology, water purification and renewable energy. This situation is evident as we see the two-year state budget that takes care of the right wing coalition’s parties’ needs, and taking no responsibility for preparing society to future developments. It is a government that is busy with racist legislation, with limiting the power of the Supreme Court, with censoring artworks, with introducing religious contents into the educational system. It is favoring the capitalists and discouraging professional training, it is encouraging the use of gas and private cars instead of solar energy and public transportation. This government does not understand that the world is moving toward a new generation of energy and production, where industrial workers will lose their jobs in favor of artificial intelligence and robots. This situation will create serious social problems with which we should cope by acknowledging the truth that by 2025, 2 out of 4 billion jobs will be eliminated.

Since the collapse of the neoliberal regime in 2008, the world has been entering a new economic stage characterized by decentralization. The proof is the rise of Bitcoin as a digital coin which is not under central supervision like the banks. The mistrust in the collapsing banks, which have caused millions of people to lose their savings, has brought about the invention of new monetary regime based on transparency and social supervision through the internet. The interesting thing here is not Bitcoin but its block chain technology which democratizes the internet and hence society.  The new regime, together with renewable energy produced on citizens’ roofs, heralds the economy’s democratization, the elimination of monopolies and the death of the central state as the body that determines the fate of its citizens.

The future actions of Da’am

Da’am’s vision of the future is based on the economic and political changes in the world that are enforcing themselves upon the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians. Da’am’s one-state vision introduces new content which is not just forged out of our conviction of the failure of the two-state solution, which became impractical after the Oslo Accords. We act out of a deep conviction that the third industrial revolution is changing conventions, enabling us to build a cooperative society based on internet, democratization and renewable energy. The new innovations are based on the contribution of individuals and groups to building an information base which is open to all users like Wikipedia, Google and Facebook.

The Arab intellectual understands that Arab society’s entry into the third industrial revolution is a precondition for saving it from the abyss. The collapse of the old and corrupt Arab regimes and their oil economy, as well as the fall of the two-state solution, does not necessarily mean that a better regime will be built. However, it opens the door to a modern alternative based not on nationalism but on cooperative principles that can unify the Arab world on the basis of renewable energy and the internet-based modern economy. The internet played a vital role in the hands of the youth who wanted to overthrow the regimes; thus, the internet took the monopoly on information out of the hands of these regimes and occupied the public arena. However, it is just the first step, because we need alternative political, social and economic work which will shove aside the influence of the religious currents and traditions that bind the society and rule it, especially its women.

Progress toward the one-state solution depends on political and economic development at the international as well as the Arab levels. Therefore, we support the spirit of the Arab Spring and its potential to influence the Palestinian and Israeli arenas. Palestinians as a people did not join the Arab Spring. They remained indifferent toward the huge revolutionary wave, because of their disappointment and despair. They are besieged by the PA, Hamas and the Israeli occupation. However, the policies undertaken by Netanyahu are bringing about the collapse of the PA, either because of its political isolation and financial condition, or because a new youth movement will rise, whose members, like their sisters and brothers in the Arab world, want a future that corresponds to their ambitions, their culture, and their connections with the world through the internet.

Regarding Israeli society, we must propose a social and economic program based on encouraging the use of renewable energy and all the cooperative initiatives that seek to liberate people from state control as well as from exploitation by monopolies in the fields of consumption and production. Israeli society itself has been undergoing a deep identity crisis. The Right proposes to Israeli citizens they  choose between being “Jews” or “democrats”; every definition harbors an entirely different world of concepts regarding education, the approach to asylum seekers, women’s equality, religion and the Sabbath, and Arab society.

The insistence by leftist and liberal circles on maintaining Israel as a Jewish state places them in a situation of weakness vis-à-vis the Right, which is steadily eroding democracy in favor of “Judaism.” The Israeli Left relies on the police to indict Netanyahu; they wish to overthrow him through courts of law and not by ballots. In addition, the Left is far from creating a revolutionary economic program which can suit recent technological developments like the programs partially applied today in China, Germany and Scandinavia.

We should develop any initiative that suits our goals and broadens our alliances with all who agree to the principle of one democratic state in Israel and the occupied territories. We must spread our ideas and articles, strengthen the workers’ organization WAC-MAAN, which unites Israeli and Arab workers, initiate cooperatives for renewable energy and carry out other initiatives proposed by Israeli and Palestinians activists, people who wish like us to build a modern society based on full equality between the two peoples with democratization of the society and the economy.

The post Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has buried the two-state solution first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.