Tag Archives: HaBayit HaYehudi
If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem…
06 Wed Dec 2017
≈ Comments Off on If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem…
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Ali Khamenei, Egypt, Fatah, HaBayit HaYehudi, Hamas, Iran, Israel, Jerusalem, Jordan, King Abdullah, Manuel Hassassian, Mavi Marmara, Mohammad bin Salman, Palestine, Psalm 137, Reuven Rivlin, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, Tzipi Hotovely, United States
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem," sang the Israelites, "may my right hand forget her cunning, may my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth." That was approximately 2,600 years ago during the Babylonian captivity, a memory preserved in Psalm 137. To most Israelis, US president Donald Trump's decision to declare his country's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was simply a late awakening to a most basic fact.
To the rest of the world, Trump's actions, as always, were reason for hyperbole and haranguing. The spokesman for the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, said the US was "plunging the region and the world into a fire with no end in sight," and the Palestinian envoy to the UK, Manuel Hassassian, added, "He is declaring war in the Middle East, he is declaring war against 1.5 billion Muslims." As can be expected, criticism has been sharpest from Muslim states and with a little more diplomatic decorum from Europe, Russia, and China. In addition, analysts of all stripes have been all over print and the airwaves predicting great upheaval in the Middle East and the derailment of decades of patient US diplomacy.
It is unclear, however, how much of the breast-beating is warranted. The primary argument against Trump's declaration seems to be that it will cause unrest in the Middle East. Yet when in the past several decades has something not caused unrest in the region? What is the guarantee that there will be no violence in Gaza if the United States desists from the announcement? Can anyone even distinguish the chaos due to the US declaration from the upheaval, tumult, riot, violence, or disturbance that are routine to the region, and at that point, does it really matter?
The countries of the Levant are swirling in a whirlpool of chaos, instability, and terrorism that has been largely of their own making for almost a decade. Arab street decries any move by the international community that may benefit Israel as detrimental to peace and stability, implicitly encouraging a complete blockade and destruction of the Jewish state.
It must also be remembered, as Tzipi Hotovely recently alluded to, that Israel has constantly lived in a state of undeclared war. Any more unrest that is promised by the terrorists of the Middle East will hardly be noticed in the quotidian deadly exchanges with Hamas, Hezbollah, the occasional Syrians, and other armed thugs.
Another point of criticism of the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital has been that it violates international law – Jerusalem is seen as occupied territory and any change of demographics on disputed land or official recognition to it is illegal. However, this fails to recognise that the United States has merely recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but has not defined the boundaries of the city – that is still left to the Israelis and Palestinians in future peace negotiations.
One might argue that Washington's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel muddies its role as an impartial arbitrator. Yet that ship, at least in Arab eyes, has already sailed – no one views the Great Satan as a neutral judge. What Arabs and Israelis both count on is the diplomatic, economic, and military wherewithal the United States is capable of bringing to bear upon the side that violates a peace agreement.
What will Trump's announcement have on the other states in the region? Iran's leader Ali Khamenei has warned of dire consequences but it would be an unusual day when the Islamic Republic does not threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Trump's announcement may force the Palestinians to show strength through terror and this might fray relations between Fatah and Hamas that had only recently been mended with much difficulty. However, Jerusalem does not recognise any Palestinian player as a genuine partner for peace – translation: dial down the terrorism – and there is no missed opportunity here.
Ankara has threatened to cut off diplomatic ties with Israel but relations have already been frigid between the two American allies after the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010. Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab states Israel has peace treaties with, have also not reacted positively to the news. Yet it is not sure what either Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or King Abdullah will or can do as neither country has had a particularly good past with the Palestinians.
The real question is about Saudi Arabia's reaction to this all. Traditionally, Riyadh has stoked the Palestinian crisis periodically and refused to recognise the Jewish state. Recent rumours, however, have left several commentators murmuring about a clandestine US-Israel-Saudi Arabia alliance to contain Iran's expanded influence in the Middle East after a successful turn of events in Iraq and Syria. The whispers became even louder after Trump tacitly supported a great purge in the Saudi royal family by the crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman. This has always seemed far-fetched to me and Washington's recent dousing of Saudi ambitions in Lebanon – Saad Hariri's removal – leaves one thinking that there are still some kinks in that plan.
More importantly, there were even rumours that Mohammad bin Salman had secretly flown to Israel to meet with its leaders to discuss a Palestinian peace plan, a normalisation of relations, and Iran. Such delicate ventures may be beyond the crown prince in view of his streak of recklessness on display in dealing with other crises such as Yemen. While there is indeed a temporary alignment of interests between Israel and Saudi Arabia, one bête noire does not a rapprochement make.
It is also unlikely, if such a triumvirate ever existed, that the topic of Jerusalem would not have cropped up. In that case, despite Riyadh's official dismay at the US decision, it will be interesting to see what it actually does. Yet what about the impact on US ties with its other allies in the region such as Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates? Regardless of what State Department mandarins think, this administration has made it quite clear that American allies around the globe have not done enough. It is not improbable that Trump prefers to deal with Riyadh alone and coerce the "smaller" allies with the former's help.
Could the Jerusalem declaration be part of Trump's personal "charm?" The president is enveloped in legal battles and his administration has yet to be fully staffed or retain any member for a decent period. Trump had also promised during his election campaign that he would recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy to the city. The Jerusalem declaration not only distracts his opponents from the domestic quagmire but also delivers on a campaign promise, thus reinforcing his image to his base, perhaps, as the anti-politician. It is also possible that Trump is using his declaration as a bargaining chip to force the Palestinians to the negotiating table, the message being that there is much to lose by holding out.
Ultimately, the issue is more religious than national as Hassassian's statement clearly reveals. As the Oslo Accords and the failed Camp David Summit in 2000 demonstrated, Jerusalem is not a negotiable issue for either side. The Arabs want to control their holy site, the Haram al-Sharif; the Jews remind us that when that was the case before 1967, they were not given access to their holy sites. More than geopolitics, it is this facet that will shape the reaction of the Arab states to American recognition of Jerusalem as the Israelis capital – it would be political suicide to even sit idly by as the United States moved its embassy to the disputed city.
It is altogether a different matter to discuss Palestine's right over Jerusalem or even its own existence, given that it has never existed as a state – before 1967, the West Bank, along with Jerusalem, was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt. The Palestinian government Cairo set up in the Strip, ironically, was not recognised by Jordan.
Israel's reaction to Trump's announcement has so far been muted but the bubbling joy underneath the uncharacteristically nonchalant surface is palpable. The most reaction came from Naftali Bennett, the leader of the HaBayit HaYehudi and the Minister for both, Education and Diaspora Affairs, who is said to have written to the US president, "thank you from the bottom of my heart for your commitment and intention to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Otherwise, the government has generally been quiet. The Israeli commentariat, however, has been effusive, Caroline Glick calling the decision 70 years late but welcome and Arsen Ostrovsky reiterating that Jerusalem is the "eternal & undivided capital of the State of Israel and the spiritual homeland of the Jewish people!" Most Israelis probably relate to the words of HaAvoda leader Avi Gabbay. When asked about the imbroglio that had resulted from Trump's announcement he replied, "When my parents came from Morocco to Jerusalem, I can assure you they didn't check the State Department website to see if it's the capital or not. They knew Jerusalem was the capital and just came."
But what does Trump's declaration really matter? Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government as President Reuven Rivlin remarked, and no military in the Arab world is capable of removing them from it. No borders change on the ground and no one falls one the wrong side of a line; territories are not swapped. Is the whole drama not purely symbolic? Perhaps, but society is not so cynical yet that symbols have lost their value. And in the Middle East, few symbols are bigger than the City of David.
What Israel Said at the Ballots
23 Wed Jan 2013
≈ Comments Off on What Israel Said at the Ballots
Benjamin Netanyahu, elections, Gaza, HaBayit HaYehudi, Hatnua, Iran, Israel, Jerusalem, Likud, Naftali Bennett, Palestine, Tzipi Livni, West Bank, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu
As Israel's elections drew to a close last night, incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu squeaked through to retain his position as the country's most powerful official. In an election that saw voter turnout at over 66%, the highest since 1999, Netanyahu's Likud won 31 seats, down from 42 last time, while Yesh Atid secured a surprising 18, Labour 17, Naftali Bennett's HaBayit HaYehudi and Shas 11 each, Tzipi Livni's Hatnua and the far-Left Meretz 7 each.
The results reiterate the truism many policy analysts, myself included, are prone to forget – that politics is about domestic concerns and even foreign policy must play second fiddle. Contrary to what the media played up – Iran's nuclear quest and the squabble between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama – Israelis threw up a surprise by voting for Yesh Atid in large numbers. Yair Lapid, the leader of the party and a former host of a popular TV show, campaigned solidly on economic issues concerning Israel's large middle class. In his Yediot Aharanot column, he challenged the government, "This is the big question asked by Israel's middle class, the same sector on whose behalf I am going into politics. Where's the money? Why is it that the productive sector, which pays taxes, fulfills its obligations, performs reserve duty and carries the entire country on its back, doesn't see the money?"
It is amusing to see Yair Lapid being proclaimed a centrist by the media. Lapid has consistently argued against the return of East Jerusalem to Palestine and the retention of large parts of the West Bank under Israeli control. Though Lapid claims to be open to a two-state solution, the truncated Arab state he envisions is clearly unacceptable to the Palestinians.
As many observers have said, the election results are protest vote against Netanyahu and his Likud partner, Yisrael Beiteinu. As the social protests of 2011 indicated, many Israelis are unhappy with the rising cost of living. Higher taxes, higher unemployment, and the rising cost of food, health, housing, utilities, and education have created strains in Israeli society. In addition, the budget deficit stood at 4.2% last year, double of what was projected. The Federation of the Israeli Chambers of Commerce has marked increased participation of minorities, stronger property rights, easing of stringent customer protection laws, and liberalising the economy as priorities for the incoming government.
Interestingly, despite the deficit, a poll found that Israelis supported increased public spending on healthcare, education, and housing, suggesting that cuts come primarily from settlement-building, followed by infrastructure and defense. Israelis also showed a preference for higher taxes on luxury goods, including alcohol and tobacco, and an increased capital gains tax, while lowering it on basic items.
On the whole, no one has been impressed by Netanyahu's fear-mongering over Iran, but as public support of Mivtza Amud Anan in November 2012 showed, citizens do care about security. This is clear from the migration of many Likudniks to Yesh Atid, another Right party, than to the Left with Labour or even Hatnua. On Iran, however, the friction between the country's civilian administration and security professionals has not gone unnoticed. Ex-Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, has repeatedly described Netanyahu's posture on Iran as stupid, while current Mossad director, Tamir Pardo, insists that Iran is not an existential threat. Benny Gantz, the Army Chief of Staff, told journalists in April 2012 that latest reports indicate that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon.
The Harpaz report, released just a few days ago by the State Comptroller, revealed the magnitude of the internecine conflict between the joint Minster of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and former military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi. Worse, former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin's long interview in Yediot Aharanot paints a dismal picture of Israel's top two leaders – Barak is arrogant and not interested in others' opinions, while Netanyahu is indecisive, insecure, and more concerned about his image. Diskin is not the first to reveal the dysfunctional dynamic, but he is the senior-most official with most access to the establishment.
The high-stakes catfight in the top echelons of the country's government has left many voters disgruntled and wondering if their leaders have not been blinded to the dreams and aspirations of the common man by the hubris of power. Last night's vote was certainly a protest, but it was not a choice between security and economics. Lapid is hardly much softer on Palestine, and certainly not HaBayit HaYehudi (whose seat count also went up from 3 to 11) or Shas! If anything, Israelis are tired of having to choose between the economy and their survival…and they are also tired of the antics of the past three years. I am inclined to agree.
This post was published at Niti Central on January 23, 2013.