Dysfunctional Netanyahu

If all the criticism directed at Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, fails to unseat him, then there is something deeply troubling about Israeli democracy—it is fundamentally dysfunctional.

Netanyahu has been the most influential architect of Israel’s policies and politics since 1996, when he first became prime minister.

He has often been quoted as saying, “Israel has no negotiating partner on the Palestinian side.”

Yet, we should ask: Where is the negotiating partner on the Israeli side?

Since taking office, Netanyahu has waged wars against nearly all of Israel’s neighbours, particularly Lebanon, Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and Syria and the occasional bouts with Iraq and Iran.

If we tally all the conflicts under his leadership, they exceed ten, many of them prolonged and devastating.

The cumulative cost, both in human lives and property, is staggering—over $500 billion lost and at least 100,000 people killed.

Netanyahu has systematically violated agreements, expropriated land for illegal settlements, and sanctioned the destruction and pillaging of homes, hospitals, schools and infrastructure.

His policies have included uprooting trees, destroying livelihoods, and killing tens of thousands of civilians, including children and women.

He stands as an indicted war criminal and is currently being tried in Israeli courts on charges of bribery, fraud, and abuse of power.

Many respected Israeli voices—authors, journalists, political analysts, human rights activists, lawyers, peace advocates, as well as his political allies and adversaries—express anger and even sometimes contempt for him, criticising his deceit and betrayal.

Every time Netanyahu insisted on engaging in dialogue with the late King Hussein or King Abdullah II, shortly after his army would commit grave atrocities against Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

Thus creating the false impression of a sequitur relationship between the meeting and the atrocities.

He even welcomed the Israeli guard who killed two Jordanians at the Israeli embassy in Amman with open arms, celebrating him instead of subjecting him to trial, despite Jordan’s accepting the murderer’s return to Israel, out of respect for the international diplomatic protocols.

Why does Netanyahu continue to act with such impunity? His actions appear to be deeply influenced by the ideology of his father, Benzion Netanyahu.

Born in Warsaw, Poland, Benzion served as the secretary and close aide to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who instilled in him—and later his son Benjamin—the principles of revisionist Zionism.

It is exceedingly difficult to make peace with the proponents of the maximalist and revisionist branch of Zionism, which was established by the extremist Abba Ahimeir.

Although Benzion was a historian specializing in the history of Jews In Spain—a history rich with examples of tolerance and coexistence between Muslims and Jews under Islamic rule—he chose to become a disciple and propagator of revisionist Zionism. He became a staunch spokesperson for this ideology in the United States.

To better understand the radicalisation of Netanyahu and his father, one need look no further than the statements made by their mentor, Jabotinsky.

The following quotes are sourced from betarus.org, a well-known Zionist website:

1.“We, the Zionists, all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.”

This is the same iron wall that neo-historian Avi Shlaim described as being created to hammer Arab heads against, until they agree to Zionist claims to their lands.

2.“We hold that Zionism is moral and just, and since it is moral and just, [that means] justice must be done, regardless of whether Joseph, Simon, Ivan, or Ahmet (Ahmad) agree with it or not.”

3.Finally, Jabotinsky declared, “We were not created in order to teach morals and manners to our enemies. We want to hit back at anyone who harms us—only someone who can hate his enemies can be a faithful friend to those who love him.”

With sentiments like these, what chances does a serious, just, and lasting peace—or perhaps any peace at all—have?

Dr Jawad Al Anani, a former Jordanian government minister, contributed this piece to The Jordan Times.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Rehabilitating Iran?

By Dr Khairi Janbek

All eyes now are on the new game in the Middle East: The US-Iran negotiations. One would say the aim here is far more advanced than the Iranian nuclear programme when the agreement was torn up by US President Donald Trump himself who was more concerned with details which would eliminate all threats against Israel, and would that in all liklihood, transform the whole region.

It seems that in this early intense stage, the ambiance is for reaching an amicable agreement through the recognition that no matter of the outcome, there will be nothing divisive. Trump will continue creating crisis just for the sake of showing that he can control those crises, and act in the manner of the old Arabic adage, for neither the wolf to die nor the sheep to parish. While for the Iranians, they have everything to gain from a positive outcome to those negotiations.

Of course, the Iranian nuclear programme is an important component of these negotiations, and most often than not, at times Iran and at times its enemies, exaggerate the potential of the country to making nuclear weapons for political purposes.

Yet the fact remains that despite the possibility of Iran being still far from creating weapon-grade enrichment programme, if carried on unchecked, it is inevitable that at one point in the future it will have nuclear weapons. Consequently the fact remains, the onus is on Iran to prove credibly that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and accept periodically, the checks of the international nuclear inspectors.

The other dimension is the relationship of Iran with its proxies in the region, which falls under the category of threats to Israel. Well, and under the circumstances, Iran has to decide the reasons for its continued alliances with its proxies – whether such alliances served their purpose, or have become a burden than an asset – or if it can maintain these alliances with definte no threat commitment Israel but with political clout in Arab world affairs, which incidentally may not seem such a bad idea for Trump.

After all eliminating the threat against Israel is the primary concern, while at the same time his rich Arab allies buy their protection from him, a protection which Iran cannot dare to test.

But what is in it for Iran to reach an accord with the United States? One would say plenty. For a start it’s reintegration back into the region. After all it kept claiming it’s nuclear programme, is in reality, a peaceful programme and Tehran never had the intention of enriching weapons grade uranium.

Well, and with an accord it can now easily prove, and then can start dealing with the issue of not being a threat to Israel by either dissociating itself from these proxies which have become costly to its image and/or work in their transformation to political, unarmed forces and parts of the political structures wherever they exist in the Arab region.

Essentially if the sanctions against Iran are lifted and its assets are no longer frozen, Iran will be able to assume a very strong position in the Middle East region based on its economic strength and its enormous trade potential. In fact, Trump knows that any military action he takes against the Iranian nuclear installations, and any possible response will not have a decisive result. Therefore, the most likely decisive result will be, a new Iran, big in the region as well as moreover, that will owe him a favour.

In the meantime , we are still at the very early stage to even try to guess, but we can safely assume, that no matter how those negotiations proceed, nothing tangible is likely to happen before the visit of President Trump to the Gulf region in May.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian analyst based in Paris, France

Continue reading
Iran-US Talks in Muscat: Winners and Losers

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial, written by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on Saturday, 12 April, relates to the first talks of the Tehran-Washington negotiations that started in Muscat, Oman relating to the Iran nuclear file.

Iran succeeded in scoring a major goal against the United States in the clash of wills that began today, Saturday, in the Omani capital, Muscat, by insisting that the negotiations be “indirect,” contrary to what its American adversary wants: Namely “direct” negotiations as announced by US President Donald Trump at the White House in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, who was surprised by this shocking announcement.

The US delegation, led by Trump’s Advisor Steve Witkoff, is participating in these talks from a weak and defeated position, especially after the failure of the US plan to impose tariffs on more than 200 countries worldwide. America has become friendless, and even turned its friends into enemies, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia like South Korea and Japan.

Strategies of negotiations

Iran, represented in the negotiations by veteran Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the man who led the negotiations for the first nuclear agreement with the six major powers in 2015 and possesses extensive experience in the art and strategies of negotiation, did not submit to the “threats and intimidation” adopted by President Trump.

They imposed their conditions in full on their American opponents and insisted on limiting the negotiations to the nuclear issue, not addressing other issues such as missile and drone systems, and severing ties with the arms of the resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. And they got what they wanted.

The one who called for a return to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian-American crisis and backed down from his threats of a devastating military strike was President Trump. This happened when he realized the threats of military strikes, coupled with the dispatch of three American aircraft carriers and squadrons of giant B-52 bombers, backfired.

These did not intimidate the Iranians, but prompted a response from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who declared a state of emergency in the Iranian military, placed giant missile platforms, advanced submarines, and ground and naval forces on high alert, and threatened to destroy all of the 10 military bases surrounding his country and housing 50,000 soldiers, close the Strait of Hormuz, and prevent Gulf oil exports to the entire world.

The Iranians do not trust President Trump, who tore up the nuclear agreement in 2018, and is well aware he has become an Israeli puppet. He also realizes that America, defeated in Ukraine, did not simply march to Moscow waving white flags, ready to sell Ukraine and its people to the Russians and surrender to all of its conditions, including the annexation of a fifth of Ukrainian territory to Russia, without consulting its European allies, whom it has become embroiled in this war.

When President Trump demands that the Muscat negotiations reach a quick agreement within two months, this is due to his bitter experience in the Vienna negotiations, which lasted a year-and-a-half and ended in failure due to Iran’s cunning use of the “yes, but” theory, without offering any concessions.

Globally hated…

We do not believe that this theory will be abandoned in the Muscat negotiations, especially since America, which is now globally hated and has lost all of its allies in the West and the East, has become weak, and is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the huge deficit in its annual general budget ($1.4 trillion) and its public debt that has reached more than $42 trillion.

What will encourage Iran to harden its position in these negotiations is China’s strong and defiant stance in the trade war against the United States. Its president, Xi Jinping, declared he will respond in kind to America and its president, and will fight this war to the end, no matter how costly the results.

He has decided to raise customs duties on American goods by a historic rate of more than 125 percent, and has given the green light to his allies in the BRICS group to declare war on the dollar and the global SWIFT financial system, through which America controls the global economy and financial movement.

Trump, wounded by the failure of his gamble to ignite a trade war, and the internal and global revolt against it, with the beginning of the decline in the value of the dollar and the escalation of the recession in the American economy as its first fruits, was forced to stop this war less than three days after its announcement under the cover of a three-month freeze on the application of customs duties.

Crushing military strike

Hence, his threats, i.e. Trump’s necessity of quickly to reach a nuclear agreement didn’t have any effect despite the threat of a crushing military strike. Iran’s respond to Trump forced him to make a major, unprecedented concessions to save face.

Iran, which has suffered significant losses in Lebanon, with the weakening of its powerful military arm in that country (Hezbollah), and in Syria with the fall of the President Assad’s regime, undertook rapid reviews internally and regionally, abandoning many of its policies pursued in recent years, after realizing that the knife is approaching its neck, and that the American-Israeli conspiracy does not only seek to destroy it and remove its military claws and fangs, but also to change the Islamic regime there.

The results of these reviews reflected in the transition from a phase of patience and long-suffering to a phase of confrontation in its military and political aspects, and the strengthening of its allied military arms, starting with the striking Yemen whose arm there is waging heroic wars not only against aircraft carriers and American warships in the Red and Arabian Seas, but also by intensifying ballistic missiles and drone bombardment of the occupied Palestinian interior in Jaffa, Haifa, and Eilat, accelerating the recovery process for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and finding other ways to deliver military supplies to it.

After the historic Syrian corridor was closed with the fall of the Assad regime, America became a farce in the first months of Trump’s rule. It’s no surprise that Iran and its allied proxies are among the biggest beneficiaries and gloaters. He who laughs last laughs loudest… and the days will tell!

Continue reading

You Missed

ALL Israelis Want to End The War on Gaza

ALL Israelis Want to End The War on Gaza

Destroyed Treasures of Gaza Speak of Muslim Heritage

Destroyed Treasures of Gaza Speak of Muslim Heritage

Bombing a Hospital!

Bombing a Hospital!

Rehabilitating Iran?

Rehabilitating Iran?