Time for New Elections?

Netanyahu’s coalition with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, chairman of the Labor party, is unravelling. The two joined forces after the last election on the basis of the new consensus in Israeli politics: Dismantling settlements and unilateral retreat ends in disaster, the Palestinian Authority cannot be trusted to make a durable peace agreement, so Israel must retain effective security control of Judaea and Samaria. Now Barak is welching on the deal. Barak fears the Americans and wants to give in to American pressure. He also suffers from delusions of grandeur, imagining himself leading Netanyahu’s government down the path of unilateral concessions, taking credit for a peace treaty and reconciling himself with his party’s mainstream, now dominated by the loony left.

What the country may need is a snap election before Rosh Hashana. Netanyahu needs to shore up his ability to pursue a policy at variance with the Obama administration. Polls show that since Obama started pressuring Netanyahu, Netanyahu’s Likud and parties to Netanyahu’s right have become even more popular than when elected in 2009. They regularly get 70 Knesset seats or more in the polls. That won’t be the case anymore if Netanyahu lets the pair of Baracks (the American and the Israeli versions) force him to abandon the policy he was elected to pursue.

Of course an election needs to be prepared. Netanyahu needs to spend about a month campaigning hard, reiterating that his government’s policies reflect the national consensus. He should say that the issue of the campaign is the position laid forth in his Bar-Ilan speech a year ago: Yes to negotiations, no to a precommitment to retreat, dismantling settlements or abandon Israel’s security concerns in Judaea and Samaria. He should make Barak take responsibility for messing up the Mavi Marmara affair. Only then should the coalition introduce a bill to hold snap elections. Passing it should take 72 hours (at the start of which Barak should be fired), with elections taking place three weeks later. The heart of an American electoral campaign is the best time for Israel to hold its own elections; it will reduce Obama’s ability to interfere.

The opposing forces in the election will be very clear. On the one side will be Labor, Kadima, the press establishment, the academic establishment, the business establishment, and all the loonies who haven’t learned a thing in the past twenty years and think that safety lies in unilateral concessions and American smiles. On the other side will be the common sense of the great majority of Israelis, who actually have learned a thing or two in that time. Let’s see who prevails.

After the election, if all goes well, Netanyahu will no longer be dependent on Barak for political survival. He can even take Barak back into his new government if he wants, as head of a truncated Labor party or even on his own (though why Netanyahu needs a serial political loser like Barak at his side isn’t clear). Barak will hardly be in a position to say no. Then Netanyahu can then use Barak as he desires, without Barak holding the key to the government’s survival.

Barak Goes Off the Reservation

Ehud Barak is the odd man out in Israel’s government. Netanyahu brought him in as Defense Minister to create a stable coalition. Since then Barak has been destroying Jewish homes in Judaea and Samaria, built during the “freeze,” with a dedication worthy of a better cause. Recently he made a fiasco of Israel’s takeover of the Mavi Marmara.


Barak joined Netanyahu’s government last year because he shared the opinion of Netanyahu and 70% of Jewish Israelis: The Palestinians are not interested in peace but in destroying Israel, unilateral withdrawals (Barak was responsible for one, from Lebanon ten years ago) merely encourage terrorist radicals, so all the talk about a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians is just for show. Unfortunately, Barak is just about the only person in his party who’s wised up about the true prospects for “peace.” He’s under a lot of pressure to promote an “active policy,” which means giving up something for nothing—e.g. dismantling Israeli settlements—in order to entice the Palestinians to make peace.

Barak now appears to be going off the Netanyahu reservation. He’s calling for “an assertive diplomacy,” a code word for unilateral Israeli action. Barak’s faith in unilateral actions, of the dismantle-settlements-and-retreat kind, has been restored. He now wants Israel to make unilateral concessions, but not because that will promote peace with the Palestinians. He knows it only whets their appetite for more. He wants to do it because Barack Obama wants Israel to do it, and keeping the United States happy is vital to Israel’s security.

The United States is certainly vital to Israel’s security but that doesn’t mean that Barak’s new policy is a good idea. It isn’t. It’s hard to tell with Obama. He may want Israel to make unilateral concessions because that conforms to his abstract ideals of peace and justice in the Middle East. He’s swallowed the Palestian narrative, hook, line and sinker. Or he may want it because he wants to make the Arabs happy, and squeezing Israel is the way to do it. In practice, he’s acting as the Arabs’ tool.

Israel cannot, for its life, do what Obama wants. To do so is to prove to the Palestinians and the broader Arab world that they can get Israel to make unilateral concessions simply by getting the Americans to demand them. And that way lies the road to Israel’s demise. Barak may talk about “assertive” policies, but the real word for his policy is “appeasement.”

Lookit all the Democrats!

I’m sitting in the library of the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, looking at the news on the net. Hizbullah is preparing a flotilla of women to crash the blockade of Gaza. Why, I wonder, would more women want to go to Gaza? Once they get there, they will have to wear burqas.  If they don’t bring male relatives with them on the boat to escort them once they land, how will they get around? Will the Hamas authorities throw them in jail, or sentence them to lashes for indecent strolling?  I don’t know if Hamas has got around to prohibiting women from driving cars, as Saudi Arabia once did.

In the meantime, how’re things going in Europe, that bastion of democracy and civil rights? Today the upper house of the Spanish Parliament passed a law restricting the wearing of the burqa in public. The New York Times article reporting this event reviews Europe’s evolving attitude to the rights of its own Moslem citizens:

• Switzerland bans the construction of minarets.

• One house of Belgium’s Parliament has passed a law that outlaws wearing clothing in public that covers the face. (What are they going to do in six months, when the weather in Brussels drops to 20 degrees below zero Centigrade? Throw everyone wearing a ski mask into jail? At least the jail’s warm).

• France already bans headscarves in the public schools. According to the Times, France is “inching toward” a ban on the burqa, which French President Sarkozy supports.

Wearing a burqa is a personal, "self-regarding" decision.  In the words of John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty, it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Therefore it's nobody's business but the wearer's.  Legislating against it is illegitimate, at least in societies that pride themselves on being free. Anti-burqa legislation, like anti-minaret legislation, is simply the prejudice and intolerance of the majority made law. It’s discriminatory and violates freedom of religion.

I look around me at the students of the Hebrew University, studying for exams. Two tables over, four of them sit together. Three wear headscarves that cover their hair, neck and ears. One wears a brown hijab. Earlier, I ate my sandwich in the stairwell, watching the students—not a few in headscarves—coming and going.

Who cares? In Israel, nobody--neither individual citizens nor the government. If an Arab woman wants to dress like an Arab woman, that’s her business, and maybe her family’s business, but certainly none of mine. Or yours. Or the State of Israel’s, which to its credit couldn’t care less about burqas. If an Arab woman wants to wear tights and a t-shirt, that’s fine too. Plenty do. One of them sits together with her headscarved sisters, cramming for an economics final.

Sometimes, sitting here at the top of Mount Scopus, I get a weird sense that either we’re crazy or else everyone else is crazy. This burqa business brings the feeling back. We’re surrounded by people who either force people to wear burqas or force them not to. The only thing these people seem to agree about is that Israel is a threat to human rights. Honestly, who’s being nuts?