In yet another sign that Israel has lost the plot, Europe is weary of the Israeli prime minister’s claims re Iran, writes Philip Stephens, lead columnist at the Financial Times, in a piece titled “Israel is losing its friends in the world:”
When Mr Netanyahu warns about the nuclear threat from Iran, even those who worry deeply about Tehran’s intentions, respond with a weary shrug. The warnings are seen as a diversion – an effort to distract from his refusal to accept a Palestinian state rather than a clear-headed assessment of a present danger.
Stephens’s piece is a full-on attack on Netanyahu for his latest settlement expansion, which guaranteed the passage of the British Parliament’s Palestinian state recognition, a monument of bipartisanship in the House of Commons. “Israel had lobbied hard against the motion. It was soon obvious it had lost its best friends.” This sounds like a call for regime change.
The Gaza onslaught, which killed 2100 Palestinians and left tens of thousands homeless, fosters only deep cynicism:
European governments had backed Mr Abbas’s initiative to forge a joint administration with Hamas as a prelude to serious peace talks [in April]. Now they speculate that the Gaza operation was Mr Netanyahu’s attempt to wreck any accommodation.These episodes have… drained patience and trust and led many to believe Mr Netanyahu prefers a permanent state of war to a difficult peace. Yet the alternative to two states, as I have heard often during visits to Israel, is one state that comes to resemble apartheid South Africa.
Britain is sure to recognize a Palestinian state before long, Stephens says.
Obviously the British vote has made a big difference in the U.S. This new climate is why J Street is hammering on Netanyahu and settlements (after it abandoned the settlements as an issue a few years ago in favor of “borders”). And here is Peace Now’s Lara Friedman:
Israel is indeed losing friends in the international community. This is not because of rising global anti-Semitism, or successful Palestinian public relations campaigns. Rather, it is because pro-settlement forces – Prime Minister Netanyahu and members of his Cabinet; [Amos] Yadlin, [Elie] Wiesel and their fellow travelers – are recklessly sacrificing Israel’s relationships and its future at the altar of Elad and its ilk, in the service of the messianic dream of Greater Israel.
Netanyahu’s Israel is increasingly on the defensive. Note what the Defense Minister said two days ago:
“I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests.”
What is fascinating is the total lack of foresight exhibited by not only the Israeli government but the Israelis and thei Zionist fellow-travelers as well. Apparently they harp on the fact that “only” 274 MP’s voted for Palestinian recognition, short of the 326 needed for a simple majority of the Commons. What they fail to realize is that both the Conservatives and Liberal Dems could have made an appearance and voted against the resolution if they really supported the “Jewish” state. But they didn’t. And only 12 opposed the resolution. The French, Spanish and Swedes appear poised to also recognize Palestine. Of course, the Israelis blame the US for letting their unpopularity reach these heights. Never do they look in the mirror. It is far easier to blame Obama. But slowly the chickens are coming home to roost. I don’r see how, barring an asteroid or some other unbelievable occurence, that the Israelis and their fellows can stop this slide. It has gained too much momentum and I don’t get the feeling that Obama will lift a finger to help them. I do agree with Mairav Zonsein from 972 however, that resolutions condemning the occupation and threatening sanctions against Israel for colonising and militarily occupying Palestine within either the ’48 borders, or at worst the ’67 borders. including East Jerusalem, the Golan and Shebaa farms would be a more effective route to statehood that merely recognizing Palestine without delineating any borders. It is also almost funny how the US media, especially the broadcasters on TV and radio (NPR, are you listening?), have gone out of their way to ignore this story.
This editorial, coming from where it does, is a good sign. I think it’s a mistake however to direct attention to Netanyahu. As a leader he has no center, no conviction. That’s why he’s there. ush and John McCain, he has a stern father he has to please (even after they have gone their way). Apartheid, the settlements, the killings of Palestinians, the bombing of children is Israel’s policy, Golda’s policy, Begin’s, even the sainted Rabin’s. If Netanyahu were to disappear tomorrow, it would still be policy.
Gerald Ford, it was once said, could not chew gum and walk at the same time. The Rt. Hon. Benj, Netanyahu appears to be unable to keep more than one thought, or project, in mind at one time.
The Rt. Hon. Benj. has in mind the danger — as he professes to assess it — of an Iranian nuke and (therefore?) cannot also keep in mind the business of I/P.
If EU folks are indeed ready to lose patience with these not-at-all-new antics, well and good. After all, they’ve had quite a while to consider all the Israeli diversions which they have allowed to divert them from the illegality of the settlements and the wall and the siege of Gaza and, as they might come to see it, of the occupation as a whole which appears an effort to take permanent hold of occupied territory by force of arms, contrary to UNSC 242 and UN Charter. They’ve had quite a while to think about how to react to these illegalities without embarrassment for their own tardiness in making such reaction.
Better late than never will do, folks, Get on with it, please.
Time for regime change. Long past due. And may the neocons be dropped like hot potatoes at the same time.
“Regime change” is usually used to refer to violence employed by outsiders or insiders to undo a nondemocratic leader. It was used vis a vis- Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad, maybe Ghaddafi as well. It is cutesy to use it vis a vis Israel, when referring to a specific elected prime minister. When the American right speaks about Obama and the need for regime change, how do those not of the right react to the use of this term regarding a democratically elected leader.
(Israel’s democracy is not up to the US standard of 2014 in many ways.)