Trending Topics:

Why I’m glad Netanyahu won

on 24 Comments

I’m glad Benjamin Netanyahu won reelection. Since I realize that saying this won’t sit well with many folks, let me explain:

As the election developed, it became clear that Benny Gantz, the leader of the opposition “Blue and White” coalition, for a number of reasons, had come to be seen as the darling of the liberal set – especially here in the U.S.

Some, for example, were justifiably upset by Netanyahu’s gross corruption or unnerved by his authoritarian actions designed to intimidate the press, silence non-governmental organizations, and strip the courts of their power. Others were optimistic that should Gantz win, Israel’s image would improve in the U.S. and there would be the possibility of a “reset” in the U.S.-Israel relationship. One publication described a Gantz victory as creating “a fresh slate and opportunity to re-energize support for Israel.”

Driving this support for Gantz was the concern of liberal Democrats who have been troubled by recent polls showing a significant erosion of support for Israel among core Democratic constituents – especially millennial and minority voters – including American Jewish millennials. This growing alienation from Israel has in part been due to both Netanyahu’s repressive policies and his close relationship with Donald Trump. There could be no doubt that Trump had been excessive in his support for his Israeli partner: canceling the Iran Deal; moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; the “gift” of the Golan Heights; cutting all U.S. aid to the Palestinians; and remaining silent in the face of settlement expansion and Netanyahu’s declared intent to apply Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements. This virtual Trump/Netanyahu marriage most certainly had a role to play in the embrace of Gantz by many liberals.

Because American liberals have embraced the mantra of a “two-state solution” and see Netanyahu’s aggressive settlement construction and his pledge to “annex” the settlements as obstacles to that goal, they also fretted that a Netanyahu victory might spell the end of their idea of two states – one “Jewish and democratic” and one for the Palestinians. At the same time, American Jews had an additional frustration with Netanyahu as a result of his accommodation of the illiberal policies of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox religious community on issues of marriage, conversion, and women’s rights.

It was in this context, that Gantz became the “great hope.” I, however, never believed that he was.

In the first place, on the issue that mattered most to the future of peace – the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories – there was little that separated Netanyahu from Gantz. In fact, Gantz’ opening campaign advertisement featured Gaza in rubble (Gantz had been in charge of the most brutal and devastating of the Gaza wars), boasting the he had reduced parts of Gaza “back to the Stone Age.” And right before the election, an American Jewish publication reported on a Gantz speech laying out his “seven pillars” for peace with the Palestinians: “he said his priority was to ensure a Zionist ‘end state’ – Jewish and Democratic – and not a binational state, while keeping the Jordan Valley, a united Jerusalem, and modifying the 1967 lines.” Gantz explicitly told supporters, “I don’t want to rule the Palestinians.” In addition to these goals, he added keeping the settlements and maintaining security control west of the Jordan River.

In other words, Gantz might have been a “fresh face”, but, on the central issue of dealing with Palestinians and the occupied territories, he was no different than the prime minister he was seeking to replace.

In addition to the positions he espoused, I felt that it was important to look at the composition of the governing coalition Gantz would have assembled had he emerged victorious.  While the press routinely referred to Gantz as the “center-left” candidate, in reality, only a small fraction of his potential partners could be seen as “left.” In fact, most of his eventual partners were quite comfortable with Gantz’s “seven pillars.” And because Israeli politics have moved so far to the right, even if he had won the opportunity to form a government, Gantz never could have assembled a coalition of 61 Knesset Members without adding the parties representing the Palestinian citizens of Israel – something that, early on, Gantz had said he would never do.

This avoidance of Arabs was in response to the negative anti-Arab campaign waged by Netanyahu. Recognizing that Gantz couldn’t have formed a government without Arab support or acquiescence, Netanyahu advanced the slogan that the voters’ choice was “Bibi (Netanyahu’s nickname) or Tibi” (referring to Ahmed Tibi, the leader of one of the Arab parties). Instead of pushing back against this patently racist Arab-baiting, Gantz made a pledge not to consult with the Arab parties in the Knesset or include them in his government.

With Netanyahu back for his fifth term as prime minister, liberals must now face reality. They can no longer see Israel as a romanticized “idea” of a progressive state governed by liberal values. Rather it has demonstrated that it is an illiberal ethno-nationalist society that has applied an apartheid-like repressive system to enable their continued rule over a captive Palestinian people.

Liberals may continue to say that they oppose settlements and seek a two-state solution. But here too they will now have to confront reality. The settlement expansion that occurred on their watch, and which they took no concrete steps to curtail, has made a two-state solution impossible to implement. And, they must now admit that Netanyahu, who for years they tolerated and even feted, has in reality “played them like a fiddle.” This won’t come easily.

It was interesting to watch how a few leading liberal pundits and Democratic elected officials reacted during and after this election. When it appeared that Gantz might win, they felt that it was safe to denounce Netanyahu and even call him a racist, now with Netanyahu emerging as the victor, they have flipped on a dime, congratulating him on his victory and pledging to work with him to implement the two-state solution – some illusions do die hard.

But with Netanyahu expected to continue his extremist anti-Palestinian, anti-peace, anti-rule of law, and pro-Trump agendas, the debate about Israel here in the U.S. will intensify. Because the base of the Democratic Party has awakened to the realities of the occupation and is deeply offended by everything both Netanyahu and Trump stand for, several developments can be expected.

The rift between the base of the Democratic Party and its elected officials will continue to grow. This will take the form of candidates for higher office increasingly being called to account for their failure to challenge Israeli behaviors.  The debate within the American Jewish community will also intensify, with liberal Jews forced to reexamine their views of Israel and their support for the policies of that state. As a result of these developments, the Democratic Party is moving toward becoming the anti-Netanyahu, anti-settlements, anti-annexation party – with an increasing number of Democrats even voicing support for cutting aid to Israel and advocating for the rights of citizens to support the BDS movement.

We are on the threshold of a major change in how Israel will play out in American politics. I’m afraid that it has come too late to save the two-states that were envisioned by the long dead Oslo Accords. But it is a good thing that we will now finally be able to have an honest debate about the dreadful situation created by American complicity in enabling Israel’s continued oppression of Palestinians. This debate might have been aborted for a time had Gantz won. The occupation and settlements would have continued – but liberals would have been less inclined to challenge him. With Netanyahu back, the debate will be energized. It might be late in the game, but better late than never.

James Zogby

James Zogby tweets at @jjz1600 and is the author of Arab Voices and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.–based organization which serves as a political and policy research arm of the Arab-American community.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

24 Responses

  1. scott9854958 on April 22, 2019, 12:03 pm

    Summed up, I guess this means “it has to get worse before it gets better.” I couldn’t agree more. And let’s remember it was Rabin, the great darling of liberal Democrats, who gave the order to break bones of children stone throwers.

    • Tuyzentfloot on April 22, 2019, 12:46 pm

      It also has to get worse first before it gets much worse.
      I’m limiting my extrapolations to ‘it’s getting worse’

    • Misterioso on April 23, 2019, 9:45 am

      London Review of Books, April 18/19
      “Trump’s America, Netanyahu’s Israel” by Adam Shatz**

      “Israel’s legislative elections on 9 April were a tribute to Binyamin Netanyahu’s transformation of the political landscape.​ At no point were they discussed in terms of which candidates might be persuaded by (non-existent) American pressure, or the ‘international community’, to end the occupation. This time it was a question of which party leader could be trusted by Israeli Jews – Palestinian citizens of Israel are now officially second-class – to manage the occupation, and to expedite the various tasks that the Jewish state has mastered: killing Gazans, bulldozing homes, combatting the scourge of BDS, and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. With his promise to annex the West Bank, Netanyahu had won even before the election was held. It wasn’t simply Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights that sped the incumbent on his way; it was the nature of the conversation – and the fact that the leader of the opposition was Benny Gantz, the IDF commander who presided over the 2014 ‘Operation Protection Edge’, in which more than 2000 Gazans were killed.

      “Illusions about the ‘peace process’ – and Israel’s ‘search for peace’ – die hard. The hopes invested in ‘peace’ were once immense, but it has never looked so shaky, even in America, which has underwritten these fictions for decades and rewarded Israel handsomely for paying lip service to them. American liberals no longer lament the fact that Netanyahu has taken Israel off its preordained, conciliatory course, and hope that ‘the left’ might steer it back. There is no left in Israel aside from a few heroic groupuscules. Netanyahu’s Israel – illiberal, exclusionary, racist – is now the political centre.

      “I used to call myself a non-Zionist, rather than an anti-Zionist: the latter term seemed to traduce the origins of Zionism, which arose as a response to the existential threat to Jewish life in Europe. ‘Anti-Zionism’ overlooked the richness of the debates within early Zionism. The ‘cultural Zionist’ Ahad Ha’am, for example, supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but not a Jewish state, and castigated ‘territorial’ Zionists for imagining that ‘Palestine is a land almost entirely deserted, an uncultivated desert,’ and that ‘the Arabs are desert savages, a people like donkeys, incapable of seeing and understanding what is happening around them. This is a great mistake.’ One of the founders of bi-nationalism – what’s now envisaged as a single state, accommodating both people’s national aspirations – Ha’am considered himself a Zionist. So did the journalist and activist Uri Avnery, one of the fiercest critics of Israel’s wars and occupation, who died last year, aged 94. But these ‘Zionists’ do not represent actually existing Zionism.

      “In 1948, Hannah Arendt, whose critique of territorial Zionism owed much to Ha’am, warned that after the Arab-Israeli war: ‘the ‘victorious’ Jews would live surrounded by a hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever-threatened borders, preoccupied by matters of defence to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities . . . political thought would centre on military strategy; economic development would be determined exclusively by the needs of war. And all this would be the fate of a nation that – no matter how many immigrants it could still absorb and how far it extended its boundaries . . . would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered by hostile neighbours.’

      “Arendt’s prediction was in large part borne out. More remarkable still, few Israelis – or their supporters abroad, among Jews and Evangelicals – fret over this ‘fate’. Arendt’s warning that an expansionist Israel would never realise the dream of Herzl and the founders, and become a ‘normal’ state, has lost its charge because its abnormality is the new normal. Israel now looks more like a pioneer of illiberal, ethnocratic nationalism, a model for the likes of Orbán, Modi and Trump.

      “Today Israelis see no need to conceal, much less extenuate themselves for, their country’s militarism or racism. In the 1960s and 1970s, Western tourists went to Israel to take part in collective farming on kibbutzim. Police officers and soldiers now go to learn new methods of collective punishment and surveillance. For Europe’s greatest internal victims to have refined the repression of another people into a science is now regarded as an advantage rather than an embarrassing secret, or indeed a tragedy. And with Trump’s help, Zionism’s id has been emancipated from its superego. The Nation-State Law, the American Embassy’s move to Jerusalem, the US president’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a possible annexation of large swathes of the West Bank: all these mark an intensification of what Meron Benvenisti called the ‘Judaisation’ of Israel-Palestine, at the expense of its indigenous inhabitants. Even hummus, tabbouleh, and za‘atar are now proclaimed as ‘Israeli’ specialities.”

      “The extreme character of Israel’s stance vis-à-vis its Arab population can be measured by the Nation-State Law, which explicitly legalises the inequality – officially denied for decades – between Jews and Arabs. The law’s most vociferous critics were not Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have no illusions about the state’s intentions, but the Druze – at 1.5 per cent of Israel’s population, a minority within an Arab minority – who serve in the Israeli military and are seen by many Palestinians as traitors. As Israeli Druze have discovered, to be a non-Jew in Israel, no matter how loyal, is to be less than a full citizen, tolerated at best by the ruling ethnic majority – a ‘pariah’, as Arendt would have said. That Israel has succeeded in creating a new class of pariahs is a curious achievement, given the history of Jews in the West. The impact on Palestinian life, in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, has been enormous. But the perpetrators have also paid a price. In the words of the historian Enzo Traverso, Israel has ‘put an end to Jewish modernity. Diaspora Judaism had been the critical conscience of the Western world; Israel survives as one of its mechanisms of domination.’”

      “Israel’s ultras inside the Democratic Party have argued, correctly, that support for Israel is not only about donations (‘the Benjamins’) from Jewish supporters of Israel, but about something harder to dislodge: faith. Senator Charles Schumer of New York recently claimed to be acting on divine orders: ‘You know, my name . . . comes from the word shomer, guardian, watcher . . . And I believe Hashem’ – God – ‘actually gave me that name. One of my roles, very important in the United States Senate, is to be . . . a or the shomer Yisrael. And I will continue to be that with every bone in my body.’ Booker is perhaps more alert to the influential role of the Benjamins, but he, too, spoke in the language of faith when he addressed AIPAC: ‘Israel is not political to me . . I was a supporter of Israel well before I was a United States senator . . . If I forget thee, o Israel, may I cut off my right hand.’ Ilhan Omar was accused of anti-Semitism for pointing out the ‘political influence’ in the US ‘that says it is OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country’, but Schumer and Booker made no secret of their allegiance and faced none of the insults hurled at Omar. There was no murmur of dissent from supporters of Israel when Trump spoke to a group of American Jews and referred to Netanyahu as ‘your prime minister’.

      “The Trump administration recently prevented the Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the BDS movement, from entering the US. Barghouti, a permanent resident of Israel who has a valid US visa, was scheduled to do a speaking tour and go to his daughter’s wedding. He is a non-violent activist, but this doesn’t count in his favour among those who used to deplore Palestinian armed struggle. On the contrary: now that the Palestinians are mastering an effective means of non-violent protest, Israel claims that it is worse than terrorism because it ‘delegitimises’ the Jewish state. Anti-Zionism, on this view, is not simply an occasional cover for anti-Semitism; it is anti-Semitism. The Trump administration has signed up to this thesis; so has Emmanuel Macron. But if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, one would be hard pressed to find a Palestinian, or an Arab, or a Muslim, who is not an anti-Semite. And if anti-Zionism is the only form of anti-Semitism that Israel, the state of the Jews, considers a threat, then Hungary and other Central European states intent on revising their histories of collaboration in the Holocaust, purging their public life of ‘globalists’ such as George Soros, and pursuing their own draconian policies towards ethnic minorities (Roma, above all), can declare themselves friends of Israel and get a kosher seal of approval.”

      “Omar’s tweet about ‘the Benjamins’ was glib and inaccurate: support for Israel isn’t ‘all’ about campaign donations. Amy Kaplan argues in Our American Israel that the special relationship was never simply a reflection of Jewish influence in America. It draws on the countries’ histories – and imaginaries – as colonial-settler states, and has been reinforced by overlapping imperial interests. But Omar’s remarks were bracing: she seemed determined to tell it like it is. They also signalled that the conversation about Israel is changing, as disadvantaged American minorities, including blacks and Muslims, overcome a range of inhibitions – including the fear of being called anti-Semitic – and begin to speak frankly on the Israel/Palestine question. For politicians such as Omar and Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian congresswoman from Detroit, and for black activists and thinkers such as Michelle Alexander and Angela Davis, Palestine is, above all, a matter of racial justice. The process of reframing this question is likely to be messy and uncomfortable, not least for Jews accustomed to leading the discussion. It also suggests a very American vision of Israel/Palestine, with the West Bank reimagined as Selma, a site of oppression where struggle and redemption are waiting in the wings. But this is no more of an illusion than the vision of Israel it challenges, ‘the Middle East’s only democracy’, and it aims to end, rather than uphold, a system of oppression. Now that the conversation has started, it will be hard to stop.”

      **Adam Shatz is a contributing editor at the LRB, based in New York.

  2. chris_k on April 22, 2019, 3:05 pm

    Edward Said said essentially the same thing about Netanyahu’s first victory over Shimon Peres in 1996.

  3. HarryLaw on April 22, 2019, 3:16 pm

    “Some Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, are very interested in the deal of the century,” the official claimed. “They are using all means, including political and financial blackmail, to force the Palestinians to accept the deal of the century despite all the dangers it poses to the Palestinian cause.”
    Sources involved in the formulation of the deal said that some $25 billion will be invested in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, in addition the US will transfer an additional $40 billion to Egypt, Jordan and possibly Lebanon “to ensure their cooperation” in implementing the deal.,7340,L-5471333,00.html
    A report released Friday morning claims that the soon-to-be released Middle East peace plan drawn up by the Trump administration – dubbed the “Deal of the Century” – includes large-scale resettlement of Palestinian Arabs in Jordan, the ceding of Jordanian territory to Israel, and the formation of a tripartite confederation between Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s Civil Administration to administer Judea and Samaria.
    What these snippets of news mean is that far from granting Palestinians a sovereign state, they aim to fragment the Palestinians and deny their right of return by bribing the Arab states into accepting Palestinian refugees as full citizens. Area ‘C’ [60% of West Bank occupied by the vast majority of Israeli settlers with a relatively small Palestinian population 180,000] will be annexed first, the rest areas ‘A and B’ will be reduced to Bantustans with a begging bowl reaching out to Saudi Arabia, the EU and the US with the threat that ‘A and B’ will receive the Gaza treatment unless they comply.
    Unlike the Israelis [AIPAC etc] the Palestinians cannot influence US elections, the Israel donor class in both US parties have the means to ensure Israel’s demands are met, money does actually talk.

    • Misterioso on April 23, 2019, 8:42 am

      For the record:

      “French ambassador says Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ is DOA, calls Israel an ‘apartheid state.’ April 22/19 By Whitney Webb, Mint Press

      WASHINGTON — “In an interview with the Atlantic last Friday, outgoing French Ambassador to the United States Gerard Araud made headlines after emphatically stating that Israel is already ‘an apartheid state’ and that the Trump administration’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict is ’99 percent doomed.’

      “Araud — whose first government post was in France’s Tel Aviv embassy, and who was the French ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006 — made the claim after being asked about his views on the Israel-Palestine ‘peace process.’ After stating that he enjoys a ‘close’ relationship with Jared Kushner — Trump’s son-in-law who has spent the last two years drafting a .’peace plan’ for the Trump administration — Araud noted that Kushner’s ‘proposal is very close to what the Israelis want.’

      “This outcome has long been noted by many media outlets based on Kushner’s close ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; his family’s role in funding illegal West Bank settlements; and, more recently, statements made by those familiar with the negotiations and the fact that the Palestinians have refused to negotiate with Kushner’s team since the Trump administration decreed Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital in December 2017.

      “’Smart, no guts’”
      Araud, who first became France’s ambassador to the U.S. in 2014, later described Kushner as ‘extremely smart, but he has no guts. He doesn’t know the history.’ While Araud posited that there may be an advantage to not knowing the history of the conflict, he also noted that it was a double-edged sword, stating:

      ‘[Kushner] is so rational, and he is so pro-Israeli also, that he may neglect the point that if you offer the Palestinians the choice between surrendering and committing suicide, they may decide the latter. Somebody like Kushner doesn’t understand that.’

      “Like other politicians who have recently spoken about the ‘peace plan,’ Araud has not seen the plan but was told that it was around 50 pages and very ‘precise.’ Yet, drawing on his closeness to Kushner, Araud stated that the plan had been created based on three assumptions or ‘bets’ made by Kushner, the first of which was that Trump would be ‘uniquely able to push the Israelis, because he is so popular in Israel.’ The second bet, according to Araud, was that ‘the Palestinians may consider it’s their last chance to get limited sovereignty,’ while the third element of the plan is ‘Kushner is going to pour money on the Palestinians.’

      “Despite the fact that Araud clearly likes Kushner and parts of his approach, he said that the plan was almost guaranteed to fail: ‘Is it doomed to fail? I should say 99 percent yes, but 1 percent, you never forget the 1 percent.’

      “Araud also raised the point that Israel’s government, despite all the concessions it has received from the Trump administration, would be uninterested in making any concessions, no matter how minor, as part of Kushner’s ‘peace plan: ‘The problem is that the disproportion of power is such between the two sides that the strongest may conclude that they have no interest to make concessions… The status quo is extremely comfortable for Israel. Because they [can] have the cake and eat it.’

      “Arau summarized the status quo as follows:
      ‘They [Israel] have the West Bank, but at the same time they don’t have to make the painful decision about the Palestinians, really making them really, totally stateless or making them citizens of Israel.’

      “With Israel’s annexation of the West Bank looming following Netanyahu’s recent re-election, Araud further noted: ‘They [Israel] won’t make them [Palestinians] citizens of Israel. So they will have to make it official, which is we know the situation, which is an apartheid [sic]. There will be officially an apartheid state. They are in fact already.’

      “Araud’s statement that Israel is ‘in fact already’ an apartheid state is not surprising, in the sense that Israeli apartheid has long been a reality on the ground in occupied Palestine. However, it is remarkable, in the sense that Araud’s statements show that the reality is now near impossible to cover up or ignore and also that the reality of the situation is receiving more recognition than ever from the mainstream.

      “Indeed, if Araud — a former French ambassador to Israel who is close to Kushner and a well-entrenched figure of the Western political elite — is able to make such statements without being accused of ‘anti-Semitism,’ it definitively shows that Israel’s status as an apartheid state is quickly becoming an accepted truth in mainstream, Western political discourse.

      “While Araud has been characterized for his ‘bluntness’ in the past and as ‘direct to the point of discomfort,’ his status as a member of the Western political elite that has long shielded Israeli apartheid and decades-long ethnic cleansing of Palestine from scrutiny highlights the dramatic yet unambiguous nature of the situation.

      “As mainstream recognition of Israeli apartheid accelerates, so too will efforts to resist it, particularly among countries and political groups that have opposed apartheid in other places around the world, like South Africa. Such pushback for those who reject apartheid systems wherever they may occur appears to be a ‘bet’ that Jared Kushner failed to consider when drafting his ‘peace plan.'”

  4. Citizen on April 22, 2019, 4:48 pm

    RE: “Unlike the Israelis [AIPAC etc] the Palestinians cannot influence US elections, the Israel donor class in both US parties have the means to ensure Israel’s demands are met, money does actually talk.”

    “It’s all about the Benjamins!”

  5. Kay24 on April 22, 2019, 4:59 pm

    There are no liberals and moderates in Israel. It has become a extreme right wing nation, as the elections show, and add to it, lead by top leaders who belong to a Jewish terrorist group.
    Netanyahu is corrupt too. That seems okay by the people as well.

    It is time American Jews, of the liberal type, faced reality. Israel in our lifetime is not going to change, Netanyahu has bragged that under his leadership there will be no two state solution, and that he was going to annex the West Bank, the Israeli people endorsed, it and approved of Netanyahu, by electing him and his band of extremists.

    Everything seems crystal clear.

    • Elizabeth Block on April 23, 2019, 5:19 pm

      People sometimes tell me that most Israeli Jews want peace. In that case, why is it that no Israeli politician who is willing to do what is necessary to make peace has a chance of being elected? In fact, I’m not sure there are any such Israeli politicians any more.
      The election was between two war criminals. What’s to choose?

      • Kay24 on April 23, 2019, 8:48 pm

        You are right, there are none. Not one voice from that lot talks of peace, or ending the occupation. They all seem to want the same thing.
        It is crystal clear.

        The US has the power to change all that, but unfortunately goes along with their crimes.
        Presently they are punishing the victims by cutting off their miserable aid, adding insult to injury.

      • RoHa on April 23, 2019, 9:17 pm

        I’m sure that most Israeli Jews do want peace, after they have grabbed a bit more of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and driven out all the Arabs.

      • Tuyzentfloot on April 24, 2019, 7:18 am

        and driven out all the Arabs.

        and when they have broken up the region into many small backward fragments which are at war with each other, not to forget. Then they will know true peace. Maybe.

  6. Keith on April 22, 2019, 5:12 pm

    Folks, some interesting developments in regards to the recent Ukrainian presidential election where Jewish comedian Volodymyr Zelensky won a landslide victory over CIA installed Petro Poroshenko. Zelensky is essentially the sock puppet of Zionist billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky who holds Israeli citizenship. Kolomoisky has close ties with Israel and perhaps Netanyahu as well. Ukraine recently approved a free trade deal with Israel. The dynamics are interesting. Kolomoisky is a thug, both smart and ruthless. How he will relate to the Soros/CIA forces in the Ukraine will be interesting. And what sort of leverage will this give Netanyahu to influence events in the Ukraine? And how will that impact the Democrats/CIA/Soros versus Trump/Netanyahu/(and?) Kolomoisky? There is a lot of stuff that the media never mentions.

  7. Richard Baldwin Cook on April 22, 2019, 11:06 pm

    ” . . . it is a good thing that we will now finally be able to have an honest debate about the dreadful situation created by American complicity in enabling Israel’s continued oppression of Palestinians.”

    That’s it? You, now hoping for “a debate” ?

    A century on and counting plus a thousand more words from you @ why Bibi’s re-election is a good thing – so you can wish for (not even call for, just wish for) . . . a debate.

    You got all the Democratic Pres. Candidates lined up to debate Israel / Palestine? Sure you do. Not.

    Let’s all close our eyes really tight and wish for . . . a debate.

    You write like we all live on Planet Patty Cake.

    Well, the Israelis don’t.

  8. Patrick on April 22, 2019, 11:46 pm

    Actually, Zogby is arguing that the situation for Palestinians would not really be any better had Gantz won the election.

  9. Emet on April 23, 2019, 6:29 am

    Hey Zogbi, why do you call him corrupt before he has been indicted and convicted? Of, of course, this is the way of the corrupt Left.

    • bcg on April 23, 2019, 9:30 am

      @Emet: “corrupt” is not necessarily a legal term.

    • eljay on April 23, 2019, 9:49 am

      || Emet: Hey Zogbi, why do you call him corrupt before he has been indicted and convicted? Of, of course, this is the way of the corrupt Left. ||

      Why do you call the Left corrupt before it has been indicted and convicted? Of, of course, this must be a Zionist thing.

  10. Vera Gottlieb on April 23, 2019, 8:40 am

    You are so right…your comment doesn’t sit well with me. As I see it, for as long as Trump and Netanyahu – and son-in-law Kushner, sit in power no progress of any kind will be made regarding Palestinians – who will continue to suffer and be punished for NOT having murdered 6 million Jews.

    • Emet on April 25, 2019, 8:07 am

      What are you talking about? On average, the Palestinians are enjoying a higher quality of live, better education and healthcare. Stop believing everything that is fed to you intravenously.

  11. Ossinev on April 23, 2019, 9:51 am

    “why do you call him corrupt before he has been indicted and convicted? Of, of course, this is the way of the corrupt Left”

    Why do you call people “Anti- Semites” before they have been indicted and convicted. Of course this is the way of the warped Ziofreaks.

  12. wondering jew on April 24, 2019, 1:17 pm

    It is not clear what bibi has in mind. If he can pass legislation protecting him from prosecution during the time of his service as prime minister, then he has a long future, if not it would seem that his time is much more limited. if he wishes to leave a legacy maybe annexation makes sense, since the legacy in the other direction (peace/withdrawal) seems not to be available or the way he wants to go. Begin withdrew from Sinai. Shamir left no lasting legacy. rabin signed oslo. ehud barak withdrew from lebanon. sharon withdrew (incompletely) from gaza. olmert attempted a peace legacy, but his time was limited. netanyahu has had plenty of time and so far no lasting legacy. annexation is implied as his legacy (perpetuation of the status quo on the west bank leads to that conclusion), why not make his legacy explicit?
    the implication of annexation in any official form on the west bank will be that annexation of the total of the west bank is implied but avoided in order to disallow citizenship/the right to vote for the residents. so any annexation implies total annexation implies the point of protest to be the right to vote. voices urging israeli withdrawal will persist, but to follow the logic of israeli policy will be to demand the vote.

Leave a Reply