|
PEACEWatch |
|
| Extra
- Elections - Bye-Bye Bibi? 22.12.98 |
||
| After
the Israel Parliament passed the early election law yesterday, elections in Israel have
become a virtual certainty. Even PM Netanyahu became convinced that it was impossible to
go on trying to square the circle, so the Likud government joined the vote calling for its
own dissolution. Politicians of all parties have been critical not only of PM Netanyahu's policies, but of his personal integrity. As anticipated, Likud stalwart and ex-finance minister (Bibi collects ex-finance ministers) Dan Meridor announced today that he was leaving to run for Prime Minister at the head of a new Centrist party. Bibi promptly labeled Meridor a 'leftist' who was interested only in personal ambition - Mr. Netanyahu is not afraid, as usual, to pass off absurdities as gospel truth. Attacks on Bibi's leadership are also being prepared from the right - Benny Begin, Uzi Landau, Ehud Ulmert and Limor Livnat have all expressed their dissatisfaction and hinted that they will be challening Bibi's leadership in one way or another. They are bitter with Bibi because in their view he has betrayed the "vision" of Greater Israel. Toward the 'left,' Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordehai is disaffected with the failure of the government to implement the Wye agreements, and keeps hinting that he will do something about his disaffection. Any rejoicing in the peace camp is premature
however. The situation on the 'left' is not more stable. Labor's Ehud Barak has generated
little enthusiasm on his own account, and is also under attack from embittered allies of
former PM Shimon Peres. All we know of Barak's positions: In reality, Barak probably represents the only change we have to change the government for the better. He will not give back Beth-El (maybe) but he will not be completely subject to the dictates of the settler lobby and, like his mentor Rabin, will be amenable to reasonable peace proposals. So - unless there are dramatic changes in the near future, here is my election slogan: Vote for Barak - he is better than nothing. Isn't it inspiring? Retiring Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shachak is due to announce his candidacy for PM at the head of the same centrist party that Meridor wants to head. Shacak's main assets are that he is personable, and that owing to his position in the military he was not able (or didn't have to) enunciate a position about anything. Consquently, Shahak's popularity in the polls soared. His decision to run alone is unfortunate, since most analysts considered that a Labor ticket led by Barak and Shahak would be unbeatable. Both Meridor and Shahak will be joining and overshadowing Tel-Aviv Mayor Roni Milo, who began the Centrist party over the issue of religious coercion, or something of that nature. Religious coercion is an important issue, but hardly the most important or urgent problem facing Israel, and certainly not the only one. So the Center party (a misnomer, since Likud and Labor are really both Center parties under their present leaders) is three characters in search of an idea. While the Israeli political structure is busy imploding the Peace Process clock is busy ticking. Bibi announced his intention of freezing the implementation of the Wye agreements until after the elections. Typically, he blamed this on the left - for bringing down his government. This means that there will be no progress until April. By then, we will be close to the May 4 deadline. Bibi's political survival looks doubtful right now. However, a great deal could happen by April - a major uprising in the occupied territories, terrorist attacks, defections from the Labor party. All of these may saddle us with four more years of Bibi - or worse, with a Greater Israel government led by Benny Begin or Uzi Landau. Watch this space for updates. Ami Isseroff |
||
| Hubris
Ami Isseroff |
||
| In
Iraq, we are witnessing the unfolding of a Greek tragedy, produced in eerie green night
photography colors, on the grand scale that is so characteristic of the twentieth century.
Hubris, meaning excessive pride, is often the fatal flaw that lays low the
characters of a Greek Tragedy. The Iraqi people are victims of the Hubris of
Saddam Hussein. There was little doubt about what would happen if Iraq continued to evade
inspections, and if Saddam continued to bill himself as the victor over the United States
and the ‘Zionists.’ The attack has been almost inevitable since last January.
The President of the U.S. chose a timing that seemed to many to be in execrable taste, and
designed to draw attention from his impeachment troubles, but that is a separate issue.
The attack itself would have come at some time. Anyone who did not understand this, does
not understand the United States. For a long time the US did nothing in the face of
Saddam’s antics. There was no lack of people who said that US inaction was due to the
President’s personal troubles. The great ‘deception’ practiced by the
United States is that they did not respond with force last January. Foolish people in
Baghdad misinterpreted patience for weakness. Equally tragic, the Hubris of the United States may have led to an incorrect decision. No war has ever been decided by bombing alone, and no regime has ever been toppled in this way. Saddam Hussein may emerge from this adventure stronger than ever in the eyes of his people. Only the people of Iraq will suffer. The bombings will not affect the stockpiles of weapons - they are not meant to. It is impossible to bomb anthrax stockpiles without releasing the stuff and causing a huge number of deaths. The bombings might slow the manufacture of new weapons, but there are already indications that the bombings are not very effective. There is little doubt about the main facts. They were presented by Scott Ritter in a report for which he was fired. He risked his job to tell the truth, but he told it at an inopportune moment. The Iraqi government has been using the miserable resources at its command to produce non-conventional weapons. It has repeatedly delayed UN inspections so that the weapons or means of production could be moved to new sites. The weapons are meant to be used, perhaps, against Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia or Iran, or the Iraqi people themselves, as such weapons were used by Saddam in the past. All of these foes, foreign and domestic, are ‘Zionists’ if we believe Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, whose version of the truth would provide comic relief if it were not delivered against the backdrop of the destruction of his own people. Only the most gullible can believe that Iraqi weapons were aimed primarily at ‘Zionists,’ unless one accepts Tariq Aziz’s definitions of ‘Zionist.’ I doubt though, that the UJA can count on a contribution from Sheikh Sabah El Sabah or the President of Iran. Lest there be any doubt, the Iraqi government has defiantly announced that they will not cooperate with the UN, even while explaining that claims that they were not cooperating were lies, and that the attack was due to the advice of ‘Zionists.’ As an Israeli, I have great sympathy for the Iraqi people, who are undergoing such cruel destruction by missile attacks. After all, it was not long ago that we were undergoing similar attacks originating in Iraq, even though Israel had done nothing at all to Iraq and was not even a party to operation Desert Storm. Of course, the Iraqi people did not give the orders to launch those missiles, and do not have much say in the doings of their government. Of course, innocent people should not be made to suffer. One wonders, however, how many people in the Arab world thought of that when Iraqi missiles were falling on Israel. All over the world well meaning people are joining in protests against the bombing. The concern of so many peace-loving people for the suffering of the Iraqi people is touching, but it is misplaced. Where were those same people when Iraq invaded Kuwait? When Iraqi missiles fell on Israel? Where were they last January, when Saddam began his brinksmanship with the UN, counting on the ‘weakness’ of President Clinton? From each tragedy, the survivors learn a lesson. The U.S. will learn the limits of brute force, as it should have in Vietnam. The Iraqi government will learn that crossing the United States is a dangerous game. If the United States decides that the Iraqi government is really a clear and present danger to U.S. interests, then the demise of the Iraqi regime is only a matter of time. Perhaps a long time. The United States is nothing if not patient. If it cannot be done by force, it will be done another way. The United States lost the war in Viet Nam, but they won the Cold War. Not everyone did the wrong thing. The PNA sent a delegation to Baghdad to counsel moderation - and to attempt mediation. It may be hopeless, but one has to try. The Israeli government may be quietly or not so quietly happy with these bombings. They might as well be, since anything bad that happens in the Middle East is blamed on the Zionists anyhow. However, when it is all done, the Israeli government will undoubtedly learn its own lessons. The US will need to win back friends in the Arab world. After the bombings are over, Bill Clinton will remember that he made a trip all the way to Gaza just to oversee the demolition of the Palestinian covenant, at the insistence of Benjamin Netanyahu. He will remember that it was all for nothing, because Benjamin Netanyahu sent him home empty handed. He will remember that he needs to build a coalition of support to bring down the Iraqi regime, and he will not let a few Israeli settlers and their allies stand in the way of U.S. foreign policy. Bibi can breath easy for only a moment. When the bombings are over, he will have to face the reality of his crumbling government, broken promises at Wye and a very unhappy United States. Pride goeth before a fall. Despite all, happy holidays to all PeaceWatch readers and friends of peace everywhere - Hag Hanuka Sameach, Ramadan Kareem, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Ami Isseroff Rehovot P.S. - You are reminded that PeaceWatch represents personal opinions, not PEACE group positions. Comments are invited. |
||
| Copyright 1998 by the authors and the PEACE group. May be reproduced intact provided that credit is given to the authors, and to the PEACE Mid-East Dialog Group, including addresses listed at the bottom. | ||
