Who is Netanyahu and Who are We Jews?

Recently on the Fareed Zakharia show, Thomas Friedman was interviewed. He pointed out that that despite Netanhyahu's bluster, he has actually acted in a cautious manner. So who is Netanyahu? He talks like a war monger but does not act like one. I think Netanyahu's problem is that he is a politician more than a statesman. that is why he has such difficulty with President Obama who is a statesman more than a politician. But it also brings into question who are we as Jews and who are the people of Israel? After all a political leader in a democracy is elected by the people. Many of the military and intelligence leaders in Israel have spoken more dovishly than Netanyahu because they do not have to be elected and therefore can say what is real. Netanyahu has to pander to the mob and actually can stir up fear in the mob when it is needed to get elected. When the election is over he then regains his sanity. The Jewish people have had much to fear during the last 2 millennia since the end of the Kingdom of Judah. The people of Israel are particularly exposed and therefore willing to follow a demagogue like Netanyahu when it suites his purpose to be one. We Jews in the diaspora as well as in Israel have more than our share of intelligent people and people who do good for the world, but we also have our mishegooyim (maybe more than our share). We are the product of our history which was molded by the Christian and Moslem world.

Edry

Congratulations to Ronny Edry. He is the Israeli who used social media to reach out to ordinary Iranians to say that Israel loves Iran and received a similar response from ordinary Iranians. Of course Israel must maintain a strong military power, but people liked Edry will eventually win Herzl's dream of a secure Israel at peace with its neighbors, not Netanyahu's bluster.

The Nuclear Deal with Iran

So the US and the major nations have made a deal with Iran to curtail Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb in return for decreasing the economic sanctions on Iran. The opponents of the treaty, say Iran can't be trusted to keep their part of the bargain. On the other hand it does include safeguards. It's not that it's a wonderful deal, but it's the least bad of the options. The Republicans who oppose the treaty are not necessarily doing a bad thing. I think they might actually have helped the Obama administration reach the best deal they could accomplish by letting the Iranian hard liners know that the president could not make a bad deal even if he wanted to (which he didn't). The reality is that the problems are complex. We are at odds with Iran as well as their clients like Bashir Assad and Hezbollah. But we are also their sort of allies against ISIS. Iran is the enemy of our allies, both Israel and its Arab neighbors. A nuclear Iran would stimulate some of the Arab countries to respond by trying to develop their own nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Pandora's box opened 70 years ago with the unveiling of the first atomic bombs. The salvation of the world won't come from only military power or from only treaties either. Getting the people of the world (not just governments) to get along, to solve problems of poverty, food and other necessities, and getting religions to tolerate each other are all parts of the solution. Technology that deters offensive weapons instead of creating more offensive weapons will help. In other words mostly common sense.

Is a United Iraq Necessary?

Yesterday Farid Zakharia interviewed General Mc Chrystal on his show, Global GPS. Essentially the general said that defeating ISIS will involve not just a military victory but also winning over the population. That is no small order. The original Iraq war started by the Bush Republican administration gummed up the situation by exposing the limitations of US power and breaking up the humpty dumpty Iraq which we are now trying to put back together. If ISIS could be replaced by a secular Sunni country in Wetern Iraq and possibly eastern Syria along tribal lines without the barbarism of ISIS, friendly to the USA, Israel, Kurdistan, and the West, that would not set well with the Shiite government in Bagdad but they have had more than a decade to get their act in order. It would not set well with Iran. It would set well with the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Perhaps just the threat of it might make the central Iraqi government more central rather than just Shiite. Every solution seems to create new problems. Which of the bad solutions is the least bad? Is a united Iraq necessary?

Us and Not Us

I would like to commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for taking a strong stand against the discrimination which Ethiopian Jews have experienced in Israel. I can't say I have always been his fan. He certainly can speak like a boor at times. But in this matter he has been right on.
When I was a young man I once asked my mother just out of curiosity, "would you rather I marry a girl who is Black and Jewish or one who is White and Gentile?" Her answer was "Black and Jewish because she would be one of us." It was not just a matter of religion. It was a matter of usness (identity). Although today most Jews live in North America where we are free of the worst excesses of anti-Semitism and in Israel where Jews are the majority, this feeling of Jewish identity was hammered into us by 2 millennia of being an outcast minority of us to a surrounding majority which did not accept us as part of their us.
I am sure that the time will come when all Jews in Israel will assimilate as one Jewish people. It is also important for the security of Israel that the feeling of usness will extend to all the citizens of Israel, Jewish or not.

The Question and the Answer

The results of the recent elections in Israel indicate that the Right knew the question but had the wrong answer while the Center and Left had the right answer but didn't know the question. What I mean is the Right knew that the major issue facing Israel is security. The internal issues pale in comparison. However they offered the wrong answer. Security is not served by alienating the very people you need to bring over to your side. On the other hand, the Center and Left are better prepared to do what needs to be done to make the compromises needed to maximize Israel's allies and therefore its security, but instead they tangled themselves up in a number of less important internal issues.

Netanyahu is the Jewish Arafat

Yasser Arafat screwed up when he was offered an opportunity for an independent Palestine by Ehud Barak, and he rejected it without even negotiating. He did it because he did not have the courage to go against his hardliners. In the last Israeli election, Netanyahu said he would not allow a Palestinian state under his watch and maligned the Israeli Arabs who make up 1/5 of his citizens to appease his hardliners and play on the fears of undecided Israeli Jewish voters. After the election, he said that he just meant that a non-militarized Palestinian state would be OK to appease the international community and sane American Jews who support Israel but not the new fanatics who have a brand of Zionism that differs from the democratic one that Theodore Herzl envisioned. Mr. Netanyahu's cowardice (and the sheep who follow him) put Israel at risk just as Arafat's cowardice destroyed Palestinian independence.
The fact is that the second Netanyahu (the one who allowed for a non-militarized Palestine) put forth an idea that is in sync with that of the USA under President Obama and probably with the international community if they could trust that Bibi is serious and not just blowing gas out of his mouth that should be coming from the other end. Although they would not openly admit it out of their own cowardice, I suspect that many in the Fatah leadership secretly think the same way. Palestine really needs economic development, and militarization would only be an unnecessary expense. But how can you expect courage from the Palestinian leadership when Israel elects leaders who are too chicken to oppose the settlers.