Why Likud is laughing...
Because the war on Gaza has turned out to be very "good" for Labour leader Ehud Barak's popularity, boosting his chances in the Feb. 10th election... But Barak has seemingly taken most of that support away from Kadima, which previously was the main challenger to Likud's lead in the opinion polls. So now, Likud's lead is even stronger. (Despite Barak's "war boost", Labour still lags far behind the two front-runners... )
I actually predicted this, verbally, a couple of weeks ago. Wish I'd blogged it at the time.
The war was all along a win-win prospect for the ever-hawkish Likud. It strengthened and stoked the hard-line racism and bellophilia that's so widely present in (much of) Israeli society. Which strengthens Likud and the parties even further to its right. Plus, basically, there's no way that either Labour or Kadima could out-Likud Likud. So Likud was bound to do well out of their horrendous attempt to do so with the recent war...
That is the situation that now so urgently needs turning around by determined and principled action on behalf of all the international community, to rein in these murderous impulses unleashed in Israeli society. The US government, which has been Israel's main enabler, backer, and international shield through all its wars of choice from 1982 through 2008/9, needs to start taking responsibility for its actions. The US policy on Arab-Israeli issues over the past 27 years has enabled and allowed all those Israeli "wars of choice." It has also enabled and allowed the pursuit by successive Israeli governments of a colonial settlement-planting project in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian lands that has caused huge amounts of harm to the land's rightful residents and has considerably complicated the search for a sustainable final peace agreement.
The time to secure that final peace is now. Not next year, but now.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you there, Helena.
I'd agree that the war in Gaza has not done much to further Kadima's interests in the election. The Israeli forces stopped in time for Obama's inauguration. No doubt in my mind deliberate, either by Israeli decision, or by Obaman insistance. The Israeli unsatisfaction is important.
Nevertheless, the situation for Gaza has been queered by Olmert's efforts. It has been shown that even a massive attack does not have much effect. A repeat by Netanyahu, if he wins the election, faces much worse prospects. Firstly, absolute international rejection, secondly the Israelis now understand that the Gazan population is not going to surrender. An arid prospect for a Netanyahu attack.
The fact that Israel declared a cease-fire before the Obama inauguration. There've been a lot of complaints in Israel that total victory was not achieved.
Was it a question of politeness on the part of Israel? Or was it that Obama and his associates secretly insisted?
To my mind, the stop on the offensive corresponds to Israeli military opinion, but not to what Olmert wants nor the desires of Israelis.
Declare a willingness to withdraw, as Olmert has now done, is not at all in an Israeli interest.
Is Obama intervening secretly? I suspect it.
Alex, I agree with the judgments in the last paragraph (of your earlier post there.) However, those are the judgments of a calm, rational outsider looking at the situation. They do not seem to be represent the way most Israelis feel today, buoyed as so many of them still are by their bellophilia/war-lust.
I guess the question is whether a degree of calm rationality can assert (or in some cases re-assert) itself in their minds before February 10... That's where I think calm, authoritative, and realistic statements and explanations from outside might be helpful.
Referring as you do here to the "bellophilia/bloodlust" of Israelis is simply hate speech.
it's repellent.
Vadim, you should note that I've been careful in my writing not to imply that ALL Israelis share this characteristic of bellophilia. That would be hate-speech. But by all accounts bellophilia certainly does seem to be very widespread amongst Jewish Israelis. I mourn the deep decay iunto into which the Israeli peace movement has fallen since, say, 1978 or 1982. And I do try hold up all those prophetic voices in Israeli society that warn against the country's completely undue (and actually counter-productive) reliance on the "language" of force.
I think you misunderstand what hate-speech is. Hate-speech is when people attribute negative characteristics to ALL members of any designated group. But if many members of a group do, in fact, share such a characteristic, should we just "not mention it"?
(Btw, the diagnosis of "bellophilia" is one that was first given by Jewish Israeli Meron Benvenisti to Israeli society back in 2003, when massive popular movements in all the rest of the world-- including the US-- were taking to the streets to urge against a US invasion of Iraq. All the rest of the world-- but not, as he noted, Israel. I think that was an acute diagnosis then, and it is equally relevant today.)
I believe that the key to a sustainable final peace agreement will be whether or not the new US administration decides to insist on one.
If so, I assume that no Israeli government will be able to resist, and that a Likud government would be least vulnerable to a ‘stab in the back’ from the ultra-right.
Kinda like how it took conservative Richard Nixon to break the ice with communist China.
Hate-speech is when people attribute negative characteristics to ALL members of any designated group.
Actually Helena, that's not what hate speech is. Hate speech is attributing essential negative personal characteristics to any broad population (and "bloodlust" is surely that.) "Most Mexicans are lazy" is also hate speech, even if you found some Mexican to affirm this ridiculous and hateful remark.
But as a point of fact "most Israelis love war" is more than simply a hateful remark. It's also slanderous: Israelis love war no more than any Arab, including the Arabs of HAMAS who claim forthrightly that dying for Allah is their greatest wish. NOBODY loves war, least of all people who have experienced it first-hand for decades as the Israelis have.
It's a stupid and tasteless thing to say in any context, but someone who sees him/herself in the role of peacemaker should really know better. Why should any Israeli take you seriously knowing that you believe them on the whole to "lust for blood" and "love war?" Get serious. It's an offensive slur and has no place in any serious discussion.
Hate-speech is when people attribute negative characteristics to ALL members of any designated group.
Actually Helena, that's not what hate speech is. Hate speech is attributing essential negative personal characteristics to any broad population (and "bloodlust" is surely that.) "Most Mexicans are lazy" is also hate speech, even if you found some Mexican to affirm this ridiculous and hateful remark.
But as a point of fact "most Israelis love war" is more than simply a hateful remark. It's also slanderous: Israelis love war no more than any Arab, including the Arabs of HAMAS who claim forthrightly that dying for Allah is their greatest wish. NOBODY loves war, least of all people who have experienced it first-hand for decades as the Israelis have.
It's a stupid and tasteless thing to say in any context, but someone who sees him/herself in the role of peacemaker should really know better. Why should any Israeli take you seriously knowing that you believe them on the whole to "lust for blood" and "love war?" Get serious. It's an offensive slur and has no place in any serious discussion.
Helena, permit me to quote you from an earlier post:
I think that in all cases, gross generalizations about the "hostile" nature of members of an "Other" group are crude, ill-considered, and often actually escalatory, even if (as noted above) sometimes understandable.
Quite obviously, "Desire for war is widespread in Israeli society" is a gross generalization about the hostile nature of an "other" group. Same w/ "Lust for blood among Israelis is widespread." By your own standards these gross generalizations of yours are crude and escalatory. And of course they're measurably false. Huge majorities of Israelis have expressed support for the peace process in countless polls and surveys.
Perhaps you think that you know the Israeli heart better than Israelis themselves? Or maybe that Israelis are so deceitful that they never admit their widespread bloodlust publicly (except when its conceded on their behalf by more scrupulous or perhaps self-aware countrymen... as if "self hating Arabs" were to be awarded points for similar remarks! Paging Fouad Ajami! )
In fact no sane person "lusts for blood" and prefers war to peace (I include in this category the leadership of HAMAS who claim that their highest goal is death in the service of Islam... I don't believe them and neither should you.)
Here's a tip Helena, so as to avoid future embarrassing incidents... "Many if not all Arabs are bloodlust consumed warmongers" will offend members of polite society, even if your Arab friends tell you its true.
in answer to your question "not mention it" is the correct thing, especially if you hope to preserve your dignity and the respect -- and attention!- of your audience. I notce that some of your Israeli commentators no longer feel so welcome around here. If I were subjected to nonstop accusations of bellophilia and bloodlust, I don't think I'd waste my time here either.