When Netanyahu assumed office it was fairly evident to all that Israeli policy and attitude would strengthen. It was thought by many that this increased strength would be exerted both diplomatically and militarily, primarily against the Palestinians and Iran. Thus, for a number of reasons, the new government was feared by anti-Zionists.
This illustrates the two streams of anti-Zionism that are bound together only by similar rhetoric and by the sheer weakness of our position. Those who feared the new government did so because of the increased likelihood of war with Iran as well as because over sensitivities of the suffering of the Palestinians. Not wanting the situation to worsen, these anti-Zionists essentially preferred the status-quo to that which they had predicted for the future.
However, the other stream saw the stronger government as simply less restrained. Lacking the acumen that has made Jewry the disproportionately powerful force that it has proven to be, Netanyahu’s government provided an opportunity for the enemy to make the mistakes; and for anti-Zionists to respond, shifting the initiative from Israel and Jewry to the anti-Zionist movement. This stream accepts that the masses are more profoundly affected by an Intifada than a prolonged siege. After all, the 9 deaths of the Gaza flotilla raid were far more newsworthy in the eyes of the masses than the lengthy Gaza siege that it brought to light. Not only would a cessation of this violence be undesirable for propaganda purposes, but it would likely cause a major split in the anti-Zionist movement between the two streams mentioned. Is a cessation of violence issue, or is it merely a symptom of a much greater problem, transcending even Israel’s existence?
The difference between the two streams is fundamentally whether squeamishness over the physical sufferings of Israeli’s victims or ‘principle’ is the fundamental component of anti-Zionism. If you would consider it a solution for Israel to end the siege permanently, be more inclusive of the Palestinians and to cease targeting civilians, then you belong to the first stream of anti-Zionism.
Trying their best
However, America and Israel have demonstrated tremendous cooperation in managing this bad hand. Obama couldn’t risk his progressive reputation by openly supporting the repressive measures of Israel; which would certainly be preferred by the more brutish government in Israel. Additionally, Netanyahu couldn’t justify a revolutionary policy towards the Palestinians and the region when he was elected almost solely on a reactionary, security platform. However, it would be next to impossible for Israel to hold themselves back, which has been proven by their chaotic actions.
The plethora of Israeli positions on the Jewish settlements demonstrates that they are on the back-foot. They are seemingly adjusting their policies based on international pressure, while also pleasing Israeli opinion. The rift between Obama and Israel is again illustrated as he has been forced to publicly call for the cessation of further settlement construction.
The Gaza siege too has had to be relaxed as a result of the Gaza flotilla raid. The raid was incredibly embarrassing and proves with clarity the nature of Netanyahu and his government’s aggressive nature. The relaxation of the blockade is another humiliating rout of Netanyahu, if not Israel.
Where Israel has been most successful at preventing major loss of ground is with Iran’s nuclear programme. However, this hasn’t been due to any efforts of Netanyahu at all, but due to the take-over of the Iranian nuclear concerns by international institutions seemingly removed from Israel’s stained reputation. Additionally, Netanyahu’s constant likening of Iran to Nazi Germany proves that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel on Israel’s diplomatic offensive against Iran.
Finally, while negotiations; if begun, will not surprisingly progressive, Obama has also been forced to pressure Tel Aviv into negotiations with the Palestinians.
An important shift
In their retreat, Israel has lost the capability to dictate terms to its enemies. In the past, it has always been successful in remaining the aggressor while entering into negotiations as the victim, so that it seemed Hamas (or whichever entity) was the aggressor, as all Israeli aggression became responses to ‘Hamas rockets’ (a.k.a. IDF false flags). Israel is being routed.
Response
The rift being created between Israel and America is perhaps the most significant of these developments. It is my belief that this should be the focus of our propaganda. All anti-Zionists should cease grouping Obama in Israel’s camp, and instead urge that he and America cease supporting Israel. Netanyahu will not be able to restrain Israeli desires for a reversal of this recent trend through unprecedented diplomatic and military aggression. If Israel is separated from America, they will stand no chance diplomatically and will, hopefully, permanently ruin their reputation as a “democratic bulwark against Islamofascism”.
Entries (RSS)
I agree, that when Israel’s umbillical cord is cut from mother America, the embryo Jewish Israel will stand no chance, no other nation will adopt this sick, deformed golem only a mother could love and care for it.
We need to keep shedding light on the emerging division between Zionists and Non-Zionists in America and the world over, this division will become greater, increasingly polemic. We don’t necessarily need the greater numbers just a greater division, clearly defined opposing camps; the American Zionists becoming more haughty, boastful, rash, aggressive, yet embarressed and easily angered, careless. The Anti-Zionists becoming more composed, sure of themselves, settled in their position, aware of the disadvantages of armed conflict instead concentrating their efforts on superior planning, propaganda and unity, tying its enemy down, exhuasting it, extending it, and ready to take maximum advantage when the enemy stumbles under its own massive weight.