Is Bibi Netanyahu a 21st Century Churchill?

You don’t have to be a student of history to learn the lesson of The Darkest Hour,” the story of Winston Churchill’s struggle to save the British Empire when Hitler’s armies threatened to overrun their entire army on the French side of the English Channel. The movie provides insight into a critical moment in world history––when decisive leadership by Winston Churchill and heroic sacrifices by the English people saved three hundred thousand soldiers and in the process prevented Hitler from invading Great Britain––a tragedy that could have irreparably altered the outcome of the Second World War.

Reflecting on critical moments in history, it’s easy to imagine that what needs to be done is obvious, but that’s rarely the case. Churchill had to overcome personal doubts as well as fierce opposition mainly from members of his own party to stick with a plan he knew would cost lives. Lesser considerations often assume great proportion in the minds of those who cannot fathom the seriousness of a situation. That indeed may be the case today with regard to Israel where so many Jews both in Israel and in the diaspora fail to recognize or give sufficient weight to the precariousness of Israel’s existence.

While critics attack Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for one thing or another, it is remarkable that he is able to keep his eye on the ball––focusing on the Dunkirk level threat that Iran’s hegemony in the region represents for the state of Israel.

Britain and France were unprepared for the speed by which the German army plowed through Belgium and defeated the French, thereby endangering the entire British army. It is extremely rare for people to see existential threats before they materialize, which is why I argue the threat Iran poses to the state of Israel is not hypothetical or overblown, and why it must be Israel’s top priority.

The threat not only comes from Iran’s potential as a nuclear power––the result of the terrible deal President Obama negotiated, the threat to Israel’s survival exists on a second front in the form of Iran’s surrogate Hezbollah. The later organization, which now controls much of Lebanon, was allowed to finance the expansion of its military and political power in recent decades by money laundering and cocaine sales, practices that the Obama administration knew about and allowed to continue in order to assure Obama could deliver his signature billion dollar get out of jail nuclear card to Iran’s autocratic government.

While Netanyahu recognizes the Iran/Hezbollah threat, so many others in Israel and in the U.S. are focused on lesser matters, including the fact that Netanyahu has been forced to ally himself with the most conservative religious parties in Israel and as a result to concede to some of their demands.

One example of a lesser issue whose proponents seem willing to define as the most important matter facing Israel’s future is the issue of women praying at the Western Wall. Netanyahu backed down on an earlier agreement that would have resolved this issue in order to appease the ultra-orthodox members of his government. To put it bluntly those who are unhappy with the collapse of the prior agreement need to ask themselves how they would feel if their efforts resulted in a situation where no Jews—men or women—could pray at the Western Wall––a potential outcome if Israel is not led by someone who understands the Iranian/Hezbollah threat.

The same question must be asked of those who are attacking Netanyahu for minor personal indiscretions––an example of a common political disease––expecting one’s leaders to be godlike with no past indiscretions or mistakes. History shows us the danger of such thinking as those men and women who have the courage to act in moments of crises are always people who have learned from past mistakes. The perfect human would be unable to see the potential evil facing him having never been exposed to wrong-doing (or admitting such), which is why so few are capable of greatness. Most of us view ourselves as perfect, never suffering doubts or admitting to past failures. We cannot imagine evil’s winning and thus bring that very outcome into play.

Eventually Bibi Netanyahu will be replaced––as Churchill was after he successfully prevented Hitler from conquering his country. Will pressure from the diaspora over lesser issues and internal politics result in the election of a Neville Chamberlain like person or will the people once again ignore the media and their American cousins and vote for someone who can separate the existential wheat from petty concerns chaff? Time will tell.

Debate Lesson: Challenge the Assumptions

How an argument is framed often puts opponents on the defensive. When Barack Obama, for example, says the only alternative to his agreement with Iran is war, his goal is to back his opponents into a corner. Anyone who accepts war as the only alternative to his deal is stuck since no one wants war. A similar tactic is used by those who say you are a racist if you support Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. Let’s examine that argument more closely.

The racist argument assumes as fact the notion that Israel is “white” and that the Palestinians are a “people of color.” That concept is simply false. There are Jews in Israel who came from Africa, which should give Israel greater claim to being a “people of color” than the Arab Palestinians, but the underlying difference separating Israel and the Palestinians is religion, not race.

If those who say Israel’s existence is racist want to claim Arabs as a “people of color,” the proper response is to challenge the definition of that concept. Is it based on skin color? If so, that by itself is a racist notion. Isn’t the goal of civil rights movements to deny skin color as determining one’s destiny?

The other underlying assumption in the racist argument is the notion that it is Israel that is blocking the Palestinians from having their own state. Israel has as great if not a greater claim on the so-called occupied territories as the Palestinians. The Palestinians’ argument only makes sense if one is unwilling to go further back in time than 1967. That was the year Israel pushed Jordan out of Jerusalem, Samaria, and Judea (the so-called West Bank). Jordan had captured those territories in 1948 after the United Nations affirmed the right of the Jewish people to form their own state. Prior to 1948 those territories were part of the British Mandate which was set up after World War I to prevent chaos after the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled the entire region for more than 400 years, was defeated by the Allied Powers.

Of course, it all comes down to boundaries. Where would the Palestinians place their state? From the statements and writings of the PLO (Fatah) and Hamas, the answer to that question is they want the whole thing––not just the West Bank territories, but all of present day Israel as well. Does that sound like a two-state solution?

What therefore is the proper response when someone says you’re a racist if you support Israel? Attack the statement on both assumptions. First, explain that race has nothing to do with it. Remind them that Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages that came from the same region. Then explain that neither Fatah nor Hamas want a two-state solution. If anyone’s a racist, wouldn’t it be the Palestinian leaders?

Eventually someone will ask, “What is your alternative?” If the United Nations wants to create a Palestinian state, they should do so, but not where Israel presently exists, nor in Jerusalem, to which the Palestinian’s claim is fraudulent, nor in Samaria or Judea, where Israel’s claim is stronger based on the League of Nations Mandate. They ought to create it in Jordan, which was originally part of Palestine and where many of the Arab people who call themselves Palestinians resided before 1948. Also, if Egypt is willing, Gaza, which already is a fully Palestinian territory, could be enlarged to include part of the Sinai desert.

A corollary to that solution would be for Israel to offer to those Palestinians who want to remain in the West Bank or Jerusalem the same deal non-Jews who live in Israel proper receive––i.e., full citizenship in the state of Israel. It is likely that a large number of Palestinian Arabs would accept that solution since Israeli citizenship would raise their living condition above what they are today under the corrupt Palestinian Authority. Those wanting to move would be allowed to do so, going to Gaza or the new Palestinian state in Jordan.

But the key lesson I hope people take away from this essay is not to be pushed into a corner when discussing world events by allowing your opponent to frame the issue in a way that you have no choice but to accept their position. Challenge the assumptions hidden in the way the argument is presented. When Barack Obama or the boycott Israel advocates present an either/or proposition it often means the facts are against them and the only way they can win the argument is by preventing a fact-based discussion, which is why the choice they want to give their opponents is no choice at all.

Does Israel’s Response to the Iran Deal Show Ingratitude to the U.S.?

That is the thesis of Susan Milligan’s U.S. News July 17 column “Biting the Hand that Feeds You.” Given that Israel receives more than $3 billion a year in military aid from the U.S., Milligan argues Prime Minister Netanyahu should tone down his criticism. After all, the U.S. wouldn’t give Israel all that money year after year if it was unconcerned with Israel’s safety.

Let’s examine Milligan’s argument.

Israel shouldn’t criticize the Iran deal because we give Israel $3 billion a year in military aid. There are several problems with that argument, including the fact that the aid is not given to Israel to keep its mouth shut. The crucial problem with the argument is the assumption the Iran deal is not a 180-degree change in direction of U.S. Middle East policy. That’s why so many Americans are critical of the deal and why leaders of both the conservative and liberal parties in Israel oppose it.

What is the purpose of the U.S. military aid? Presumably the U.S. sees that aid accomplishing something worth every dollar. The key reason is that it enables Israel to protect itself from enemies who have been at war with it since 1948. But it accomplishes other things for us as well, not to mention the fact that ¾ of the aid money must be spent in the U.S.

What has Israel done for the U.S.? It has defended Western values in a region teetering on the edge of Islamic totalitarianism, but it aided the U.S. in other ways. In 1967, Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, a defeat that was directly responsible for Egypt’s turning away from the Soviet Union, which had sought to bring the Arab League into its sphere of influence.

Another way Israel repaid the U.S. was by taking out the nuclear reactors that Iraq and Syria were illegally attempting to build, and when Iraq fired Scud missiles into Tel Aviv, Israel sat on its hands at U.S. request.

Milligan’s final argument is that the only alternative to this deal is war. One “gets the impression [Netanyahu] would only be satisfied if the United States bombed Iran back to the Stone Age.”

Instead of relying on impressions, however, let’s consider Netanyahu’s actual answer to that question. He has never been opposed to a deal with Iran. His criticisms is based on the fact that the deal doesn’t do what the U.S. and its allies set as their goal when negotiations started, which was dismantle Iran’s nuclear energy program in return for lifting sanctions.

Milligan has bought the administration’s argument that it is this deal or no deal, but that is absurd. A better deal was available had Obama/Kerry shown some backbone.

Instead of criticizing Netanyahu for biting the hand that feeds Israel, the American people ought to be thankful that he is pointing out the deal’s flaws because if he’s right, this deal is very likely to come back to haunt the American people in lives lost down the road.

The Israeli Solution: A Review (Part Two)

The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline Glick (Crown Forum, 2014)

In Part One of my review of Caroline Glick’s The Israeli Solution, I describe her rationale for rejecting the two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that has been a leading policy objective of presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Glick argues that advocates of that “solution” incorrectly claim that giving the Palestinians their own state will reduce violence in the region. Events, including the escalating Sunni-Shi’a conflict, the rise of ISIS, the dissolution of Syria, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, should put that thesis to bed.

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. has increased pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. In his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo in June 2009, Obama described the lack of a Palestinian state as ‘intolerable,’ and equated the Palestinian’s aspirations for statehood with those of the Jewish people.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Palestinians as a distinct national group is a recent construct, the main reason the two-state solution won’t succeed Glick argues is that it has never been the goal of the PLO or its successors to live side by side a Jewish state.

Evidence that their demanding a state of their own has functioned mainly as a component of their strategy to attack Israel in the international arena is the fact that they have walked away from the table each time Israel has accepted terms that would have led to a Palestinian state. Their true objective from the beginning to today has been the destruction of the Jewish state as the so-called moderate Mahmoud Abbas made clear as recently as the 2013 anniversary of the founding of the PLO.

The One-State Alternative

Caroline Glick’s alternative solution is to incorporate Samaria, Judea, and Arab Jerusalem into the state of Israel. Israel’s legal claim to those territories stems from a 1922 resolution the League of Nations that defined the British Mandate as extending to the Jordan River. That boundary remains in force Glick argues based on United Nations Resolution 242 that stipulates all states have the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”

Recognizing that her solution will face fierce opposition, Glick examines each of the potential opponents and finds them wanting in terms of their ability to prevent Israel from formally declaring those regions part of the state of Israel. None of the Arab League nations are likely to go to war over the issue, Europe is already engaged in supporting the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in myriad ways, but Israel could tolerate more boycotts and other likely interference. The key to the one-state solution is the United States must support it.

Glick makes a case that Israel’s staking its claim to the disputed territories would be in the best strategic interest of the United States. For one, Israel represents a counter-balance to Iranian and Russian ambitions in the region. In addition, Israel represents the only country in the region whose society is also modeled on the rule of law and democratic rights. The connection is one of people-to-people, while the U.S. relationship to other countries is largely regime-to-regime.

The Price for U.S. Backing

The price the U.S. would pay for backing a one-state solution would be more noise than substance. If U.S. stopped giving Palestinian and Arab leaders hope that it would appease them on the Palestine issue, we could deal with them more honestly on the conflicts I cited above. In terms of aid, it would eliminate the millions of U.S. tax dollars being used to prop up the Palestinian Authority.

Questions have been raised as to whether Israel would want to add the approximately 1.6 million Arabs currently living in the disputed territories to its population. Glick answers these concerns to my satisfaction, including the claim that the Arab population would eventually outnumber the Jewish population and win the war by having more babies than the Jews. She disputes Arab census and birthrate data and while she doesn’t discount the likelihood that there would be considerable problems, she argues the alternatives––continuation of the status quo, or giving Israel’s enemies a free hand to attack at will––are worse.

There is a model for what would happen were Israel to shut down the Palestinian Authority and declare the disputed territories formally part of Israel. That model is the Golan Heights where many Druze who once vowed to resist Israeli rule today apply for Israeli citizenship.

Over time the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria would see improvements in their living standards and economic well-being. They would learn to appreciate, as Arab Israelis have come to appreciate, the benefits of living in a society based on equal treatment under the rule of law––as opposed to arbitrary treatment where laws are made up on the fly––and where one can accomplish legitimate goals without resorting to arms.

Those Arabs who would not want to live in Israel would be able to move to Gaza, which would not become part of Israel, or elsewhere. Then, freed from having to focus on creating a Palestinian state in Israel, the U.S. could pressure Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states to offer the Palestinians citizenship so they could move out of the refugee camps. The world also needs to free the Palestinian people from the autocratic rule of Hamas, the PLO, and other terrorist groups. Palestinian nationalism should not be ignored, but it needs to find a home of its own and not look to what belongs by history and by international law to Israel and the Jewish people.

The Israeli Solution, A Review, Part I: The Two-State Chimera*

Seminal, must read works exist in literature, philosophy, and political theory. For example, can one study the Cold War without having read George Kennan or discuss ethics without having read Rawls? In that vein, anyone who seeks to defend a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to have read Caroline Glick’s The Israeli Solution (2013).

Since Glick’s book is fairly recent, you are forgiven if you haven’t heard of it or haven’t got around to reading it. My hope is that this review will convince you to remedy that lapse.

The first part of this review covers Glick’s analysis of the two-state solution; her alternative is the subject of part two.

In part one of The Israeli Solution, Glick, who is a senior correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, examines the history and politics of two-state solution, focusing primarily on the U.S. since America with its military and financial resources is, for better or for worse, the central outside player in the conflict.

Why does Glick call a two-state solution an illusion, a false-hope, a chimera? From Jimmy Carter on, American presidents have viewed solving the conflict as the key to peace in the entire region––from North Africa to the Fertile Crescent. “[M]ost American policy makers,” Glick writes, “share the view that the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would remove the principle cause of the violent extremism that afflicts the Arab and the larger Islamic world.”

Glick disputes that thesis. Rather than consider the possibility that Arab leaders have concerns other than their hatred of Jews, American leaders have blindly sought to pressure Israel to swallow untenable peace terms thinking regional peace would ensue. Hopefully, that blinder has been removed from policy makers’ eyes by the rise of ISIS, the civil wars in Yemen and Syria, and the global spillover of the Shia-Sunni conflict, none of which stem from the lack of a Palestinian state.

A Ninety-Year Failure

The two-state solution was invented as a response to the unwillingness of Arab leaders to live along side Jews who had returned to their ancient homeland. It has been presented as the basis for peace plans nine different times over the past nine decades, each one a failure. Worse, unquestioned adherence to this “solution,” has “weakened the U.S. position in the Middle East.” Each time the U.S. has put its reputation and resources into a two-state plan the outcome has resulted in the region becoming “less stable, more violent, more radicalized, and more inimical to American values and interests.”

Why hasn’t the two-state solution worked?

The primary reason the two-state concept has failed is, as Glick states, that the “two-state formula is based on the proposition that the root cause of the Palestinian conflict is Israel’s unwillingness to surrender sufficient lands to the Palestinians, rather than the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their continued commitment to its destruction.”

Take, for example, Yasser Arafat’s walking away from extensive and foolhardy concessions forced upon Israeli leaders by Bill Clinton, including agreeing to shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. How did Arafat respond to Israel’s willingness to give him most of what he demanded? He launched a war of terror whose toll over two years exceeded seven hundred killed and four thousand wounded.

Clinton devoted the last months of his presidency to trying to get the two sides to reach a final settlement at the expense of greater problems. Yet he failed to understand that Arafat never intended to sign an agreement that left the state of Israel in existence and only engaged in negotiations to strengthen his position at home and weaken international support for Israel.

Arab Anti-Zionism and World Politics

In Part I of The Israeli Solution, Glick reviews the careers of two men who played key roles in developing the notion of a Palestinian people as well as leading attempts to prevent the formation of a Jewish state (Haj Amin el-Husseini) and once formed to prevent that state from surviving (Yasser Arafat). Husseini allied himself with Adolph Hitler and spent the war aiding the Nazi plan to annihilate the Jewish people. No less heinous in his aims, Arafat turned to political warfare to cover up the terrorist campaigns he launched against Israel and its population.

To further his aims, Arafat turned to the Soviet Union, joining in their effort to weaken the U.S. internationally by defining the U.S. as a supporter of racist colonialism exemplified by the Jewish state. To label Jews the oppressor, Arafat and the U.S.S.R. sought to deny the fact that today’s Jewish population descended from the Jews of the Bible and reframe the historical and archeological record to undermine Jews’ claim to be returning to their homeland.

American leaders unfortunately overlooked Arafat’s role in field training would-be terrorists, including Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, Germany’s Red Army faction, the IRA, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guard. Arafat’s techniques included airplane hijacking, bombings, ground assaults, assassinations, and even surface-to-air missile attacks against jetliners.

Ironically, throughout most of his career Arafat paid little attention to the Arab refugees of the 1948 war or to those living under Israeli control in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and Gaza. Only after local protests erupted in those regions in the 1980s did he see the possibility of using Palestinians in his war against Israel. Sadly, the U.S. helped finance that war and even trained Palestinian Authority soldiers some of whom used their new weapons to attack Israeli civilians.

The Moderate Palestinian Leader

No discussion of the two-state solution would be complete without focusing on Arafat’s successor, current Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Some have tried to paint Abbas as a moderate and a man with whom a peace settlement can be reached. Glick destroys that chimera as well, showing Abbas to be cut from Arafat’s mold as a man skilled in the use of diplomacy on behalf of his ultimate goal, which is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas has waged war through the international press, the U.N., and NGO’s––while refusing to negotiate directly with Israel’s representatives. As an example of how little interested he is in a two-state solution, Abbas spat in the face of logic by petitioning the U.N. to create a Palestinian state along the very boundaries his predecessors rejected in 1947.

Amazingly, the U.S. has continued to put their faith in and finance Mahmoud Abbas despite his forming a political alliance with Hamas and despite Hamas’ having thrown the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza and killed or jailed many of its operatives.

As an aside, it is important to understand what distinguishes Hamas from the PLO/Fatah. While Arafat and his mentor Husseini were Arab nationalists first and Muslims second, the founders of Hamas are Muslims first and foremost. To them, Israel stands in the way of the establishment of Allah’s kingdom on earth, and like all infidel nations, including the United States, it must be eradicated.

U.S. Interests and the Two-State Solution

Unfortunately, many Americans believe the U.S. support for Israel is largely a function of sympathy based on the destruction of European Jewry. As a result, they overlook the extent to which Israel advances and protects U.S. interests in the region. Further, they fail to consider the consequences were Israel to be forced to retreat to indefensible boundaries by ceding all or most of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

An Israel reduced to pre-1967 borders would be vulnerable to being destroyed by jihadist militants attacking from Gaza and the hills of Judea. That would result in the U.S. being drawn into the conflict at who knows how large a cost in dollars and lives. Further, Israel would no longer represent the one stable, self-sufficient non-expansionist democracy in the region.

By giving in to those who use terrorism to advance their aims, the U.S., were it to force Israel to give up Judea and Samaria, would be sending a message to jihadists across the globe that the U.S. will not stand up to terrorism and will not protect its allies when push comes to shove.

For all those reasons, the U.S. must abandon support for the two-state solution. But what policy should it support in its place? That’s the subject of part two of my review essay as I examine Caroline Glick’s alternative.

* Because I read The Israeli Solution in digital format I cannot cite page numbers to the print edition.

Should the U.S. recognize Palestine?

Matthew Duss of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and Michael Cohen a fellow at the Century Foundation argue peace in the Middle East would be advanced if the U.S. recognized Palestine (Washington Post, March 29). Placing the blame for the failure of the U.S. to bring about a two-state solution on Israel in general and Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular, Duss and Cohen go so far as to assert such an act would “strengthen the Jewish homeland’s security.”

The authors state that a two-state solution has been U.S. policy since 2002 when George W. Bush called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Failure to realize this policy has in their view undermined U.S. credibility and contributed to regional unrest.

While admitting the Palestinian Authority President Abbas “has at times been an obstinate partner in the peace process,” Duss and Cohen ignore the times that Abbas walked away from the table after Israel had agreed to a mediated formula, raising doubt as to whether the Palestinian Authority actually wants a negotiated settlement which includes the continued existence of the state of Israel.

The authors suggest the Palestinians need a leader different than Abbas has proven to be. In doing so, they undermine their claim that recognition will lead to peace by documenting the extent to which the Palestinians are far from being ready for nationhood. Not only do they lack a strong, credible, and legitimate leader, but they are divided to the point where Palestinian Authority officials dare not venture into Gaza given Hamas’ record of assassinating opponents.

The authors further expose the flaw in their own logic when they remind us that George Bush called for “an economically sustainable, demilitarized Palestinian state.” It’s one thing to call for a demilitarized Palestine. It’s another thing to articulate a path to such an end, something they don’t even attempt. Why not? I’d venture to say that if the U.S. informed Israel that we will recognize the Palestinian people’s right to their own country on the day an inspection certifies Hamas, Al Aqsa Brigades and the other terrorist groups have been disarmed, I am confident Prime Minister Netanyahu would applaud.

The problem is no one is stepping forward to disarm the terrorists, least of all the Palestinian Authority. It is well-known the reason the PA has failed to hold scheduled elections in 2009 and 2010 is because they knew Hamas would win and the price of losing would most likely be their lives and the lives of their families.

Ironically, the primary reason Duss and Cohen want the U.S. to recognize Palestine has nothing to do with Palestine. They favor it to “protect U.S. national security.” This is nothing more than a corollary of the Obama doctrine, the primary principle of which seems to be the dubious theory that U.S. security is protected when we withdraw from conflicts.

The authors also fudge on a key matter. Recognizing Palestine is not the same thing as recognizing a Palestinian state. The latter cannot exist without borders and since defining its borders is a central problem, recognition can only be theoretical.

While it would be a public relations victory for the PA and Hamas for the U.S. to recognize the existence of nation called Palestine, it would not lead to an end to the conflict, which can only come when the Palestinian people recognize they cannot achieve their goals by force and that the outcome of negotiations is that neither side get everything they want.

Netanyahu and Likud have placed security above all else for a reason. To do otherwise is to jeopardize Israel’s existence as past history has demonstrated. At the same time, Israelis desperately want peace.

Recognition of Palestine by the U.S. would harm Israel––the authors’ claims notwithstanding––and it would do nothing to end the hostilities. As Golda Meir often said, “Peace will come to the Middle East, when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.

The Fear and Loathing of the Jewish-American Left

The Jewish-American Left is apoplectic about Likud’s electoral victory, which they attribute to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s last minute appeal to his constituency by announcing no Palestinian state will be created during his watch and warning his voters that foreign money was financing left-wing NGO’s busing of Arab voters to the polls. The latter comment may have been injudicious, but it was not racist as is claimed.

Racism is the Left’s favorite (and last ditch) card to use against anyone who is beating them in a contest of any type. That’s because the term has become so overused that it no longer has any real meaning while it remains effective in labeling the target as someone it’s okay to dismiss.

The concept of race was invented around the turn of the nineteenth century by those who wanted to justify policies that treated certain groups differently than others. At one time or another it has been used against Europeans, including Poles and Italians, against religious groups, including Jews, against Native Americans, Asians, and against those of African descent.

It had no basis in fact then and it has none today. Racists are people who believe that a group of people––however defined––are members of a unique race and that individual members of that group possess certain qualities or attributes in common. For example, anyone who says all Jews love money are making a racist statement. Someone who says a certain Jewish individual loves money is not.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning to his constituents that NGOs were busing Arabs to the polls is not a racist statement because he doesn’t attribute any negative characteristics to Arab people other than he assumes most of them will vote against him. That’s simply a statement of fact. Were he talking about any other voting block, such as residents of kibbutzim or Jews living in a certain neighborhood, it would not have caught anyone’s attention.
But wasn’t Netanyahu appealing to the baser instincts of his constituents? Leftists love to believe those they disagree with are racists. They forget that the union movement in America for decades refused to admit African-American workers and the Democratic Party established Jim Crow in the American South, refusing to give it up until well into the 1960s. The racist canard only works on Netanyahu if one believes Lukid’s voters are racist bigots. In this case who are the real bigots?

I believe Netanyahu had to have drawn certain logical conclusions to make the statements about the two-state solution and Arab voters.

He has concluded that the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the so-called occupied territories have no desire for a two-state solution as evidenced by their actions and their words. He has seen that whenever Israel has given in to their demands it has made matters worse. Vide: Gaza. Hence, unless those leaders change their behavior and their views or are replaced by leaders who do not call for Israel’s destruction, no sane Israeli would give them the means to attack Israel more effectively than they have done in the past.

Netanyahu also knows that the three Arab political parties that made up the Arab list are proponents of policies that would harm Israel and make it more vulnerable than it is today. Hence, his hope that his supporters make their voices heard. Thank goodness, his wishes were fulfilled.

The question is to what extent will the Jewish-American Left abandon Israel and those Israelis who returned Netanyahu to prime minister? If they believe he won using illegitimate tactics, they may support the Obama administration’s desire to shove a two-state solution down Israel’s throat. That such would even be conceivable tells us to what extent leftist (i.e., anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, anti-imperalist) ideology has replaced Judaism as the religion these people follow.