[Salon] Israel, Defiant, Appears to Have Gone Rogue, Risking a Regional War - The New York Times



Knowing this is largely a pro-Israeli right-wing “Conservative” email list with how much Trumpist/Vanceism is represented here, calling themselves the “New Right” and "National Conservatism,” as promoted by their think-tank and media platform so frequently, it should be good news to them that Netanyahu is not dissuaded by Biden seeming to stand in his way for escalating the Mideast wars and has “gone rogue,” as in the NYT article at bottom. And Trump/Vance are not even “discreet” in fully identifying with the Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir/Smotrich ruling Fascist Coalition of Israel, and doing their part as a full-partner to them in pursuit of their/our “interests” in the way that so-called “Realists and Restrainers” incite and justify their “Right-wing Peacenik” wars they so zealously, but deceptively, promote: https://www.newsweek.com/all-talk-isolationism-vance-beats-drums-war-opinion-1927036. And as Mike Johnson’s did for Netanyahu by invited him to bring his “mass consciousness activity” to Congress to “sell” the American people on war against Iran! With the full collusion of the Republican Party!
BLUF: "It took about five minutes for Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance to begin beating the drums of war. In a Monday interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Vance declared, "A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs. If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.

"For all the talk of "isolationism," it appears that Vance is looking for yet another U.S. war in the Middle East. Apparently, 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't enough.

Meaning, you cannot disaggregate Netanyahu’s American partners/co-belligerents, most prominently Trump, Vance, Ramaswamy, Peter Thiel, et al., that is, the “New Right” and "National Conservatives,” (to include their major funder Charles Koch) from Netanyahu and his Israeli Fascist Coalition of Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, and their fascist policies. If Israel was our “enemy," the New Right and National Conservatives would correctly be seen as “5th-Columnists,” as some German Americans actually were pre-WW II, like the German Bund, described here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-pbs-documentary-nazi-town-usa-looks-at-1930s-heyday-of-hitlers-us-admirers/.    BLUF: Quote: "The Bund was just one of hundreds of right-wing and fascist-friendly groups in the United States in the 1930s, but by focusing on one group, Yost was able to explore how and why fascism was so appealing to Americans at that time. “Often the best films, in my opinion, are ones that use a narrow story to tell a much bigger story,” he said. “While the Bund matters and is interesting, it really is a means to get at these bigger questions and explore these bigger ideas.”                                          And as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC1MNGFHR58.                                                                                                                                                           “Fascist-friendly” groups did not disappear in the U.S. after WW II. But as in the case of William F. Buckley, James Burnham, Brent Bozell, and especially Willmoore Kendall, the “fulcrum they all revolved around,” they simply adopted the nom de guerre “Conservative” (they’re now called “Traditional Conservatives"), distinguished from the other conservative strains as “thought-control Conservatives” by Peter Viereck. With that strain now having pride of place in Trumpism, which logically it should with Kendall’s “political theory” not only the precursor to Trumpism, but also Hazony’s National Conservatism. Differing only in that for Hazony, Jews are the so-called “Virtuous People,” as American racists, segregationists, extreme war-hawks, and right-wing dictators were for Kendall, and his acolytes, and Jesse Helms' partner, Traditional Conservative John P. East! Who has also been exulted here as a “Traditional Conservative,” giving the real definition to that term!
  

Attachment: Symbolic Franco_ Spain?s Dictator in the American Conservative Im.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Quote: "Eighteen years in, Franco’s had become a near-model regime for Buckley. “He is not an oppressive dictator,” the 1957 letter continued. “He is only as oppressive as it is necessary to be to maintain total power, and that, it happens, is not very oppressive, for the people, by and large, are content.” After Franco’s death, in 1975, Buckley would double down on this argument in an aside from an article on Pinochet, writing that Franco “believed in just as much repression as was necessary.” For Buckley, the grotesque slaughter that gave birth to the regime and continued well into its first decade—along with the mass imprisonment and executions that were its hallmarks throughout—were an acceptable, even necessary, feature of Franco’s political project. Politics was conditional on how much one could get away with. If the argument seemed sordid, Buckley took care to infuse it with world-historical, even metaphysical, resonance. “He saved the day,” Buckley wrote of Franco, “but he did not, like Cincinnatus, thereupon return to his plow.”  Cincinnatus is the paragon of the benevolent dictator, who rules briefly and virtuously in order to accomplish a specific task, such as winning a war. In Franco, Buckley had found his contemporary analog.                                                                                                                                            "Buckley was hardly the first U.S. conservative to hold Francoist sympathies. But he stuck by the aging dictator long after many of his peers had withdrawn their support—or at least hushed it up. By the mid-1950s, it was no longer in good taste in America to openly support fascism. Memories of Franco’s ties to Hitler still circulated, and Buckley wasn’t tone deaf. He knew that outright support for Franco would alienate him and the National Review. So he tempered his praise of Nacionalcatolicismo—“National Catholicism,” a common shorthand for Francoism—with criticisms of the regime’s centralized economy. Spain’s inability to spur economic productivity, Buckley complained, was rooted in the regime’s lack of capitalism.”                                                                                                                                     Kendall outdid Buckley in his love of fascist dictators, as can be seen in the attached Kendall article below even though Buckley got their first with his family’s detour to Italy on their return trip from Britain pre-WW II. One should not assume their love of fascist dictators was for their anti-communism, but should be recognized, as part of a mosaic with their other writings, that it was actually due to the kind of regime they aspired to implant in the U.S. That their Movement has now practically achieved, with Trump v. U.S. the “icing on the cake,” with a SC decision built upon George Carey’s imaginary “Federalist Papers Constitution,” with all of the Goebbels/Kendall/Hazony project to “Erase 1789” nearly complete now. 

Attachment: 7. The Zenith of Collaboration.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: American Conservatism and Right-wing Dictatorship.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

                                                                                                                                                             https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/02/world/europe/israel-defiant-gaza-war.html                                                                                                                Netanyahu, Defiant, Appears to Have Gone Rogue, Risking a Regional War.           Ignoring the efforts of President Biden and the condemnation of many allies, the Israeli prime minister is forcing the pace of the war and feeding the revolt of the far right.
Benjamin Netanyahu speaking at a lectern.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel delivering a speech to Congress in Washington last month.Kenny Holston/The New York Times

PNG image

By Steven Erlanger

Steven Erlanger, a former bureau chief in Israel, has spent many weeks there and in the West Bank since Oct. 7.

As the Biden administration and its allies try to secure an elusive cease-fire in Gaza, Israel appears to have gone rogue.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, came to Washington last week to give a defiant speech. Despite international condemnation, he vowed to continue the war against Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, where Israel is killing and imprisoning scores of Palestinians each week, without any clear idea of its endgame.

The assassinations of senior Hezbollah and Hamas figures abroad have now sharply raised the risks of a larger regional war as Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah prepare retaliation, analysts say.

But the deaths of Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander, and Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, will not change the strategic quandary Israel faces over how to end the war, govern Gaza or care for the civilians there. They are more likely to intensify the conflict than diminish it, making progress on a Gaza cease-fire even more difficult.

Israel says it does not want to occupy Gaza, but has no other solution to provide order; Hamas refuses to surrender, despite the thousands of dead. While Washington sees a cease-fire followed by a regional deal as an answer, Mr. Netanyahu is contemptuous of the idea. He believes only force will compel Hamas to concede and restore Israel’s strategic deterrence toward Iran and its proxies, especially Hezbollah.

Absent a clear goal in the war, however, Mr. Netanyahu’s defiance is dividing Israel from its allies and the country itself. It has further shaken trust in his leadership. It is fueling suspicions that he is keeping the country at war to keep himself in power. It is intensifying a deep rift inside the society — about the fate of Israeli hostages, the conduct of the war and the rule of law — that is challenging the institutional bonds that hold Israel together.

“Israel’s international image continues to take hits since October — despite nine months of war, its military objectives are unmet, and its reputation socially and domestically is also damaged,” said Sanam Vakil, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House.

To form a government and stay in power, Mr. Netanyahu has empowered deeply religious, pro-settlement far-right politicians who oppose a Palestinian state of any kind. He has given powerful roles to Itamar Ben-Gvir, a convicted criminal, who now heads the police and is influential in how the West Bank is run, and to Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister.

Both men have moved to weaken the Palestinian Authority, support expanding settlements in the West Bank and oppose any deal with Hamas — while putting their own followers into key positions in the Israeli bureaucracy.

They represent a populist revolt against the country’s traditional democratic ethos and institutions, including the army and the judiciary. Much like former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu, despite his long period in power, rides that anti-elitist wave, arguing that he is the only politician who can stand up to the United States and the United Nations and prevent a sovereign Palestine dominated by Hamas.

“We’re in a very dangerous process that can cast a shadow over the basic DNA of this country,” said Nahum Barnea, one of Israel’s most prominent journalists and commentators. “Cultural confrontation is fine, but not so fine with politicians who are messianic or radical populists and not only become part of the government but hold crucial posts there.”

The far-right politicians have an agenda, he said: “They want a real revolution in our regime and in our values.”

The most visible recent example came this week, when protesters massed outside two military bases to support soldiers who had been arrested on suspicion of torturing and sodomizing a Palestinian prisoner at Sde Teiman, a military jail.

Hundreds of protesters, including at least three far-right legislators from the ruling coalition and soldiers in uniform, gathered outside that jail and a second base where the men had been brought for interrogation. Dozens of protesters surged into both bases, brushing aside guards, while Mr. Ben-Gvir’s police forces arrived late and in small numbers.

Hours later, Mr. Netanyahu criticized the protests, but also seemed to justify them, comparing them to the months of anti-government demonstrations against his effort to diminish the power of the judiciary and the Supreme Court in favor of Parliament.

“State institutions are being challenged even by people in uniform,” said Natan Sachs, the Israeli American director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, a centrist research institution. “It’s a symptom of something very worrying, a challenge not just to the institutions but to the connective tissue of a society that has always been closely knit despite its fissures.”

“People are very much on edge,” said Shalom Lipner, a former prime ministerial aide from 1990 to 2016 and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, also a centrist research institution. “And not just about how others look at Israel, but Israelis themselves are frightened about what this means for the country itself. If this is how we behave, how is this project sustainable?”

To be sure, while a sizable majority of Israelis want Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right coalition gone, a sizable majority also wants Hamas defeated and dismantled as the power in Gaza, to ensure that what happened on Oct. 7 can never happen again. There is widespread agreement that Israel must remain strong and has the right to attack its stated enemies.

But there is inevitable disagreement about the best way to attain a more lasting peace, with many fearing that an independent Palestinian state of the kind the Israeli elite had hoped to negotiate would be dominated by more extreme factions, like Hamas.

The revolt against the elites has been building for years. It was most visible in the proposed new law that would have diminished the power of the judiciary system and the Supreme Court in favor of Parliament, which prompted nine months of street protests and highlighted the divisions in the country.

The Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 pulled the country together, even as they absorbed the shock of a huge failure of the intelligence services and the military, largely sacred institutions. But the long war has also pulled the country apart, with the far right trying to weaken key institutions and infiltrate them. Discipline in the army has also suffered.

And even as the army leadership tries to maintain its standards, Mr. Ben-Gvir and Mr. Smotrich label those who want to punish the abusers of Palestinian prisoners as traitors.

Although representing a minority, the two men have become the face of Israel to the world nearly as much as Mr. Netanyahu, his own image tainted by his political dependency on them and his toleration of their actions and excesses.

There has always been a tension between the rule of law and Israel’s security and counterterrorism operations, said Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli pollster and analyst.

“Israelis have become habituated to the idea that law is selective,” she said. “There are too many who are above the law, like the settlers, who are beyond the law, like the ultra-Orthodox and the security forces, and who are pushed out of the law, like the Palestinians and many Arab citizens of Israel, who in the past were often under martial law.”

The protests at the military bases were the “closest I’ve ever experienced to state breakdown,” Ms. Scheindlin said, calling the internal divisions on display a victory for Hamas and Hezbollah.

There are many Israelis “who have no belief in diplomacy but think of Israeli security only in terms of pre-emption, intimidation and deterrence, and who think that they must always have the back of the military in the face of an implacable cruel enemy you’re always confronting,” said Bernard Avishai, an Israeli American analyst. “So anything you do to the enemy is justified.”

There were violent protests by settlers and the right against the army in 2005 over the forced withdrawal of Israelis from settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. But many Israelis point to a later controversial episode as the real turning point for the country.

In 2016, an Israeli soldier, Elor Azaria, killed an incapacitated Palestinian who had attacked an Israeli with a knife. Despite angry protests, he was convicted of manslaughter but served only half of his 18-month sentence. He was considered a hero by people on the right, while those on the left argued he deserved a harsher sentence.

Mr. Azaria has since supported soldiers accused of beating Palestinian prisoners and has been the target of sanctions imposed by the United States.

“After Azaria, the lines were drawn,” said Mr. Avishai. Settlers and those who favor force over diplomacy were mobilized against “the statists,” like the military chiefs and the current minister of defense, Yoav Gallant, “who feel that national morale is a function of the rule of law and that the army must observe international law,” he said.

The statist view is “disappearing under Netanyahu, and the cultural war is fundamental now,” he said. “A continuing war of attrition and pre-emption in Gaza and elsewhere is good for them politically.”

In the protests on Monday, he said, “for the first time you have violence between these two rival conceptions of Israel’s future.”

Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France, Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union. More about Steven Erlanger

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 3, 2024, Section A, Page 11 of the New York edition with the headline: Defiant Netanyahu Appears to Be Risking Regional War. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.