Britannia Radio

Why Netanyahu is Not Qualified to be Israel's Prime Minister*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In this report I am going to show that Benjamin Netanyahu is not qualified to be Israel's Prime Minister. That what I say applies to former Israeli prime ministers is irrelevant. Nor is it relevant that any of his likely successors would be less qualified. It’s sufficient to show that if Netanyahu is not fit to be Israel's Prime Minister, his tenure should be promptly terminated by the Knesset before he does further damage to the permanent interests of this country. Presumably, the Knesset will not do this because his political demise would probably result in new elections and risk the careers of many politicians. Still, the people need to be informed that Netanyahu endangers Israel's survival.

As a cabinet minister in the Sharon Government, Netanyahu voted for the expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza. This makes him complicit in an enormous crime, many of whose victims have yet to overcome their losses and trauma.

That crime transformed Gaza into Hamastan, a terrorist proxy of Iran. Armed with deadly weapons from Iran, Hamas is a strategic threat to Israel from the south. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, another Iranian and well-armed proxy, threatens Israel from the north. This perilous state of affairs, for which Netanyahu is to no small extent responsible, should have prompted Israelis to relegate him to the political wilderness in the February 2009 national elections. Instead, by voting for the Likud Party, they made him Israel's Prime Minister. Yes, Livni might be worse, but she doesn't disarm the people like Netanyahu, and would thus be more vulnerable to a political upheaval.

Four months after the election, Netanyahu endorsed a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This too is a crime according to the plain meaning of Israeli statutes which define the following acts as treason:

1. Acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);

2. Acts under section 99 which give “assistance to an enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

3. Acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

Even though an Arab state in Judea and Samaria entails the expulsion of 300,000 Jews from their country's heartland, Netanyahu remains in power to implement a policy that would precipitate the demise of the Jewish commonwealth!

Security guarantees will not eliminate this threat, as history makes clear. Netanyahu's insistence that Israel be recognized by the Arabs as the state of the Jewish people is both demeaning and strategically worthless. Netanyahu seems to be ignorant of the fact that such recognition would require Muslims to trash Muhammad and the genocidal maledictions of the Quran. Israel has an intellectually unqualified prime minister. Nor is this all.

Where did Netanyahu get the authority to endorse an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria? The decision was made without public or Knesset debate. A candid observer would conclude that this decision was made by an autocrat. But isn't Israel supposed to be a democracy? Another disqualification of Netanyahu.

Now turn to my favorite political analyst Caroline Glick. In her November 19th article in The Jerusalem Post, Glick describes Netanyahu's proposed extension of the housing construction freeze as a "discriminatory" and "breathtaking" "infringement on the property rights of law abiding citizens." This nefarious act is a blatant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. Mark this as a political crime of Netanyahu.

While Netanyahu was a member of Sharon's autocratic government, he gave a speech at the Herzliya Conference where he declared that “the Declaration of Independence" depicts Israel as both Jewish and democratic.” Let's examine this.

First of all, the word “democracy” doesn't appear in the Declaration. Second, to say the Declaration “depicts Israel as both Jewish and democratic” is a falsehood.

Not only does the Declaration proclaim Israel as a Jewish state, but it's being a Jewish state is Israel’s raison d’être. Therefore, it's both false and subversive to put “Jewish” and “democratic” on the same level. The only justification for Israel's re-establishment in 1948 is her Biblical heritage. It's simply a Big Lie to suggest that the Jewish heritage, whose core is the Sinai Covenant, is a charter for democracy. In fact, the Declaration tacitly rejects that Covenant.

The Declaration proclaims that the State “will ensure complete equality of … political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion …” But given the democratic principle of one adult/one vote, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state if its Arab inhabitants ever become a majority. Therefore, logically speaking, the democratic principle of one adult/one vote contradicts the Torah, the only solid foundation of the Jewish commonwealth. Netanyahu thus displays a lack of intellectual candor or integrity—another disqualification.

Let's return to Glick's article to which I will add a gloss of my own. She writes: "Netanyahu boasts that he received three major payoffs from Obama in exchange for his agreement to ban Jewish construction and discuss land surrenders with a negotiating partner that refuses to peacefully coexist with the Jewish state." (As I see it, however, merely to negotiate with such a "partner" is enough to disqualify Netanyahu as PM.)

Glick then turns to the three payoffs: "First, [Netanyahu] claims that Obama agreed not to renew his demand that Jews be denied their property rights. Second, he says the administration agreed to send Israel 20 more F-35s. Finally, he says Obama agreed to wait a year before signing any anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council." Glick counters as follows: "The first payoff is nothing more than the foreign policy equivalent of buying the same dead horse twice.

Obama led Netanyahu to believe he has set aside his demand that Jews be denied property rights last November, when Netanyahu announced the first construction freeze.

Yet Obama repeated his demands even before the last freeze ended. Obama has no credibility on this issue. Demonstrating this, Obama is now refusing to put this pledge in writing." [All of which suggests that Netanyahu is a wishful-thinking fool.]

Glick continues: "Israel needs the F-35 to defend against enemies like Iran. Yet the administration claims that its agreement to send Israel the F-35s is contingent on Israel signing a peace deal with the Palestinians. In other words, the Obama administration is now giving the PLO power to veto American military assistance by saying no to peace." [If Bibi can't see this, perhaps he needs a brain scan.]

"Finally [says Glick], there is the administration's pledge to support Israel at the UN for a year. What this pledge actually means is that a year from now, the Obama administration will present the deal as an excuse to abandon what has been the policy of every US administration since Lyndon Johnson [to block] anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council."

This, says Glick, is what Netanyahu fears most, because it would lead to a UN-endorsed Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria and in large parts of Jerusalem, with the Palestinians still refusing to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

But Netanyahu has already agreed to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, which would include East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount; and any Palestinian signed peace treaty following that betrayal of the Jewish people would not be worth the paper it's written on.

So, in desperation, Glick wants Israel—but that means Netanyahu—to go on the offensive. She wants Israel to support people abroad who want to discredit the UN. She wants Israel to pursue deeper economic and political ties with India, China, and Japan.

The present writer has long advocated these actions, but with the understanding that Israel would first need a very different kind of Government to implement them. Nothing hinders Israel's government more than its fear of jeopardizing its democratic reputation—which has taken the place of Zionism as the basis of Israel's legitimacy. But isn’t it obvious that Israel's democratic reputation—whether deserved or not—is now worthless? Isn't it even counter-productive since it induces Israeli governments to exercise suicidal self-restraint in dealing with Arab terrorists?

Ms. Glick's excellent article is entitled "Facing our fears." With all due respect, has she identified the most important fear, and what Israel must do to liberate itself from this fear? Recognizing the fear of Israel's ruling class, of losing its democratic reputation in America, Glick's readers will at last understand the intrinsic or primary reason, and not the merely the external or secondary reasons, why Benjamin Netanyahu is not qualified to be Israel's Prime Minister.

_____________________

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 22, 2010