By MARTIN SHERMAN
Benjamin Netanyahu – A synopsis: The good the bad…and the remarkable
When you compare his [Netanyahu’s] lack of actual achievements compared to Ben-Gurion, whose record he’s eclipsed, it’s embarrassing
– Jeff Barak, An empty record, Jerusalem Post, November 20, 2016
Last Tuesday Benjamin Netanyahu chalked up an unbroken stint of 2793 days (seven years and 236 days) as prime minister of Israel, thereby surpassing David Ben-Gurion’s record for the longest consecutive term in office.
Small-minded and spiteful
By any criterion, this would be a remarkable feat for anyone—under any circumstances. But for Netanyahu, it is even more remarkable—given the truly formidable obstacles and almost pathological animosity he had to overcome to achieve it.
This could—indeed, perhaps should—have been an auspicious occasion, in which his political rivals, his ideological adversaries and his detractors in the media might have—ever so briefly—put away their animosity and expressed some congratulatory sentiment—however reluctant and insincere—even if only as a formal appearance of feigned courtesy.
However, in the merciless and mean-spirited milieu of Israeli politics, any hint of such largesse was not forthcoming.
Quite the opposite!
Flummoxed and infuriated by their inability to dislodge him from power, his political opponents and their media cronies seized on any pretext, however flimsy and far-fetched, to besmirch and berate him.
A typical illustration of the mindless drivel and spiteful sniping that passes for journalism when it comes to excoriating Netanyahu, was provided this week by former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, Jeff Barak, in his column, perversely dubbed “Reality Check”. Indeed, after only a few lines, it became apparent just how wildly inappropriate the column’s tagline is and just how tenuous the connection between what appears in it and reality, really is.
Barbs backfire badly
In this week’s alleged “Reality Check”, Barak (Jeff, the former editor) compares Netanyahu’s incumbency unfavorably with that of another Barak (Ehud, the former PM), arguably the worst prime minster ever to take office in Israel, and—inarguably—the shortest serving prime minister ever to hold that office in Israel.
Barak, J. attempts to trivialize Netanyahu’s years of incumbency with evident imbecility, and barbs that backfire badly. He asserts: “Heavens, he’s even achieved less in his years in office than Ehud Barak during his ridiculously short term. Barak, at least, made good on his campaign promise to bring the IDF out of Lebanon.”
True, Barak, E. did get the “IDF out of Lebanon”…by ordering a hasty, unbecoming retreat (a.k.a an ignominious flight) in 2000, abandoning that territory to the Hezbollah, and Israel’s allies in the South Lebanese Army to their fate. Today, the territory Barak, E. ordered abandoned has become a veritable arsenal, bristling with rockets and missiles, in numbers estimated at up to 150,000, trained on Israel’s major urban centers. Of course the deployment of the IDF in South Lebanon did involve a tactical threat for the military, whose function, it should be remembered, is to protect the nation’s civilians. However, by hurriedly evacuating South Lebanon, to eliminate that tactical threat to the military, Barak, E., perversely created a strategic threat to the country’s civilian population.
Amnesia or ignorance?
Indeed, one can only wonder whether it was amnesia or ignorance on the part of Barak, J. to invoke the debacle of the evacuation of South Lebanon as an accomplishment that somehow can be exploited to reflect badly on Netanyahu. After all, it not only precipitated the 2005 Second Lebanon War, in which millions of Israelis were forced to huddle in shelters for weeks, but also according to several pundits, it provided the impetus for the bloody 2000-2005 Second Intifada, in which thousands of Israelis lost life or limb.
Indeed, the unilateral retreat ordered by Barak was widely perceived by Arabs as an Israeli defeat “sending a message…which was to have a profound effect on Palestinian tactics during the AL AQSA INTIFADA” (Encyclopedia of the Palestinians 2000, p. 40). Similar sentiments were expressed in Beirut two years later, by Farouk Kaddoumi, often dubbed the PLO foreign minister. Kadoumi declared that Hezbollah’s successful guerrilla war in Southern Lebanon was a model for other Arabs seeking to end Israeli “occupation”: “We are optimistic. Hezbollah’s resistance can be used as an example for other Arabs seeking to regain their rights…”
This, then, is the “achievement” that Barak, J., attempts to invoke in his venomous endeavor to demean Netanyahu, and compare him negatively with others. But, of course, holding up dismal failure as strategic success is fine, so long as it is employed (read “exploited”) in the “gainful” pursuit of belittling Bibi..
Not uncritical pro-Bibi apologetics
As readers who follow my column will know, I have never been an uncritical apologist for Netanyahu. On the contrary, I have criticized a number of his policy decisions, regularly and severely. Thus, for example, I strongly condemned his 2009 Bar Ilan speech in which he accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood—and pointed out that he had, in a stroke, transformed the strategic structure of the discourse from whether there should be a Palestinian state to what the characteristics of such a state should be– see here and here. Likewise, I was severely critical of the decision to release over 1000 convicted terrorists (2011) to secure the release of Gilad Shalit—and was even more opposed to a subsequent (2013) release of prisoners as a futile gesture to assuage Secretary of State, John Kerry, in the vain hope of coaxing Mahmoud Abbas into renewing negotiations—see here and here.
More recently, I vehemently disapproved of the policy of rapprochement with Turkey—particularly the compensation paid for the casualties incurred when Israeli commandoes had to defend themselves against attempts to lynch them on the Turkish vessel, Mavi Marmara, trying to breach the maritime quarantine of the terror enclave in the Gaza Strip. But above all, I warned that the presence granted the Erdogan regime in Hamas-controlled Gaza, considerably increased the chances of armed conflict between Israel and Turkey in the event of future IDF operations there.
However, my most serious and ongoing criticism of Netanyahu is his enduring failure to adequately address the problem of international de-legitimization of Israel and of the Zionist endeavor, by refusing to allot adequate resources to initiate and sustain a strategic diplomatic offensive to confront, curtail and counter the animosity of the Obama regime and the global assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish state—see most recently here.
Decades of distinction
As I have written elsewhere, these – and other – episodes indicate that a cogent case for concern can be made regarding the soundness of Netanyahu’s decision-making processes and the steadfastness of his resolve.
However, whatever his faults, there is little to justify the wholesale campaign of denigration, demonization and de-legitimization, waged not only against him (both as a person and a politician) but his spouse as well, ever since he first took over the leadership of the Likud in the early 1990s.
After all, Netanyahu has served his country with distinction and dedication for decades.
Prior to entering the political arena he served as a soldier and a diplomat; as an officer in an elite commando unit, participating in numerous daring combat operations; and later as a highly articulate and effective ambassador at the UN.
His impressive performance at the UN paved his way into politics in 1988. In 1992 he was elected to lead the Likud and head the opposition to Yitzhak Rabin’s government and the Oslo process it had instigated. His efforts were largely successful, and by the fateful night of November 4, 1995, on which Rabin was assassinated, Netanyahu was pulling steadily ahead of him in the opinion polls.
In his detailed study of the events leading up to the 1996 election, Prof. Gerald Steinberg reminds us of frequently forgotten – or perhaps, purposely obscured – facts: “In January 1995… polls showed Rabin trailing Netanyahu by a narrow margin. Continued terrorism… reinforced this trend. However, in the aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin…Netanyahu’s standing plunged. In February [1996], when Peres decided to hold early elections, the Prime Minister [Peres] maintained a substantial lead over Netanyahu.”
Mean-spirited, mendacious malice
Yet, despite all the odds, Netanyahu managed to edge Peres out in the final ballot by a fraction of one percent. It was, perhaps, this totally unexpected – and for some, inexplicable, even inconceivable– victory that unleashed the torrent of enduring enmity toward him from much of the “Rabinesque” civil society elite.
Thus, despite his documented public disapproval of incendiary accusations against Rabin and his government—see for example here and here—Netanyahu was condemned for igniting the hostile ambience that allegedly culminated in the assassination. This precipitated the mood of mean-spirited and largely mendacious malice hurled at him from all quarters.
Open-season was declared on Netanyahu. His success, against all odds, had for all intents and purposes made him fair game to blame for every conceivable malaise, real or imagined, afflicting Israel, the Middle East and humanity as a whole.
Consequently, Netanyahu has been given little credit for the numerous impressive feats he, and the governments he headed, have achieved. Indeed, few seem even to remember that, on entering office after his stunning victory, the relatively inexperienced prime minister inherited a myriad of daunting problems, both economic and security, handed down to him by the previous Rabin/Peres government.
Accordingly a brief reminder seems appropriate.
Forgotten feats
The Oslo process, initiated by his predecessors, had precipitated then-unprecedented levels of terror attacks against Israel. Netanyahu’s government managed to suppress the level of violence to the lowest for almost two decades. If the figures are “lagged” to account for the fact that an incumbent’s policy takes time to have an effect, and at the start of his term, events are affected by that of his predecessor, Netanyahu’s performance figures improve, while those of others deteriorate.
Indeed, it was under his successors, Barak and Sharon, that terror once again soared, resulting in Operation Defensive Shield, and construction of the much-maligned security barrier.
On the economic front, the much-vaunted growth commonly – but fallaciously – ascribed to the Oslowian peace process, had ground almost to a halt, in no small measure due to the deteriorating security situation.
Indeed, much of the post-Oslo growth was fueled largely by a gigantic budget deficit that almost brought Israel to the brink of financial catastrophe, as befell several Asian countries at the time. It was only the fiscal prudence of the Netanyahu government which steered the nation clear of the looming economic disaster that the cavalier fiscal promiscuity of Avraham Shochat, finance minister during the Rabin/Peres term, almost brought upon it.
Many, myself included (“Netanyahu’s Pitfalls”, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 24, 2003), were critical of the perceived “social insensitivity” of the economic policies Netanyahu undertook as finance minister under Ariel Sharon. However, it can hardly be disputed that they were in large measure responsible for the subsequent resilience of the Israeli economy and its ability to weather the global crisis better than most other industrial countries. Moreover, while Netanyahu can hardly be portrayed as a champion of egalitarian “social justice,” it was on his watch that unemployment rates, perhaps the most pernicious of social ills, were kept at among the lowest in the developed world.
Bibi vs BG
As Netanyahu neared Ben Gurion’s record incumbency, comparisons between the two were inevitable. Unsurprisingly, an almost universally unsympathetic press judged Netanyahu unfavorably relative to Israel’s iconic founding father.
But any such comparisons are inherently unfair. For, while both men faced daunting challenges and enormous difficulties, Netanyahu has had to contend with one problem that Ben Gurion was not called upon to face.
For the venomous ad hominem attacks on Netanyahu, and his family, by both his political opponents and most of the mainstream media (both domestic and foreign) have long exceeded the limits of rational criticism or reasoned dissent, and have become a poisonous pathology. The fact that he has found the spiritual resources to survive and endure this, is, in its own right, a testimony to his remarkable strength.
Netanyahu is a man of tremendous talent and serious shortcomings. He should be judged on a judicious assessment of the balance between the two – not on some distorted, demonized image created by his obsessive opponents. Until this can be factored into the equation, no really meaningful comparison can be drawn between these two towering figures, who dominated the politics of Israel for decades.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
Sebastien Zorn Said:
There is what. some of these can be hard to translate into English . Like so what , that’s that, etc in English
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Trojan Razor Back.
yamit82 Said:
Huckabee is pro Israel but is also pro missionary Beware of Trojan Horses
Trojan Rabbit
https://youtu.be/tS_JBDRk8o0
I notice part of the theme is from my all-time favorite War movie: “Where Eagles Dare”
Where Eagles Dare – Main Theme
https://youtu.be/8XKGhG0W0LQ
https://youtu.be/khIZwbXDF0o
@ yamit82:
I have a joke about that.
One of the most humiliating moments of my life was when I went to France after 4 years of High School French and a conversational class at the Alliance Francaise and people saw me struggling to communicate and took pity on me and spoke to me in English.
Now, I’ve lived in Upper Manhattan all my life and for most of that time, most people spoke Spanish as their first language, their second language, or their only language (now it’s becoming gradually Chinese and Korean).
Now, I know that people appreciate it when you can say a few words in their language, even if it’s only “Thank You,” “Your Welcome,” “Hello,” “Goodbye.” And, I know that Ciao (pronounced, “Chow”) is “goodbye” in Italian and “Comidas” is a meal in Spanish, and “Chow” is a meal in American slang. So, when I leave a room, I like to waive gaily and call out, “Comidas.”
I think they appreciate that.
@ honeybee:
translation please?
“What does “hay que” mean?
“2
Vote
mama_b95
I want to know what “Hay que” means, i’m getting different answers such as must, we have to, and where at. Can you help me please?
Posted Sep 21, 2010 | Edited by Nicole-B Sep 21, 2010 | 57544 views | link | history | flag
How about “one has to” ? or “there has to be” something like that. – ian-hill Sep 21, 2010 flag
Please fill out your profile so that we may better help you .Bienvenido al fora , buena suerte amigo. – ray76 Sep 8, 2014 flag
Add Comment”
@ yamit82:
I had to google “FIFY” but I still have no idea what it means.
“FIFY means “Fixed It For You” So now you know – FIFY means “Fixed It For You” – don’t thank us. YW! What does FIFY mean? FIFY is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above where the FIFY definition is given.
What does FIFY mean? – FIFY Definition – Meaning of FIFY …
http://www.internetslang.com/FIFY-meaning-definition.asp“
@ yamit82:
I doubt that’s true but as long as he stands by our side and doesn’t become an anti-semite when we don’t convert like Muhammad, Martin Luther and so many others —
who cares?
Politically incorrect joke:
“Jesus is coming, Jesus is coming!”
“Does he need a room?”
My favorite joke:
“One Pope, in the Dark Ages, decreed that all Jews had to leave Rome. The Jews did not want to leave, and so the Pope challenged them to a disputation to prove that they could remain. No one, however, wanted the responsibility… until the synagogue sexton, Moishe, volunteered.
As there was nobody else who wanted to go, Moishe was given the task. But because he knew only Hebrew, a silent debate was agreed. The day of the debate came, and they went to St. Peter’s Square to sort out the decision. First the Pope waved his hand around his head. Moishe pointed firmly at the ground.
The Pope, in some surprise, held up three fingers. In response, Moishe gave him the middle finger.
The crowd started to complain, but the Pope thoughtfully waved them to be quiet. He took out a bottle of wine and a wafer, holding them up. Moishe took out an apple, and held it up.
The Pope, to the people’s surprise, said, “I concede. This man is too good. The Jews can stay.”
Later, the Pope was asked what the debate had meant. He explained, “First, I showed him the Heavens, to show that God is everywhere. He pointed at the ground to signify that God is right here with us. I showed him three fingers, for the Trinity. He reminded me that there is One God common to both our religions. I showed him wine and a wafer, for God’s forgiveness. With an apple, he showed me original sin. The man was a master of silent debate.”
In the Jewish corner, Moishe had the same question put to him, and answered, “It was all nonsense, really. First, he told me that this whole town would be free of Jews. I told him, Go to Hell! We’re staying right here! Then, he told me we had three days to get out. I told him just what I thought of that proposal.” An older woman asked, “But what about the part at the end?” “That?” said Moishe with a shrug, “Then we had lunch!””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_humour#About_Christianity
“Huckabee Supports Jewish Growth in Maaleh Adumim
Past and likely-future US Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, on his second day on a private trip to Israel, says, “No need for a PA state.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132972
@ yamit82:
no hago que,gringo
@ honeybee:
No tu no lo haces
@ yamit82:
Oh entiendo mucho mas
@ honeybee:
Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CFuCYNx-1g
yamit82 Said:
Says who:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZRbTaG3xIw
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Huckabee is pro Israel but is also pro missionary Beware of Trojan Horses
Sebastien Zorn Said:
They helped Sharon by killing the protest movement.
Spies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27TUyXm8HQ&list=PL158435502B0D6AAA
Felix Quigley Said:
Duh… he voted twice for the pullout and left only after his leaving the government could not effect outcome. Such is BB the con artist liar and traitor.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
“Defeatism breeds betrayal” FIFY
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Maybe it should be a bigger part since this is the part I am sure few people know. I found this
http://israeltruthtimes.blogspot.com/2010/01/from-nadia-matar-struggle-with-two.html
But, why would they do something so self-destructive and disloyal?* And, are you sure the same people are in charge? The previous article is courtesy of Women in Green who are surely affiliated with the present Yesha Council. By the way, that’s why I trusted Huckabee and was surprised he got so little support. He has been leading annual solidarity tours to Yesha and has close relations with the current Yesha council. He was the only candidate who flatly stated that Yesha was part of Israel. And he never gives eschatalogical Messianic reasons (the usual liberal counter.) He really cares. I read that he might be the Middle East Envoy. That would be awesome!
*I can tell you why American Jews are like that. It’s partly about the Progressive ideology. When push comes to shove they say that they think they are warding off local anti-semitism against them. The traitorous Jewish Councils in Nazi Occupied Europe used this kind of defeatist collaborate or something worse will happen reasoning. So did Rabbi Stephen Wise and the opponents of the Bergson Group in the American Jewish Community who deliberately sabotaged the solidarity movement here. Stranger still coming from people who say they trust in God.
The moral: Defeatism breads betrayal.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Are you serious? There are videos on youtube which you can easily find. I thought this was common knowledge. These videos give all the info necessary and nobody can dispute what I said above.
Besides it is just one small part of my post.
@ Felix Quigley:
What does the author mean by “the traitorous role of the Yesha Council?”
Does anybody believe that Netanyahu played a game and ensured that the patriots were isolated in 2005 leaving of Gaza?
Netanyahu quits over Gaza pullout
August 8, 2005 – 7:59AM
Page Tools
•
•
•
•
Israeli border police clash with Jewish settlers at the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza Strip.
Photo: Reuters
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resigned in protest today as the cabinet approved the first phase of evacuations from settlements in the occupied Gaza Strip.
The resignation of Netanyahu, Sharon’s main rival in the right-wing Likud party, sent local markets reeling and showed the depth of division in the cabinet over the plan for “disengagement” from conflict with the Palestinians.
But the departure of the highest-ranking minister yet to go over the pullout was too late to prevent approval for the forced evacuations of settlers, due to start after August 15.
The cabinet voted by 17 to five to back the first phase of the initiative – removal of the settlements of Kfar Darom, Netzarim and Morag, isolated enclaves where resistance is likely to be among the strongest.
Netanyahu said his resignation letter counted as a vote against, and told reporters the plan would harm Israeli security and could intensify Palestinian attacks.
“I did not expect my leaving the government would stop the unilateral move,” he said. “I understand the ambition to leave Gaza. I can’t be part of a move that I believe is wrong, a move that will endanger security and divide the people.”
Right-wing opponents see the plan as a capitulation to a Palestinian uprising, as well as setting a precedent for ceding land captured in the 1967 war, which also includes the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.
The hawkish Netanyahu had long opposed removing all 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and four of 120 in the West Bank despite the fact that it has the support of most Israelis.
Israel’s blue chip stock index closed 5.2 per cent lower on news of the departure of Netanyahu, who made himself a darling of business for cutting taxes and social benefits as well as other reforms that helped lift Israel out of recession.
Markets nonetheless favour the withdrawal, the first time Israel would remove settlements from land where Palestinians want a state and touted by Washington as a possible step to reviving talks on a “road map” for peace in the Middle East.
Sharon’s office said economic policies would not change as a result of Netanyahu’s resignation.
The Yesha settler council commended him “for showing national responsibility and leadership, for deciding not to lend his hand in the uprooting of Jewish communities to encourage terror”.
Settlers have watched their political options for defeating the pullout dwindle, while the fatal shooting of four Israeli Arabs by a radical opponent last week came as another blow to the movement – even though it condemned the attack.
In Kfar Darom settlement, dozens of settlers scuffled with paramilitary police today as troops tried to remove two caravans that had been used for monitoring Palestinian militants nearby.
Netanyahu, 55, himself a former prime minister, is widely expected to challenge Sharon’s leadership at some stage after the pullout and could benefit from the support of opponents of the Gaza pullout. Sharon is 77.
Palestinians welcome the Gaza withdrawal but suspect that Sharon will use it to tighten Israel’s hold on much bigger West Bank settlements. Fewer than four per cent of the 240,000 settlers will be affected by the plan.
In the West Bank, gunmen shot and wounded an Israeli man and his son in a car near the Jewish settlement of Ateret today, medics said. The boy was in critical condition, they said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
In the southern Gaza Strip, Palestinian witnesses said a man had been shot dead by soldiers when he approached a building near a border area that he had abandoned during a military raid last year. The army was checking the report.
Last week’s shooting by the Jewish militant has raised fears of further bloodshed, which could complicate the withdrawal and further endanger a shaky six-month-old truce. Sharon told the cabinet there was a continuing risk of similar incidents.
– Reuters
http://www.theage.com.au/news/middle-east-crisis/netanyahu-quits-over-gaza-pullout/2005/08/08/1123353232476.html
A READING OF TH REUTERS REPORT TELLS ALL ABOUT THE PLOT
Oh good for him Netanyahu resigned in protest at the withdrawal from Gaza. But the savvy person interested in the welfare of Jews will see immediately that Netanyahu resigned too late, when it didn’t matter, and the Reuters report, even Reuters, was able to see that. The savvy reader will also note how the Yesha Council immediately chirped up “Oh good for you Bibi what a principled fellow you are and your hands will be forever clean etcetera!”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/middle-east-crisis/netanyahu-quits-over-gaza-pullout/2005/08/08/1123353232476.html
Netanyahu quits over Gaza pullout
August 8, 2005 – 7:59AM
Page Tools
•
•
•
•
Israeli border police clash with Jewish settlers at the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza Strip.
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resigned in protest today as the cabinet approved the first phase of evacuations from settlements in the occupied Gaza Strip.
How the reuters report started
Instead of breaking from Sharon and leading the struggle in the field as it were Netanyahu was playing the Sharon game, certainly playing the role that Sharon had allotted to him. It was classic controlled opposition.
It was a terrible blow, a dagger blow in the back of the youth and the patriots protesting and fighting with great determination the Sharon withdrawal.
And it set the movement of the Jews for real independence back because all the time in the wings were the American Imperialists
See Gil Whites famous article on the real role of American Imperialist Governments towards Israel and the Jews:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
He asks the question is the US really an ally of Israel?
Immediately those Netanyahu groupies came out to cover for him. And so many years later they are still there trumpeting away for their “Bibi”.
You can see the enemy the Muslims and their hatred of Jews quite plainly but it is this Bibi groupie lot inside of Israel who do the real damage to the Jews of Israel. This includes the likes of Bennett and his party who perform that same role to Netanyahu that Netanyahu performed for Sharon…controlled opposition. Saying this does not imply that we do not defend Netanyahu when he is attacked by Antisemites which happens often.
There were plenty of patriots and youth though who did see what was happening, the traitorous role of Netanyahu and the Yesha Council. But it is impossible to swing events if not organized inside of a determined party.
That latter lesson they have never learned because that knowledge is contained within a v ery different tradition, a tradition of struggle that I represent.
Excellent article. Might have added one point, though. Comparing Bibi with Ben Gurion is silly in the same way that it it would be so silly as to be unthinkable for anybody to compare George Washington with any other President, or — even sillier — with any other two term President just because they both had two terms. Or because both men have b in their names. In fact, Bibi has two bi’s. Wow!