Bibi Christ

A curious choice of words from Benny Morris on the new Israeli unity government:

With the backing of 94 MKs, Netanyahu will present a far more solid antagonist for Obama or any other external or internal doubting Thomases in the coming months.

The sentence casts Netanyahu as Jesus Christ or at minimum an apostle, and in a certain way it’s almost right, especially following ex-Shin Bet chief Diskin’s attack on the Israeli leadership as “messianic,” more generally in light of the peculiar Dual Covenant structure of the Israeli-American, Jewish and Christian Zionist, alliance. The concept of revelatory sacrifice may even be the best frame for understanding potential Israeli action, yet also any withholding of action, against Iran. If the effect is more maddening than practical or helpful, it may be because the whole predicament is already so tragically mad, something Morris probably understands, or at least understood, as well as anyone.

Perhaps reflecting the same madness, one Tablet commenter writes confidently about “[t]he American people and the U.S. Congress” refusing to “allow a president to punish Israel for eliminating what Israel believes is an existential threat.”  Whether or not this observation is true, the forces of history, as Morris’s words perhaps unintentionally remind us, refer to higher powers than America’s. The very existence of the Jewish state can be taken as this reminder in blindingly plain sight.

Any decision for war remains a decision to exchange one set of uncertainties for another set. On the alliance question taken separately, U.S. support might even survive an Israeli strike viewed as premature and unsuccessful, but it’s just as possible that any strike, even one at first considered fully successful, would prepare the end of the American political consensus on Israel.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

11 comments on “Bibi Christ

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Netanyahu’s bid to hold on, and his calculation that he had better insulate himself on the left flank and hold elections BEFORE Obama’s re-election frees him to unload on Bibi and pull down the collection of rightwing bottom-feeders that was the Israeli cabinet, I hope will prove insufficient.

    • Well except as written it seems to indicate that you think the Bibster still is calcalatin to hold elections afore O’s re-elect, when the unity deal puts elections off until 2013.

      Morris is, surprisingly to me, somewhat reinforcing the notion that the Isros can act with relative impunity before November, cuz O would never dare cross ’em. My own assumption is that the O reaction would be calibrated according to how successful the attack was taken to be, though there are complicated permutations having to do with what the U.S. decides it HAS to do, what the American people feel must be done, how the Admin itself choose to portray what’s happened, how everyone else reacts. As long as there is any weight of international opinion in favor of continuing talks with Iran, any Israeli action will tend to look precipitous. However, it is at least arguable that the military pressure on the Iranians had substantially lessened in the last few weeks even while the sanctions pressure is escalating. The ideal negotiating posture was to have “those crazy Israelis” to point to, along with the economic sanctions hitting or about to hit. – assuming you believe the negotiations have any potential upside, but even if you believe the negotiations are in one sense theater intended to validate positions rather than actual horse-trading. It is now at least believable that Iran’s failure to compromise could remove one major current impediment to action.

      But I still won’t believe the Israelis are really going to do it on their own until they’ve actually done it.

  2. The deal might not hold or forestall elections….. and there simply isn’t going to be Israeli aerial bombing of Iran before Not without US permission.

    The talk is merely talk and at most, Netty can use the empty threat to see if he can get some concessions from Obama prior to re-election. After November, his leverage is gone and the Obama retaliation against him comes on-line. Now, he has a window to press Obama for a political peace deal

    • That’s how I see it. What I don’t get is why people like Morris and Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, who needless to say know a whole lot more than I do, continue to hype the notion that the Isros COULD act, unless they know something we don’t, OR are dumb, OR are more or less willingly letting themselves be used.

    • I mean that’s how I see the second part. You’re the first person or frog I’ve seen suggest that the deal might not hold or that the elections might go forward anyway. I guess it’s conceivable that there’d be a falling out, but most are assuming Mofaz can’t afford ANOTHER zig. Also, I’ve read that Israeli public reaction is mainly positive on the unity government, though not critical reaction.

  3. Well Mofaz came from Likud, didn’t he, it’s not an easy decision to strike Iran, but to deny that it may have to be done, is the delusion, similarly, the Palestinians, have been waging war on Israel, not since 1947, but 1920, which suggests that Juden Rein, is their default presence,

    • It ain’t so much where he came from, it’s where he’s going………

      saying ” it may have to be done” doesn’t the fact that it can’t be done by any sort of Israeli airstrike that’s not either a sustained campaign or a nuclear bombing……..and the first option will only set the Iranians back, but will also allow the Iranian regime time enough in power to assemble bombs while ending an argument for why thety’ve not the right to assemble them.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins