Uri Avnery: His Father's Boy: Which is the real Netanyahu?

Uri Avnery
October 9, 2010

                                       His Father’s Boy

WHICH IS the real Netanyahu?

-  Bibi the weakling, the invertebrate, who always gives in to
pressure, who zigzags to the left and to the right, depending whether
the pressure comes from the US or from his coalition partners?

-  The tricky Likud chief, who is afraid that Avigdor Ivett Lieberman
might succeed in pushing him towards the Center and displace him as
the leader of the entire Right?

-  Netanyahu, the man of principle, who is determined to prevent at
any cost the setting up of the State of Palestine, and is therefore
using every possible ruse to sabotage real negotiations?

The real Netanyahu – stand up!

Hey, wait a minute, what’s going on here? Do I see all three of them rising?


THE FIRST Netanyahu is the one who meets the eye. A leaf in the wind.
The con man without principles and with plenty of tricks, whose sole
aim is to survive in power.

This Netanyahu practically invites pressure on himself.

Barack Obama pressured him, so he agreed to the settlement freeze – or
the perceived settlement freeze. In order to avoid a crisis with the
settlers, he promised them that after the agreed ten months, the
construction boom would be resumed with full vigor.

The settlers pressured him, and he did indeed resume the building at
the appointed time, in spite of the intense pressure from Obama, who
pushed for an extension of the moratorium for another two months. Why
two months? Because the congressional elections take place on November
2, and Obama desperately needs to avoid a crisis with the Jewish
establishment before that. For this end, he is ready to sell Netanyahu
the whole inventory – arms, money, political support, a set of
guarantees about the outcome of the negotiations that have not yet
even begun. Sixty days! sixty days! my kingdom for sixty days!

Netanyahu is now zigzagging between these pressures, trying to find
out which is the stronger, which one to give in to, how much and when.
In his dreams he probably feels like the Baron von Munchhausen, who
found himself on a narrow path, with a lion behind him getting ready
to spring and a crocodile in front of him opening its awesome jaws.
(If I remember right, the baron ducked and the lion jumped straight
into the jaws of the reptile.)

This is the great hope of Netanyahu. AIPAC will help to deliver Obama
a crushing defeat in the elections, Obama will deliver a crushing blow
to the settlers, and Baron von Netanyahu will rub his hands and
survive to fight another day.

Is this the real Netanyahu? For sure.


BUT THE second Netanyahu is no less real. This is Tricky Bibi who is
trying to out-fox Tricky Ivett.

Lieberman astounded the UN General Assembly, when, as the Foreign
Minister of Israel, he addressed this august body from the rostrum.

Because our Foreign Minister did not rise to defend the policies of
his country, as did his colorless colleagues. Quite the opposite: from
the UN rostrum he vigorously attacked the policy of his own
government, giving it short shrift.

The official policy of the Government of Israel is to conduct direct
negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, in order to achieve a
final peace treaty within one year.

Nonsense, said the Foreign Minister of that same government. Rubbish.
There is no chance at all of a peace treaty, not within a year and not
within a hundred years. What’s needed is a
Long-Term-Interim-Agreement. In other words, the continuation of the
occupation without time limits.

Why did Lieberman give this performance? He was not addressing the few
delegates who had remained in the UN assembly hall, but the Israeli
public. He challenged Netanyahu: either dismiss me or pretend that the
spittle on your face is rain.

But Netanyahu did not dismiss and did not react, except for a weak
statement that Lieberman was not expressing his views. And this why?
Clearly, if Netanyahu were to kick Lieberman’s party out of the
government and bring in Tzipi Livni’s Kadima Party, Lieberman would do
to Netanyahu what Netanyahu did to Yitzhak Rabin. He would declare him
a traitor selling out the fatherland, an enemy of the settlements. His
devotees would parade around with posters of Netanyahu in SS uniform
or wearing a keffiyeh, while others performed arcane Kabbalah rituals
to bring about his death.

Lieberman would raise the flag of the Right, split the Likud and take
sole possession of the entire Israeli Right. He believes that this is
the way to become Prime Minister.

Netanyahu understands this perfectly. That’s why he is restraining
himself. As a man who grew up in the United States he probably
remembers what Lyndon Johnson said about J. Edgar Hoover: Better to
have him inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing
in.


AND PERHAPS this Netanyahu – the second one – does not really object
to the plan outlined by Lieberman at the UN assembly.

The Foreign Minister was not content with rejecting peace and bringing
up the idea of the Long-Term-Interim-Agreement. He described the
solution he has in mind. Not surprisingly, it is the electoral
platform of his party, Israel Beytenu (“Israel Our Home”). In essence:
Israel, the “Nation-State-Of-The-Jewish-People”, will be free of
Arabs, or, translated into German, Araberrein.

But Lieberman is a humane person, and does not advocate (at least in
public) ethnic cleansing. He does not propose a third Naqbah (after
the 1948 Palestinian catastrophe and the 1967 expulsion). No, his
solution is far more creative: he will separate from Israel the Arab
towns and villages along the Eastern border, the so-called “triangle”,
from Umm al-Fahm in the North to Kufr Kassem in the South This area,
together with its inhabitants and lands, would be joined to the
territory of the Palestinian Authority, and in return Israel would
annex the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

That raises, of course, several questions. First, what about the Arab
concentrations in Galilee, which include dozens of villages, towns
like Nazareth and Shefa Amr, and the Arab population in the mixed
towns, Haifa and Acre? Lieberman does not propose to transfer them
too. Neither does he propose to give up East Jerusalem, with its
quarter of a million Arab residents. If that is the case, is he
prepared to leave in the “Nation-State-Of-The-Jewish-People” more than
three quarters of a million Arabs? Or does he dream at night, lying in
his bed, of conducting ethnic cleansing after all?

A second question: to whom will he transfer the Arab towns and
villages of the ‘triangle”? Without a peace treaty, there will be no
Palestinian state. Instead, there will remain the Palestinian
Authority, with its few small enclaves all subject to Israeli
occupation. The Long-Term-Interim-Agreement would leave this
situation, more or less, intact. Meaning that this area, now part of
Israel, would become a territory under Israeli occupation. Its
inhabitants would lose their status as Israeli citizens and become an
occupied population, devoid of civil rights and human rights.

As far as is known, not a singe Arab leader in Israel agrees to that.
Even in the past, when it seemed that Lieberman agreed to the
establishment of a Palestinian state and wanted to transfer to it the
Arab areas of Israel, not a single Arab leader in Israel agreed. The
Arab citizens of Israel, a population approaching a million and a
half, are indeed a part of the Palestinian people, but they are also a
part of the Israeli population.

Netanyahu is certainly afraid of Lieberman, but can it be that he did
not condemn Lieberman’s UN speech because he secretly shares his
views?

In any case, this week Netanyahu announced that he is adopting
Lieberman’s baby, the demand that non-Jewish (meaning Arab) people who
wish to obtain Israeli citizenship swear allegiance not just to the
State of Israel and its laws, as is usual, but to “Israel as a Jewish
and democratic state”. This is a nonsensical and meaningless addition,
solely devised to provoke the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs. One might
as well demand candidates for US citizenship swear allegiance to the
“United States as a White Anglo-Saxon Christian and democratic
nation”.


BUT IT is quite possible that there is a third Netanyahu, who stands
taller than the others.

This is the Netanyahu who always believed in a Greater Israel, and who
has never given up the ideology which he suckled with his mother’s
milk.

The veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Samet goes further: he believes
that Binyamin Netanyahu’s main motivation is his total obedience to
his old father.

Ben-Zion Netanyahu is now 100 years old, and in full possession of his
mental faculties. He is a professor of history, born in Warsaw, who
came to Palestine in 1920 and changed his name from Mileikowsky to
Netanyahu (“God has Given”). He has always been on the extreme
right-wing fringe. Ben-Zion Netanyahu spent several periods of his
life in the US, where his three sons grew up. When in 1947 the UN
General Assembly adopted the plan to partition Palestine between a
Jewish state and an Arab state, father Netanyahu signed a petition,
published in the New York Times, condemning the resolution in the
strongest terms. Returning to Israel, he was not accepted into the new
Freedom Party (the forerunner of Likud), because his views were too
extreme even for Menachem Begin’s tastes. He claims that he was barred
from a professorship in the Hebrew University because of his opinions,
and his bitterness about this poisoned the atmosphere at home.

The professor’s special field is Spanish Jewry, with the emphasis on
the Spanish Inquisition. He condemns the Jews who were baptized (the
Marranos) and says that the great majority of them were eager to be
assimilated into Christian Spanish society, contrary to the official
heroic myth, which says that they continued to practice the religion
of their forefathers in secret.

When Netanyahu the son transferred a part of Hebron to the Palestinian
Authority, his father rebuked him and stated publicly that he was
unfit for the job of Prime Minister, fit at most to serve as Foreign
Secretary. But the son made a huge effort to remain true to his
father’s views, and that is the main motivation for his policy.
According to Samet, he would not dare to face his father and tell him
that he had given away parts of Eretz Israel.

I tend to accept this version. Netanyahu will never agree to be
responsible for the establishment of the State of Palestine, will
never conduct serious peace negotiations – unless under extreme
duress. That is all there is to it, everything else is hollow talk.

If the real Netanyahu were called to stand up, all three, and perhaps
a few more, would rise. But the third one is the most real.