Advertise here: Contact FM.

Israeli civil war?
July 6, 2004 2:27 PM Subscribe

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Israel is on the verge of a civil war. The Israeli Knesset held an emergency session on Tuesday to discuss the growing threat of violence and anti-government assassinations--but this time, the anti-Sharon and anti-Likud threats are from the Israeli Right, not Left.

Angry settlers (who are about to become ex-settlers), egged on by a few extremist rabbis, oppose Israel's disengagement and pullout plan from Gaza (which is already underway) and the West Bank: "The General Security Service (GSS) believes that the next assassin of an Israeli Prime Minister is already here and is looking for an opportunity to strike. "This is not an academic possibility anymore. The danger is clear and present. A small core of settlers believes that Sharon is disengagement, and disengagement is Sharon, and they want to stop him," a GSS official told Channel 1 TV. "There are people who have already taken the decision that, come the day they are going to 'save Eretz Israel, that they are going to kill the PM or a minister, a defense official or a policeman." Ironically, the only people who oppose the pullout/disengagement plan even more than the settlers are Palestinians, who oppose it 65% to 34% in a new poll, down from a previous support of 73% in February. [more inside]
posted by Asparagirl (46 comments total)

Questions raised by the current situation:

Are we about to see Rabin version 2.0? (Israeli PM killed by right-wing Israeli over pullout/handover plans.)

If so, will left-wing groups be jealous for not doing the deed first?

Will Sharon--formerly a very pro-settlement guy--ever get any credit for leading the pullout plan? Could another Israeli PM, maybe a Labor PM, do a better job of keeping the society together while handling the pullout? Or is this a "only Nixon could go to China" type of thing?

Quotes of interest from the various articles I linked:

"National Union faction chairman Zvi Hendel warned that Sharon may start a civil war in order to advance his disengagement plan. He said that snipers were present when outposts were dismantled and warned that Sharon could order snipers to open fire on settlers resisting a Gaza withdrawal."

"Poll after poll shows a clear majority in favor of disengagement from the Gaza Strip and evacuating outposts in Judea and Samaria. Support for disengagement, however, should not be confused with opposition to the settlement enterprise. There is still a great degree of sympathy towards the settlers within Israeli society and their campaign against the dismantlement of settlements is seen as a legitimate one. The return of what is seen as religious incitement to murder will cause many Israelis to relive the traumatic days of Rabin's assassination and turn against the settlers."

"Asked by Shinui MK Etti Livni if he wears a ceramic vest, Sharon joked that none are made in his size." (Ha, ha.)
posted by Asparagirl at 2:31 PM on July 6, 2004

And if you're wondering why a vocally pro-Israel/Zionist chick like me would be posting about the insane Israeli right-wing for a change, it's because I think the settlements, though not illegitimate, were a bad idea and I support the pullout plan, and would hate to see the best realistic chance at peace wrecked by a bunch of loonies. I mean, for a Prime Minister of a country to be throwing around terms like "civil war", this is pretty damn serious. Besides, one can hardly be expected to credibly criticize other political views and societies when a political party that shares some of your own views is chock-full of crazies and religious nuts.

Also, everyone on the Left already hates Sharon with a passion anyway. So I think they're less likely to notice or care that such a supposedly evil guy is making overtures towards center-left parties like Labor and actually implementing what everyone has said for years that they want: a pullout and disengagement plan, and firing his right-wing cabinet members who oppose it, and even actually bringing up the subject of shooting settlers who won't leave.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:34 PM on July 6, 2004

Imagine if instead of ejecting the settlers in an orderly fashion, they gave them 20 minutes notice and then destroyed their homes with everything inside of it, and provided them no compensation, and shot anyone who resisted, or just brought the house down on top of them.

And then imagine if some of the survivors mounted attacks against the Government, or even against ordinary civilians who weren't affected. Would we then have people saying that the reason they are so angry has to do with their culture, their religion, the 'incitement'? Just a thought. Radicals on both sides have to be handled in just the right way, it's very tricky for everyone when there are multiple takes on a "life or death" situation.

It's a messy situation all around. To answer one of your questions, I think if the pull-out of Gaza is a success for both Israelis and Palestinians, and is done in a way that allows Gaza to prosper economically (and not become a sealed-off bantustan still under de-facto military control with no hope for a future) then Sharon can and will get the credit he would deserve. If it becomes a giant prison with no sea-access, no trading borders, no water rights, and no north-south/east-west unimpeded travel rights within Gaza, which is what (I think) Sharon is proposing, then I think he will get credit only for saving the beleagured Israeli army from having to defend the nutballs in Gaza, not for creating peace.
posted by chaz at 2:44 PM on July 6, 2004

One question, Asparagirl, in your post you say "this time, the anti-Sharon and anti-Likud threats are from the Israeli Right, not Left". I am not aware of any threats of violence against Sharon or Likud from the Israeli left... one thing that is very impressive about the Israeli political scene is that there does not seem to be much of a hard left wing, one that paradoxically advocates violence to achieve peace or something like you might see in extreme lefties in other countries. To my knowledge, virtually all intra-Israeli political violence has come from the right.
posted by chaz at 2:48 PM on July 6, 2004

To be a Zionist and pro-Israel does not necessarily make one anti-Palestinian. Fortunately, people like Sharon tend to polarize the population and mobilize the left.

My uncle Zel Lurie is a great example of a responsible secular Zionist Jew - someone who truly understands that anyone who is ABLE TO RESPOND is, by the very definition, RESPONSIBLE. He's been dedicating his life to peace for many years. I think projects like Neve Shalom / Wahat Al-Salam are really the only viable chance we have for peace together.
posted by luriete at 2:53 PM on July 6, 2004

If so, will left-wing groups be jealous for not doing the deed first?

No offense, but that's a stupid question. On preview: what Chaz said.

That said, this could actually help moderates, if only by providing a foil to distance themselves from. And while it's good that Sharon is acting more rational, he could have picked his timing better -- perhaps making concessions when Arafat's moderate "replacement" was installed, rather than waiting until he resign, then waiting till Hamas carried out some incredibly bloody attacks. It's an article of faith to most israelis and palestinians, to some extent, that "they only understand force" -- an absurd position, of course, when you're talking about other human beings, but the truth of the matter is that force tends to works, for both sides, in at least provokes some sort of change, some reaction. It's in the long run, of course, it backfires; no better way to radicalize a population than killing some of them, intentionally or no.
posted by Tlogmer at 3:01 PM on July 6, 2004

It's also a bit ironic that Israel, whose government has tried at various times to destabilize the PLO, is itself being destabalized by the situation. (I'm not making light of this; it sucks.)
posted by Tlogmer at 3:05 PM on July 6, 2004

resign --> resigned
tends to works --> tends to work
provokes --> provoking
it backfires --> that it backfires

Wow. I'm gonna take a nap.
posted by Tlogmer at 3:08 PM on July 6, 2004

The unstated irony: many of the settlers are very orthodox and do not have to serve in the military...now the military may have to be brought in to keep them from being militant.
posted by Postroad at 3:32 PM on July 6, 2004

This is all happening because the Israelites insisted on having a king when Samuel (and Yahweh) told them not to. Also because of all that smiting of the poor Canaanites, that were but harmless cheese-eaters.
posted by jfuller at 3:46 PM on July 6, 2004

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Israel is on the verge of a civil war....

Can't imagine what that's all about. We thought progress toward peace and democracy was supposedly going so well in the Middle East. As you'll recall, Middle East peace and prosperity was promised as kind of an afterthought (after Iraq's "fearsome army threatening the region", "WMDs", "terrorist ties", etc. didn't pan out as justifications for the war)....consolation prizes from our brilliant invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Yeah, that's right. Peace in Palestine was supposed to break out....right after Iraqis finished pelting the American liberators with flowers.

Yeah. The whole region seems so much more stable these past couple years....kind of in the same way terrorism has decreased world-wide.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:49 PM on July 6, 2004

"If so, will left-wing groups be jealous for not doing the deed first?"

poof!
that's the last sad tiny shred of LikudGirl's credibility vanishing in the air forever...

really, is your blog down or you just needed an audience for your therapy session?
posted by matteo at 3:49 PM on July 6, 2004

matteo you seem to have a personal grudge and I hope people ignore your comments instead of responding to the troll-bait that they are. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you in the abstract. Take it elsewhere, like email.
posted by chaz at 3:59 PM on July 6, 2004

Matteo: that line might have been tongue-in-cheek -- Sharon is a deeply reviled figure among the israeli left (rightly so, but to a conservative it might seem over the top).
posted by Tlogmer at 4:01 PM on July 6, 2004

Wait a minute, am I missing something? Do the Isaelis and the Palestinians dislike each other for some reason or other? Geez, thank goodness I have Asparagirl to fill me in on this very important situation!

(Geez, AgendaFilter much? A blatant FPP AND the first two comments? Do us a favor and fire up that blog again, honey...)
posted by JollyWanker at 4:02 PM on July 6, 2004

matteo, do you actually work at being snide and dismissive or is it only a fetish you indulge in your spare time, like a hobby?

Interesting post Asparagirl, thanks.
posted by loquax at 4:15 PM on July 6, 2004

The topic and links are pretty interesting, but yeah, the post itself could have used [less inside]. It all speaks for itself.
posted by mkultra at 4:59 PM on July 6, 2004

if youre gonna have a war, civil war is the best thing that can happen.... means some bullshits been going down
posted by Satapher at 5:21 PM on July 6, 2004

As many times as the word "right" was used in this article, I'm not sure that the typical left-right dicotomy applies. For instead of comparing these people with the "wings" of secular democratic states, they should properly be compared with the factions of theocratic states.
Granted Israel *does* have a left and a right, but in addition, it has innumerable sects whose loyalties lie less with the state than with their faction--Jews who would persecute "outsider" Jews (almost) as much as they would persecute Palestinians. Jews who live in ghettos and throw rocks at outsiders on "their" streets, whose Judaism is so questionable and corrupt it can hardly be compared to mainstream Judaism.

And this is not new, if you remember the historical split between Israel and Judea, the bitter animosity and murderous rivalry. So many things have changed and yet so little has changed.
posted by kablam at 5:56 PM on July 6, 2004

If [Gaza] becomes a giant prison with no sea-access, no trading borders, no water rights, and no north-south/east-west unimpeded travel rights within Gaza, which is what (I think) Sharon is proposing, then I think he will get credit only for saving the beleagured Israeli army from having to defend the nutballs in Gaza, not for creating peace.

Everything I've read about the pullout plan with respect to Gaza (though not the West Bank) says that it will be unilateral and total: all settlements will go, all military posts will go (the last to go will be the Gaza/Egypt border patrol, not the Gaza/Israel patrol), and the checkpoints will be moved further north into pre-'67 Israel. Here's what looks like the actual pullout plan, from about.com and here's an AP article (couldn't find it online, except for-pay):

Palestinians draw up Gaza power-sharing deal:[Daily Edition]
GAVIN RABINOWITZ, AP. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Jun 20, 2004. pg. 03

"The Palestinian Authority and terrorist groups have begun putting together an agreement to share power in the Gaza Strip after an Israeli withdrawal, officials said Friday.

PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei confirmed that the document is being written and said it would be completed after additional talks in Egypt.

Qurei met Friday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo to discuss the unilateral withdrawal, scheduled to be completed by September 2005.

The Egyptians have pledged to send military advisers to help train and reform the Palestinian security forces and are seeking assurances from Israel that it will halt all military strikes in Gaza well before the pullout, to allow the advisers to work, Qurei said in a telephone interview from Cairo.

As part of the reform, Egypt is also pressing PA Chairman Yasser Arafat to merge 12 security branches into three. Arafat has resisted reforming the security branches in the past and has not given an unequivocal answer.

Egypt is also trying to broker an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and rival factions - including Hamas and Islamic Jihad - on how to run Gaza after a pullback, a PA official said Friday."

So Egypt and some Egypt-brokered combo of the PA, Fatah, and Hamas will be running the show. (I've also read reports that the EU and UN may send in troops to help patrol post-handover, a la Kosovo.) That poll I cited in the original post about Palestinian unhappiness with the pullout plan says that one large cause of the unhappiness is that "59 percent of Palestinians fear an outbreak of fighting among the Palestinian organizations in Gaza following Israel's departure from the Strip, even though the same percentage believes that the Palestinian Authority will ultimately gain control." So I do tend to believe that yes, they're really going to fully pull out, although this current friction with the settlers may impede that goal.

I am not aware of any threats of violence against Sharon or Likud from the Israeli left...

*cough*sputter*choke* Were the years of "Sharon = Hitler" and the famous posters/caricatures of him eating Palestinian babies just for show? Accusations of genocidal behavior, groups that burn Sharon in effigy, hate speech against those who opposed the failed Oslo Accords? Let's just say the political climate has been nothing short of hostile. Keep in mind, the Israeli Left, broadly speaking, encompasses groups that do everything from calling for greater inter-ethnic understanding (commendable) to rationalizing suicide bombings as "a legitimate and to-be-expected response to colonialism and poverty" (sick, and leads to further violence). Left-wing parties, as entities, may not advocate violent acts towards Sharon/Likud (so far), but then again, neither do the right-wing parties, as entities (so far). It's the individual whack-jobs within them who feed off their rhetoric, whether it's "kill the settlers" or "kill those who'll make the settlers leave".

And yes, the crack about the left-wing wishing they'd gotten/get to Sharon first was tongue-in-cheek. But only just barely. If you yell for enough years that the man is absolute evil and equivalent to a notorious mass murderer and chugs Palestinian baby blood in his morning coffee, don't be surprised if people take your hate seriously.
posted by Asparagirl at 6:35 PM on July 6, 2004

that's the last sad tiny shred of LikudGirl's credibility vanishing in the air forever...

matteo, do you actually work at being snide and dismissive or is it only a fetish you indulge in your spare time, like a hobby?

Loquax, you're misreading. Matteo doesn't believe in acting 12 years old, you see. He never participates in "NeenerNeenerFilter" so don't you dare suggest it. Among those rich layers of his sub-nofundy "sense" of "humor" are some wickedly clever nicknames he's invented to taunt his fellow MeFite--FreedomParamus, LikudGirl, hamasheaven, denBeastie. As for the aforementioned "credibility"? Within each of those nicknames is a fistful of cred, my friend--the same kind a schoolyard bully earns each time he blindsides the skinny kid.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that anti-Semitism is the new black? Trés fashionable. Goes well with Ugg boots.
posted by dhoyt at 6:47 PM on July 6, 2004

dhoyt, you give matteo too much credit. I'm pretty sure it was riviera who first called me LikudGirl, but only when he finally got tired of calling me "dearie" and other dismissive pet names.

That being said, please don't drag that stinky anti-Semitism skunk into this thread; let's keep it strictly about Israeli politics (and it has been so far). Although yes, of course it's been in fashion lately, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
posted by Asparagirl at 7:17 PM on July 6, 2004

On my recent trips to Israel, I found it hard to stomach the Zionist racism against Arabs/Palestinians.

Palestinian concerns, grievances, history were not ever acknowledged. It was always poor poor us Jewish victims.

Sickening.
posted by lathrop at 7:19 PM on July 6, 2004

has anyone else noticed that anti-Semitism is the new black?

But what's labeled as anti-semitism is not always anti-semitic.
posted by homunculus at 7:23 PM on July 6, 2004

please don't drag that stinky anti-Semitism skunk into this thread

Oops.

*holds breath, drags skunk out of thread*
posted by homunculus at 7:25 PM on July 6, 2004

(Homunculus's article is definitely worth a read. Thanks)
posted by dhoyt at 7:50 PM on July 6, 2004

It's anti-semitism when it's one standard for the Jewish state, another standard for anywhere else in the world. Unless Israel has a corner on a refugee problem that the UN refuses to assist in sorting out? No, there's Sudan's Darfur issue, the Genocide that Kofi Dares Not Name, there's Jordan, Kuwait, and Egypt, all with Palestinian refugee populations, there's all kinds of places in Africa... and yet... the one singled out is Israel.

If it's not anti-semitism, what is it?

And to those of you complaining of "agendafilter" - you keep your politics off the site and so will we. Deal? No more FPP's about Bushitler, no more FPP's about Palestine, no more FPP's about how bad the Iraq war is, oil pipelines in Afghanistan, or Halliburton, and we'll stop with the other stuff. You want to talk conspiracy-addled nonsense? Go to Democratic Underground. Enough.

I admit - I've engaged in this practice, but come on, people, enough is enough. It's time for Detente. If the MeFites can't do it, why do any of us think the Israelis and Palestinians can?

On preview, Asparagirl's comment "And yes, the crack about the left-wing wishing they'd gotten/get to Sharon first was tongue-in-cheek. But only just barely. If you yell for enough years that the man is absolute evil and equivalent to a notorious mass murderer and chugs Palestinian baby blood in his morning coffee, don't be surprised if people take your hate seriously" reminds me an awful lot of what I've heard Democrats say about Bush and Ashcroft. There's got to be a higher level of debate than demonization of those you disagree with.

For a bit of a breather, and to watch a Conservative and a Liberal butt heads and then still be civil enough that they could go get a beer afterwards, go watch this sideswiping of Michael Moore. After that discussion was over, I had an awful lot more respect for the man. He's partisan. But he's an American. He's got a vision. He's not (at least, not in that video) screaming about Bushitler, he's talking common sense and explaining that he engages in hyperbole to make his point.

If only MeFites could learn to do that instead of the name calling that poeple like Matteo have stooped to.
posted by swerdloff at 8:28 PM on July 6, 2004

Asparagirl, I'm not sure if you're talking about the Israeli left, or the American/European left. I have observed numerous demonstrations in Israel against the occupation, or the peace marches, and I didn't see anyone hoisting banners proclaiming that Sharon=Hitler. That would be offensive in the extreme in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Don't confuse the Israeli and world Left Wing.

Swedloff, I think the answer to your first question is that all the countries that have Palestinain refugees can still say, unlike Sudan, that they didn't cause the problem. No excuse for letting it fester, but still the perpetrator should always bear the greatest responsibility, whether it be Iraq under Hussein, Serbia, or Israel.
posted by cell divide at 10:22 PM on July 6, 2004

Asparagirl's thoughts can be read on the protocols of the yuppies of zion
posted by delmoi at 12:12 AM on July 7, 2004

...but still the perpetrator should always bear the greatest responsibility...

Unfortunately that does little to actually solve the problems of refugee problem.

That kind of thinking was applied to Germany after WWI, who had to pay massive reparations to France/Belgium, which led to a a severely depressed German economy, massive resentment and to Germany eventually starting WW2. After WW2, the thinking had changed and the Marshall Plan was introduced (Although Germany did still have to pay reparations).

whether it be Iraq under Hussein, Serbia, or Israel.

And let's not forget Egypt, Jordan and Syria whose attempt to wipe the nascent Israeli state off the map in 1948 did quite a bit to promote the refugee flood and then did little to alleviate it during 1948-1967 when they were in control of the Gaza and West Bank (Jordan going so far to try and annex the West Bank, but then giving it up).
posted by PenDevil at 12:31 AM on July 7, 2004

Good link swerdloff.
posted by biffa at 3:14 AM on July 7, 2004

I dont post in I-P threads, but I have to agree with matteo - this is Agendafilter stuff.
posted by Irontom at 6:44 AM on July 7, 2004

Golly, delmoi, thanks for the link! I guess because my blog's title is a parody of a semi-famous piece of literature, that shows that I'm secretly (shhh!) a Zionist or pro-Israel or anti-anti-Semitism or something like that...even though both this thread and my MeFi bio say that far more explicitly. But keep breathing in that conspiracy-scented air, okay?
posted by Asparagirl at 10:11 AM on July 7, 2004

Metatalk
posted by Irontom at 11:02 AM on July 7, 2004

More to the point, Israel is a democracy; none of the other countries mentioned are. Israel is also 1st-world, wealth-wise, and the others are dirt poor. Israel has a structured, powerful central government, an educated populace, etc. It should be held to a higher standard.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:50 PM on July 7, 2004

The New Yorker recently had a great article about the settlement movement, extremists in the region, the Israeli military, and some of the peace movement. Reading the article, I was surprised at how little I knew about the facts on the ground and what motivates these people.
posted by euphorb at 2:09 PM on July 7, 2004

Asparagirl, good post, but just to correct something: the settlements are, in fact, illegitimate, as well as illegal.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:00 PM on July 7, 2004

Israel's "democracy" is roughly equivalent to letting only the white people vote in America. You cannot hold elections in a country where large classes of people are prevented from participating, and then call it democracy. I believe the actual term for a government where a certain class holds all the power is: oligarchy. And this oligarchy's a theocratic one at that. "The Middle East's ony democracy." Right.

But why stop there? Maybe if they define "citizenship" so narrowly that it includes only the wealthiest, most priveleged people of all, they can announce they've achieved a "Utopian Paradise" and be done with it.
posted by scarabic at 6:06 PM on July 7, 2004

You cannot hold elections in a country where large classes of people are prevented from participating, and then call it democracy.

Just asking in what way are 17-20% of Israelis who are Arab (I assume that's who you are referring to) excluded from participating. They have members in the Knesset and spread their vote amongst Arab and Israeli parties (20% of Israeli Arabs vote for Labour in the 1992 election, 8% voted for Likud(???) although I'll bet voting patterns have shifted since then), have access to all Israeli education etc etc.

I understand there might be anti-Arab senitment in the Israeli population and there probably is racism (as there is in every country on earth and it probably flows both ways), but this does not add up to the entire Arab population being excluded from participating in Israeli society.
posted by PenDevil at 2:28 AM on July 8, 2004

Arabs living in the west bank and gaza are excluded from voting; jews living there are not. If an Israeli citizen moves to Hebron, they can vote; if they have kids in Hebron, those kids can vote (when they're old enough) even if they never leave the city. Palestinians born in Hebron can never vote.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:05 PM on July 8, 2004

If you think that comparing Israel to some of the worst African dictatorships gets them off the hook for their little "refugee problem," then it's pretty clear where *your* humanitarian standards are: in the toilet. Thank you for showing your colors, there.

I suppose the UN, by contrast, has an unbelievably high humanitarian standard for cutting "some of the worst African dictatorships" unbelievable slack while whaling on Israel every chance it gets. I still wonder how that one works.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:51 PM on July 8, 2004

Arabs living in the west bank and gaza are excluded from voting...

Well I guess you can blame Yasser Arafat for that, who hasn't held an election to choose PA leadership since 1996...
posted by PenDevil at 12:23 AM on July 9, 2004

I toyed with the idea of this as content for my first post but it didn't seem appropriate; with this thread live and another Israel thread further up the page, this seems like a better place.

The International Court of Justice today returns its advisory opinion on the legality of the recently constructed wall. Although it's not yet out, Electronic Intifada has obtained a leaked copy of the judgement. Makes for interesting reading.
posted by dmt at 7:54 AM on July 9, 2004

Well I guess you can blame Yasser Arafat for that, who hasn't held an election to choose PA leadership since 1996...

Jews living in the West Bank can't vote in those elections, either (not that they'd want to). It's apartheid. By circumstance, maybe, but apartheid nonetheless.
posted by Tlogmer at 5:55 PM on July 9, 2004

Advantage: scarabic.
posted by squirrel at 11:05 PM on July 10, 2004

« Older No Circles... | He likes it when you tickle hi... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Israeli civil war? July 6, 2004 2:27 PM Subscribe

Israeli civil war?
July 6, 2004 2:27 PM Subscribe