Whenever people ask me what I do for a living, I tell them that I’m a translator from English to English. I try to take complex subjects and make them understandable, first to myself and then to readers — and that is what I want to do here regarding three interrelated questions: Why is Israel’s cabinet trying to crush the country’s Supreme Court? Why did President Biden tell CNN that “this is one of the most extreme” Israeli cabinets he’d ever seen? And why did the U.S. ambassador to Israel just say that America is working to prevent Israel from “going off the rails”?
The short answer to all three questions is that the Biden team sees the far-right Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, engaged in unprecedented radical behavior — under the cloak of judicial “reform” — that is undermining our shared interests with Israel, our shared values and the vitally important shared fiction about the status of the West Bank that has kept peace hopes there just barely alive.
If you want to get just a whiff of the tension between the U.S. and this Israeli cabinet, spearheaded by extremists, consider that hours after Biden mentioned to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria just how “extreme” some of Netanyahu’s cabinet members were, one of the most extreme of them all, the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, told Biden to butt out — that “Israel is no longer another star in the American flag.”
Nice, eh? According to a 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Israel has received the most U.S. foreign assistance of any country in the world since World War II, at $146 billion, not adjusted for inflation. That’s quite an allowance and one that might have merited a little more respect for the U.S. president from Ben-Gvir, who in his youth was convicted of inciting racism against Arabs.
-Sliced- on July 12nd, 2023 at 05:58 UTC »
Israel's global perception has significantly fluctuated over time, but recent events may precipitate a lasting shift. Many accusations, some outrageous, have been leveled against Israel, but one central issue remains: the legality of its occupation of the West Bank.
Israel maintains that it is temporarily occupying the West Bank to ensure its security. This stance is supported by the comparison to Gaza, no longer under Israeli occupation, and now a frequent launchpad for rocket attacks by an internationally recognized terrorist group.
However, if we accept the security justification, we must question its duration. Israel has been occupying the West Bank for decades; when will it end? A more serious issue lies in Israel's active annexation of increasing portions of the occupied territories. Citing self-defense, Israel contends with the controversial settlers issue, a problem that garners virtually no support in the US across the political spectrum. Although it has minimal backing among the Israeli population, it enjoys strong governmental support.
Israel's Supreme Court, traditionally a safeguard against a rogue government, could intervene. It has historically blocked legislation that would further annex territories or diminish West Bank residents' liberties. However, the current Israeli government is pushing for new legislation to alter Israel's de facto constitution, which consists of a set of Basic Laws used to invalidate conflicting regulations. Unlike the US constitution, these Basic Laws aren't inherently protected, enabling any government with a majority to amend them.
In practice, if Israel continues to annex the West Bank and restrict the liberties of Palestinian inhabitants, its self-defense rationale grows less convincing. Generally, there are three scenarios the world might accept: 1) Complete annexation, affording Palestinians equal rights—an outcome Israel is unlikely to pursue due to its commitment to preserving a Jewish majority government. 2) Maintaining the status quo, meaning no further annexations—though not ideal, this has been internationally tolerated. 3) Completely withdrawing from the West Bank, akin to their actions in Gaza.
However, the current government appears to be veering towards a fourth, and potentially unpopular, option: removing the court restraint and further annexing and dividing the territory, thereby isolating Palestinians on landlocked islands within off-limits Israeli territories, endowed with few rights. This potential scenario bears striking similarities to apartheid-era South Africa. The parallels between maps of South African "homelands" and Areas A and B in the West Bank are alarming. It highlights the consequences of creating borders to isolate specific communities. Note that I'm not comparing the current state to the African situation, I think that's nonsense. Just extrapolating ahead.
That's why many in Israel are protesting to uphold the judiciary's autonomy. However, recent events suggest these protests might not be effectual. Hence, this could signal a significant turning point in Israel's relationship with the US and the world.
Still_There3603 on July 12nd, 2023 at 00:57 UTC »
I think in this next decade, democrats might substantively distance themselves from Israel. However republicans will only emphasize their loyalty/love for Israel in response both for ideological and political reasons. So if republicans come into power, relations between the US and Israel will become strong as if nothing happened before.
This happened regarding Cuba with democrats wanting to thaw relations with the country. But when republicans came back into power, a 180 was done and they were once again the enemy as if nothing happened before.