Tag it:

Editorial

Israeli Crisis of Leadership

One of the main conclusions of the Winograd Commission of Inquiry is the unbelievable mediocrity of the Israeli political leadership. Not only its total lack of understanding of the political and regional context, but also its intellectual laziness. Haaretz journalist Doron Rosenblum compares the present leadership with David Ben Gurion, who, before a military campaign, would close himself in his office for several days in order to do his homework and read everything available on the topic (Haaretz, 4 May 2007). Nothing of that kind exists today with the prime minister and his close advisors. “Ben Gurion fell ill before any military operation, due to fear and anxiety. Rabin suffered a breakdown a few days prior to the 1967 Middle East war, anxious from the burden of responsibility. This is not the case with the present Israeli leaders, who go to war without any kind of hesitation, busy with empty clichés and bragging on the TV screens” (ibid).

While it is true that Olmert, Peretz and others are not, to say the least, great leaders or intelligent politicians, their personal incompetence is only part of the story. Colonial arrogance is the other part of the picture: they don’t feel that they have to do homework, because they know everything about the enemy, who is by definition, uneducated, untrained, fanatic, militarily inefficient and not worthy of any serious study.

This is why Israel’s leaders have always been surprised: surprised by the Arab offensive in 1973, surprised by the Lebanese-Palestinian resistance in 1982, surprised by the first Intifada etc. Reality is always more complex than the colonialist stereotypes.

There is, however, one exception: Shimon Peres. According to the Winograd report, at the cabinet meeting prior to the war, Peres asked relevant questions and expressed doubts about the one-sided arrogant presentation of the Chief of Staff. This is why the Haaretz editorial (4 May 2007) reflects a broad opinion among the Israeli public in suggesting that Peres–84 years old–should take the lead of the country. In the meantime, however, the old leader is trying, once again, to be elected President of the State, but one cannot avoid the conclusion that a country whose only political alternative is an 84 year old politician, definitely has a problem of leadership.

Arcadi Gaydamak

Political ambitions and criminal inquiries

Last week, we described the growing role of billionaire Arcadi Gaydamak in Israeli society and the efficient way through which he is replacing the state in dealing with the urgent needs of the population.

Already during the Lebanese war, Gaydamak was much more efficient than the state in providing shelter and assistance to the residents of northern Israel, obliged to escape from the shelling of Hezbollah. Since then, Gaydamak’s office has become the primary address for thousands of Israeli citizens looking for solutions to their day-to-day problems, and his bank account an ersatz to the empty budget of the Ministry of Welfare, which has been one of the main victims of the neoliberal turn of the late 1980s.

Arkadi Gaydamak, however, is not a philanthropist. He has clear political ambitions and is playing in the political playground. He has been approached by most of the old political parties, especially the Likud, but decided to keep his autonomy and build his own political framework. His first target is the Jerusalem municipality, and a few weeks ago he announced that he will run for Mayor of the city. No doubt that he can succeed and use the Jerusalem town hall to further his political objectives.

In order to reach this target, however, Gaydamak first needs to get the Israeli state prosecutor off his back. Several years ago, the prosecution opened an inquiry into alleged serious financial crimes, illegal transfers of money and income tax violations. With the support of many politicians who are interested in keeping good relations with the man, Gaydamak is launching a pressure campaign on the State Legal Advisor, Meni Mazuz, to close the file against him.

Last week, Gaydamak published large and expensive advertisements—in very poor Hebrew—in the main Israeli dailies, in which he demanded an end to what he considers to be “harassment of the police because he is a Russian and a businessman.”

Mazuz, It's Time for You to Decide

(Gaydamak’s paid advertisement, published in Haaretz, 24 May 2007; the poor language and editing is in the original Hebrew text)

Attn: Meni Mazuz, Legal Advisor of the Government,

Dear Mister Mazuz,

Long ago, I addressed you, due to your senior position, and presented to you evidence about a campaign which I define, partially, as illegal and criminal. Such a campaign is conducted against me by businessmen and interested people who are using any means and exploiting for bad purposes the legal system in Israel, while they incite against me senior police officers and senior officials in the Ministry of Justice.

Such a persecution is the result of my Russian origin, and the very fact that I am a rich person, who is widely publicized in the international media in relation to my problematic relationship with the French legal authorities. Worse even, the fact that I dared to develop a real involvement in the affairs of the state, and I offered to help my Jewish brothers in the country and throughout the world.

The police inquiry which you, Mr. Mazuz, are in charge of, is intensively going on since a long time, without any real charge sheet.

Such a severe and unbearable situation is causing to me and my family serious damages and legal prejudices.  

This situation of no-decision is also causing big damages to my businesses.

This situation of no-decision offers to self-righteous journalists, politicians and people with personal interests, a large space to exploit this unfinished inquiry, and to provoke big damages to me and my family.

Mister Mazouz, in these days, while the Jewish community in the country is living difficult days, I feel that my duty is to increase my public involvement.

This is why I address you:

Act firmly and strongly in order to reach a decision, whether to put, at once, an end to this endless and unjust inquiry against me, or to submit a formal charge-sheet, that will allow me to prove my innocence and to demonstrate to the court and to the public at large, that I have been victimized.

I ask to reach a conclusion as fast as possible, and in time frame of no more than four weeks.

Sincerely,

Arkadi Geidamak

After 40 Years

The Myth of Jerusalem Re-unification

Although “Jerusalem Day” was celebrated a couple of weeks ago, according to the Jewish calendar, 6 June is the day of “reunification of Jerusalem.” This year, the celebrations were supposed to be particularly important, under the title “40 Years of Re-unification”. A double mystification.

First, Jerusalem  is not RE-unified, because most of the huge part of the West Bank which was annexed to West Jerusalem in 1967, under that pretext of "re-unification" has never been part of Jerusalem, neither in ancient times, nor under the Ottomans or the British mandate. The “re-unification” slogan was only a pretext to annex to Israel a large segment of the West Bank between Ramallah in the north and Bethlehem in the South.

Second, Jerusalem is not unified:

What a pity that the all the lip service of Israeli public figures about the slogan “Jerusalem unity” cannot be changed into shekels. The sea of words about “the City which has been connected together” could fill the huge gap which exists between East and West Jerusalem. As with every year, the festivities of “Jerusalem Day” will jump over a big part of the city residents. The only elements that remain from the annexation of the Palestinian neighborhoods to the Israeli, western part of Jerusalem, are the dry law of the Knesset [the law which formalizes the annexation, MW] and "blue identity cards” (making the Palestinians from Jerusalem Israeli permanent residents). "Jerusalem Day" reminds one-third of the 730,000 residents of the supposedly united city that they are, in the worst case, second class residents of, and even worse, a "demographic problem."  Israel has cut them off from their brothers in the West Bank, but does not make any effort to create the feeling that they are welcome under its roof" (Haaretz editorial, 16 May 2007).

Jerusalem is still a divided city, first of all because its Palestinian population does not accept the Israeli annexation, and considers itself, today, as forty years ago, as part and parcel of the Palestinian people and its national liberation struggle, the fight to get rid of the Israeli presence. The Jerusalem Law and the blue identity cards have been unilaterally imposed on the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. Even the limited social benefits they receive from their status of residents of Israel have not seduced them to accept Israel's annexation. Their demand remains to see East Jerusalem as the free capital of a truly sovereign Palestinian State.