One is a pistol-packing ex-member of an outlawed Jewish militant group. The other is a religious fundamentalist who once called himself a “proud homophobe.” Both are West Bank settlers averse to Palestinians’ self-rule — let alone their hopes of statehood.
As senior coalition partners to re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich would be within reach of the levers of power — a troubling prospect for Israel’s once-dominant secular-left and friends in the West.
Netanyahu turned to the ultra-nationalists after centrist parties boycotted him over his long-running corruption trial. He needs their support to stay in office as he argues his innocence in court, but denies that this spells pliability to their demands.
“I will navigate this government. The other parties are joining me. I’m not joining them,” Netanyahu told the Arabic TV news channel Al Arabiya last month, pledging to enforce “liberal rightist” policymaking.
Besides, “a lot of them have changed and moderated their views, principally because with the assumption of power comes responsibility,” he added.
There might be precedent in Avigdor Lieberman, a firebrand whose 2006 appointment as deputy prime minister triggered much the same response as Ben-Gvir’s rise: liberal warnings of civil war and, on Israel’s top TV satire, his lampooning as a Nazi.
Lieberman proved to be politically adaptable. He served in various coalitions — one of which included an Islamist party — and ended up in the current opposition, from which he has scorned Netanyahu’s new allies as “zealots and extremists.”
Still, Lieberman could also play spoiler from the right. As Netanyahu’s foreign minister in a previous government, he would publicly promote a harder line on the Palestinians than the premier’s. In a later term, Lieberman resigned as Netanyahu’s defense minister in protest at a Gaza truce he deemed too lax.
Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party has now retained the defense and foreign ministries, but the optics around Ben-Gvir and Smotrich might yet prove combustible for him. For example, if either man visits or prays at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, an icon of Palestinian nationalism which is also the holiest site for Judaism as vestige of its two ancient temples.
Netanyahu’s previous 15 years as premier saw him feathering the nests of the hawks in his Cabinet — or clipping their wings — as he deemed necessary. Back then, he had parties to his left to help him function as an ideological fulcrum.
“With all the parties in the incoming government situated to Netanyahu’s right, it will be difficult for him to replicate that role this time,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute think-tank. “Does he want to?”
On Ben-Gvir’s and Smotrich’s calls for West Bank annexations, Netanyahu is on record as being in favor, while also avoiding action on the ground that would risk escalating into confrontations with Washington or Arab partners.
Yet Smotrich did carve out a Cabinet niche for himself overseeing settlements, which most world powers deem illegal for taking occupied land that Palestinians want for a state.
“He can be effective in multiplying and consolidating Israel’s presence in the West Bank,” said Amotz Asa-El, research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, adding that Smotrich’s high pace of infrastructure-building as a former transportation minister.
For Ben-Gvir, by contrast, this is the first stint in government. As national security minister, he would focus on law-and-order issues important to a swathe of Israelis, including crime-hit Arabs against whom Ben-Gvir once agitated, Asa-El said.
“After legitimating his position in broader Israeli circles, he will proceed to the realms that not all agree on — namely the West Bank,” Asa-El said.
That might have to wait, as Ben-Gvir’s portfolio does not grant major powers in the West Bank, which is under the overall control of the military.
Arguably, Ben-Gvir, 46, and Smotrich, 42, can afford to shelve some of their agendas for this round with Netanyahu, 73.
“But that’s counting on restraint from people who come from very different ideological world-views than what we’ve seen in Israeli governments before,” said Daniel Shapiro, a former US envoy to Israel and now Atlantic Council distinguished fellow.
Ben-Gvir came up through the Kahane Chai group, which is blacklisted in Israel and the US for its virulently anti-Arab doctrines. Smotrich’s advocacy of Jewish claims on the West Bank is informed by a doctrinaire faith in Bible prophesy.
Earlier generations of Israeli far-rightists in government “demonstrated an interest and capacity to engage in a genuine two-way dialogue with the United States and other international players, and seemed to recognize the limits on pursuing some of their most ideological positions,” Shapiro said.
“It remains to be seen whether that approach will characterize members of the incoming coalition,” he said.
Alan Dershowitz, a prominent American-Jewish jurist who has advised US and Israeli leaders, said that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich disavowed racism and homophobia in meetings with him this month.
“The word ‘balance’ came up a number of times” in their reassurances during the conversations, Dershowitz said.
“Obviously they were in some ways trying to get me to have a positive impression of them,” he said. “Let’s see what happens when I’m not in the room and the people in the room are pushing them to become more extreme. That’s the litmus test.”
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS