Hours before unleashing a ground offensive against Gaza City on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu braced his country for a future of mounting economic isolation, urging it to become a “super Sparta” of the Middle East.
The future Netanyahu laid out for Israel, of a more militarized society, a partial autarky — or economically self-sufficient country — with limited trade options and relying increasingly on homemade production, has stirred up a backlash among Israelis who are ever more uneasy at the prospect of following him down the path to a pariah state.
On Tuesday, Israel took a few more steps along that path. As its tanks lumbered through the streets toward the center of Gaza City, a UN Commission of Inquiry published a detailed and damning report which concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Illustration: Mountain People
On the same day, the European Commission prepared to discuss the potential suspension of part of the Israel-EU trade agreement, while the list of countries pledging to recognize Palestine continued to grow — as did the number of states threatening to boycott the Eurovision song contest if Israel took part.
On the news and on social media, there are daily stories of Israelis getting into scuffles or being assailed by hostile local people while on holiday abroad. For many Israelis, who have grown up thinking of themselves as an outpost of “the West” in the Middle East, all this is deeply troubling.
Stocks on the Tel Aviv stock market took an immediate dip after Netanyahu’s super Sparta speech, and the shekel fell against the US dollar. Those on the trading floors who knew their ancient history remembered that the Spartans fought hard — but lost disastrously.
“I don’t want to be Sparta,” Arnon Bar-David, the head of Israel’s biggest trade union federation, Histadrut, said at a union meeting on Tuesday. “We deserve peace. Israeli society is exhausted, and our status in the world is very bad.”
As the ground offensive began, a group of 80 prominent Israeli economists added up the country’s self-harm in billions of shekels. They warned that the attempt to conquer and destroy all of Gaza was “a threat to the security and economic resilience of the state of Israel, and could distance it from the group of developed countries.”
Netanyahu in his speech on Monday blamed foreigners for Israel’s increasing isolation, which he referred to as “a siege that is organized by a few states.”
“One is China, and the other is Qatar. And they are organizing an attack on Israel, legitimacy, in the social media of the Western world and the United States,” he said.
To the West, the threat was different, but equally pernicious, he added.
“Western Europe has large Islamist minorities. They’re vocal. Many of them are politically motivated. They align with Hamas, they align with Iran,” Netanyahu said. “They pressure the governments of western Europe, many of whom are kindly disposed to Israel, but they see that they are being overtaken, really, by campaigns of violent protest and constant intimidation.”
His remarks seemed to be a reference to the UK, France and Belgium, which are expected to recognize Palestine at the UN General Assembly later this month and have been increasingly critical of Israel over the Gaza war.
Netanyahu’s claim that western European governments were somehow in thrall to Islamism was an echo of conspiracy theories propagated by the growing far-right movements in those countries.
Netanyahu and his coalition have increasingly made common cause with the extreme right in Europe and the US, turning a blind eye to the anti-Semitic lineage of those movements.
As far as his domestic critics were concerned, Netanyahu’s heightened oratory was no more than a characteristic refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of his government’s actions.
One commenter, Sever Plocker, writing in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper and using a biblical reference, said that Netanyahu’s policies “truly are leading Israel straight into the tragic situation of a ‘people who shall dwell alone,’ cut off from the developed western world, a country that other nations don’t want to go anywhere near, visit, host or much less trade with.”
The Democrats leader Yair Golan voiced a widespread suspicion in Israel that Netanyahu was determined to keep Israel steeped in war, as a means of warding off early elections, remaining as prime minister and staying out of jail.
At a hearing of his trial on corruption charges on Tuesday, Netanyahu did indeed use the ground offensive as an argument to limit his attendance in court.
Netanyahu’s message to citizens ahead of the Jewish new year was: “In order to keep my seat, I need eternal war and isolation. And you will sacrifice the country, the economy, your children’s future and your relationship with the world,” Golan said.
For all the criticism Netanyahu has faced over the past two years of warfare, he has defied expectations by staying in power. Support from Washington — reluctantly from former US president Joe Biden and more indiscriminately from US President Donald Trump — has helped him stay in place. The Gaza City ground offensive followed a green light delivered in person by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, when he vowed “unwavering” support to eliminate Hamas.
Meanwhile, in domestic politics the Orthodox and national religious electorates have risen in importance, just as Israel’s old secular, technocratic elites have faded. Netanyahu’s coalition partners on the far right welcome the siege mentality he is seeking to instill, as it wards off the prospect of compromise and foreign influence that would inhibit the drive toward a greater Israel built on the ruins of the Palestinian territories.
Right-wing commentator and journalist Amihai Attali said it was time for Israelis to realize they were in a religious war to the death, in which some economic hardship was a small price to pay.
“Yes, this will take longer than we have grown accustomed to fighting; yes, this will be more exhausting and will heavily tax our national and social resources,” Attali wrote in the Yedioth Ahronoth. “We have no option but to wield our swords.”
“How romantic to fantasize about the heroic and ascetic Spartans, a mere few hundred of whom successfully fought a powerful Persian army. The problem is that Sparta was annihilated,” veteran columnist Ben Caspit wrote in the center-right Maariv newspaper. “It lost and disappeared.”
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS