Alik Bahshi
Verified User
Alik Bakhshi
Features of Jewish national policy
Features of Jewish national policy
Similar to the Russian film "Peculiarities of the National Hunt," which vividly depicts how hunting in Russia should be understood and who ends up as its prey, Israeli national characteristics also add a unique flavor to the dishes offered by its political cuisine. The most well-known of these are Israeli-style democracy, Israeli-style socialism, Israeli-style Jew (a Jewish mother's side is considered a sweet dish, while a Jewish father's side has a uniquely bittersweet flavor), Israeli-style marriage, or rather, Paraguayan-style marriage, or the dish known as "controlled territories" (everything beyond the green line is controlled, while everything within it is uncontrolled), Israeli-style justice, and so on. One can't help but mention the most popular dish of today—the Middle East peace process, whose unique feature lies in its masochistic application, namely, the process of successively (unfortunately, at long intervals) applying the toe of the American boot to the soft spots of the political leaders of the conflicting parties.
Israel's political course is carried out by two major parties: Labor and Likud (the Kadima party, a spinoff from Likud due to the political ambitions of former Likud members, is essentially the same Likud), sharing the same primary goal: building and defending the state. The difference between these parties is that Labor's economic policy is based on quasi-socialist principles of governance, while Likud proclaims freedom of enterprise, privatization of state property, and the expansion of democracy. It proclaims precisely this, having essentially made no significant changes to the country's economy during its years in power. And there are objective reasons for this, stemming from the Likud's political program. The fact is that the creation of a Greater Israel, Likud-style, can only be achieved under a socialist system, the closest thing to totalitarianism, where all levers of control, both political and economic, are concentrated in the hands of the state. It's no coincidence that the Israeli version of socialism has been so well suited to the current situation and has existed virtually unchanged for over 50 years. No spontaneous free market is capable of creating settlements or even entire "development cities" exclusively populated by Jews for strategic and political purposes, either within the Green Line or in the occupied (or, if you prefer, controlled) territories. Moreover, remarkably, these cities are experiencing the same unemployment problem as the BAM cities in Russia, once again demonstrating the futility of arbitrary decisions that take into account only ideological considerations, not backed by economic feasibility.
The Likud bloc's core political position is to retain all territories conquered in defensive wars for Israel, and socially to democratize Israeli society. This is where the Likud bloc inevitably runs into each time: the impossibility of democratic reforms without resolving the Palestinian issue. For example, a necessary attribute of democracy, such as a constitution, is impossible only for a select segment of the population, and equalizing the rights of the Arab population of the territories with the Jews is not part of the Likud bloc's plans.
Considering the above, Labor's policies have always been more realistic, while Likud pursued illusory goals that had nothing to do with reality, which adjusted Likud's policies and forced it to make the only possible decisions, which it followed contrary to its party program. Hence the fateful decisions of the Likud governments regarding the ceding of Sinai and the Madrid Peace Conference, which launched peace negotiations with the Palestinians, the outcome of which will undoubtedly be the creation of a Palestinian state.
Of course, the Likud's stated goals reflect the dreams of the majority of Israelis, who remain trapped in a world of illusions and, due to their inert mindset, are unwilling to embrace the changes in the political situation in the Middle East, which had long been an arena for clashing interests between the US and the USSR over the availability of global oil reserves. The collapse of the Soviet empire and the Kremlin's abandonment of its political plans to take control of the Middle East, thereby depriving the West of energy resources, led to a situation in which America became the sole and sovereign political arbiter of the Middle East. This was clearly demonstrated by the politically justified Gulf War of 1991 and the completely mistaken current invasion of Iraq, which will bring America undesirable political consequences. As a result, Washington's task of achieving stability in the Middle East has become much more complex. In addition to the Iraqi problem, there is a pressing need to resolve the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict—the main culprit behind the September 11 tragedy in New York (see my article "...and then came the thunder")—a problem that, like a cancer, is metastasizing across the globe.