Al-Azhar reiterates its salute to the steadfast Palestinians and appreciates their keen clinging to their dear homeland and perseveringly holding on to its soil, regardless of the cost and sacrifices involved. Indeed, their lands represent their dignity and their honor... It is better for you to die on your land as knights, heroes, and martyrs than to leave it to the usurping colonialists.]]> said, "Egypt will not allow the Palestinian cause to be settled at the expense of other parties." This callous attitude defined Egypt's 1949-67 occupation of Gaza. Egyptian authorities severely restricted Palestinian employment outside the Strip and forcibly transferred thousands of refugees who settled in Cairo to Gaza. Dramatic economic and demographic growth accompanied Israel's post-1967 administration of Gaza. For decades after the Six Day War, Palestinians moved freely from Gaza to Israel, where many found work. That combined with Israeli investment in development projects caused the Strip's GNP to grow during 1968-82 on average by 9.7 percent per annum, enabling a much higher fertility rate. A 1967 Israeli census recorded 354,000 inhabitants while its current population approaches 2.4 million. Israel only introduced work permits in 1991 during the First Intifada. Economic conditions deteriorated further under the Palestinian Authority's administration (1994-2007) as terrorism worsened. In 1992, 116,000 Gazans worked in Israel. By 1996, the number fell to 28,000. Palestinian groups commenced shooting rockets at Israel during the Second Intifada after the Gaza security barrier effectively reduced terrorist infiltration. Their volume increased after Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza and again after Hamas seized control of the Strip in 2007. Israel responded with a naval blockade to intercept materials used to manufacture weapons and for other military purposes. Accordingly, labeling Gaza an "open-air prison," ignores how Israel progressively tightened freedom of movement in response to increasingly sophisticated terrorist attacks. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with a membership of 57 states and serving as "the collective voice of the Muslim world," advocates "the opening of humanitarian corridors to facilitate the entry of medicines and food supplies and basic needs to the Gaza Strip," but not a safe corridor. Its official statement on the current conflict never mentions the bloodbath that provoked Israel's war against Hamas. It merely denounces Israel's "sinful aggression" while calling Palestinian casualties "martyrs." One must conclude the OIC shares al-Azhar's sentiment that its more honorable for Palestinian civilians to accept martyrdom than seek temporary refuge in neighboring Egypt.]]>
Not everyone knows this, but recently a revolution has occurred in Israel. I am speaking of a constitutional revolution... A Knesset law may no longer infringe the basic rights mentioned [in those two statutes], unless it is enacted for a worthy purpose, even then only to the extent necessary, and it fits the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.Unfortunately, Barak's narrow definition of human dignity resembles Harari's. In the third volume of his Interpretation in Law series, Barak wrote, "Social human rights such as the right to education, to health care, and to social welfare are, of course, very important rights, but they are not, so it seems, part of 'human dignity.'" Numerous Supreme Court rulings reflect this narrow definition. A 2005 decision upheld legislation drastically cutting income support. The plaintiffs in Commitment to Peace and Social Justice Association v. Minister of Finance claimed "their human dignity was damaged" because "the cut in income support benefits, combined with recent reductions in child benefit rates and rent assistance, place[d] their recipients far below the 'poverty line,' and allow only a cramped and depressing physical existence." Writing for the majority, Barak opined,
The duty of the state according to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom derives from the obligation to maintain a system that will guarantee a "safety net" for the underprivileged in society, so that their material situation will not result in any existential shortage. In this framework, it must ensure that a person has enough food and drink for his subsistence; a place of residence, where he can exercise his privacy and his family life and shelter from the elements; bearable sanitary conditions and health services, which will guarantee him access to the capabilities of modern medicine.Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled the income support cuts constitutional because the plaintiffs' "depressing physical existence" did not threaten their subsistence. Victoria Israeli v. The Committee for Expanding the Health Basket (2006) demonstrated that "access to the capabilities of modern medicine" is not an inalienable right. The plaintiff needed a cochlear implant to prevent deafness, but could not afford the 70% patient copayment. Arguing that "hearing is essential for the dignity of those going deaf," Israeli petitioned that "an adult with bilateral deafness that cannot be restored by hearing aids... be exempt from the copayment... or [pay] a reduced fee." The Supreme Court rejected her petition on the grounds that they "do not have sufficient infrastructure to examine this case through constitutional glasses" and therefore rely "on the [Health] Basket Committee's expertise." Unsurprisingly, Shas Party Chairman Eli Yishai vented in 2006, "The Supreme Court has long since lost touch with reality and makes decisions that are not humane." Shas represents poorer Mizrahi Jews and supports a comprehensive welfare state. Its 2022 coalition agreement with Likud calls for broadly expanding Israel's social safety net. Provisions include boosting the negative income tax for low-paid workers, raising grants per child for poor working families, investing more than $1.6 billion in improving health services (particularly in poorer districts), allocating at least $280 million/year for rechargeable cards used to access "food and essential products required for a dignified life," and increasing public transportation student discounts. While much analysis focuses on Prime Minister Netanyahu's legal wrangles, the factions pushing hardest for restoring parliamentary sovereignty are Shas, United Torah Judaism, and Religious Zionism as they represent poorer constituencies. Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee Chairman Simcha Rothman insists social justice necessitates restoring parliamentary sovereignty because "when the court annulled laws in the name of the principle of equality, it almost always did so in order to protect the white Ashkenazi majority from Tel Aviv... They turned the bottom of the barrel of socioeconomic classes into the evil, greedy majority from whom we have to protect ourselves." Protestors against the judicial reforms mostly come from Israel's economic elite. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that "banks and corporations have excused employees from work to join marches... What is shaking Israel is no youthful anti-establishment movement. It is the top professional classes." High-tech workers facing a coalition intent on redistributing a fraction of the wealth they acquired thanks to colossal corporate welfare constitute the anti-reform movement's most fanatical wing. An informal group called "High Tech Workers Resistance" is divesting billions of dollars from Israel, hoping the threat of economic collapse will force Netanyahu's coalition to abandon judicial reform. Reform opponents hold rallies every Saturday night in Tel Aviv. Last Saturday, protest organizers invited Yuval Noah Harari to address the crowd. He told attendees, "When the Supreme Court strikes down a tyrannical law, then the security forces and civil service workers are obligated to support the Supreme Court and not obey the government." Apparently, the economic elite opposing parliamentary sovereignty no longer bothers hiding that it prefers oligarchy to a democratic government elected by Israel's "useless class." ]]>
Not everyone knows this, but recently a revolution has occurred in Israel... A Knesset law may no longer infringe the basic rights mentioned [in those two statutes], unless it is enacted for a worthy purpose, even then only to the extent necessary, and it fits the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.He believed interpreting the statutes' ambiguous wording required "an awareness of the legal, historical, and social developments that we have witnessed and those yet to emerge." Unfazed by this seemingly impossible task, Barak concluded, "Israel has the best of judges at all levels. Now that we have been given the tools, we will do the work."]]> alleges these reforms will "mortally wound the state's democratic identity" while Israel Bar Association President Avi Himi advocates Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara removing Prime Minister Netanyahu from office. He told Haaretz that she should "declare him incapacitated. After that, it would be possible to work on new coalition alliances." Most analysis focuses on Netanyahu's legal wrangles, ignoring the socio-economic anxieties actually fueling this crisis. Bret Stephens epitomizes this trend when he posits, "Netanyahu got himself into legal trouble, giving him a personal interest in bringing the judiciary to heel." In fact, militant opposition to the proposed judicial overhaul reflects secular, white-collar Israelis' fear of economic redistribution. Israel's newly installed coalition is the first lacking parties representing that demographic. However, the Supreme Court undemocratically perpetuates a secular, white-collar majority because a predominantly secular Knesset appointed the Supreme Court's original justices and white-collar professionals run the Bar Association. Sectarian segregation defines Israeli society. The state unequally funds four parallel school systems: (1) state-secular, (2) state-religious, (3) independent (i.e. Haredi/ultra-Orthodox), and (4) Arab. From cradle to grave, cross-sector social interaction remains rare. Each sector maintains its own youth groups, media, charities, religious institutions, and political parties. However, a strong cleavage persists within the state-secular stream between white-collar, secular Ashkenazi Jews on the one hand and poorer, mainly Mizrahi, traditional Jews living outside Israel's cosmopolitan cities on the other. The former overwhelmingly support parties currently in opposition (e.g. Yesh Atid, National Unity, Labor, and Yisrael Beiteinu for Russian voters) while the latter mainly back Likud. Alongside sectarian segregation, Israeli society suffers from high poverty and income inequality. The World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform exposes Israeli poverty through its "share of population living on less than $10 a day" data, which is "adjusted for inflation and for differences in the cost of living between countries." In 2017, the Israeli figure was 9.50%, compared with 2.75% in the US, 1.79% in the UK, 1.15% in Sweden, and 0.75% in Germany. Even in Hungary, only 8.57% of the population lived on less than $10 a day. Israel's National Insurance Institute published on 12 January 2023 its "Report on the Dimensions of Poverty and Income Inequality - 2021." It calculated that 21% of Israeli citizens and 28% of children live in poverty. Simultaneously, the NGO Latet, which operates Israel's leading food bank, reported that 19.1% of Israeli children live in severe food insecurity. The National Insurance Institute report recorded massive income inequality across Israel's six administrative districts. In the Central District, the main beneficiary of Israel's high-tech-driven economic boom, only 12.0% of residents and 14.4% of children live in poverty, whereas the Jerusalem District's figures are 39.9% and 49.0% respectively. The OECD's last comprehensive survey of Israel's economy, which was published in September 2020, found that the share of workers in poverty "increased significantly over the past 20 years" and now ranks among the highest of its member countries. It concluded, "The business tax system provides large benefits to internationally competitive and high-tech firms. This preferential treatment should be reviewed with a view to better targeting the scheme to ensure net benefits to society and reduced distortions." Since Prime Minister Netanyahu's recently installed coalition government uniquely excludes parties representing white-collar, secular Israelis, they see the judiciary as their last line of defense against a more robust welfare state. The new government's coalition agreements call for broadly expanding Israel's social safety net. Provisions include boosting the negative income tax for low-paid workers, raising grants per child for poor working families, investing more than $1.6 billion in improving health services (particularly in poorer districts), allocating at least $280 million/year for rechargeable cards used to access "food and essential products required for a dignified life," and increasing public transportation student discounts. Furthermore, they commit to freezing the previous government's trade liberalization policy threatening Israeli farmers and canceling a traffic congestion tax scheme that would charge an ascending amount as drivers move closer to Tel Aviv's city center. Leading opponents of the government's proposed judicial reforms callously express an Atlas Shrugged-style elitism. Former Shabak director Yuval Diskin wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth, "Strikes will explain to the majority... the minority that specifically opposes the legal and administrative revolution is actually the majority when it comes to carrying the burden: high-tech, doctors, lawyers, academia, etc." Verbit CEO Tom Livine promotes high-tech firms divesting from Israel and tax resistance unless the government abandons its judicial reform initiative. "When we, the engine of the economy, speak like that and really take these steps, I think that they will come to the table and speak." In the following weeks, approximately 50 companies, mainly from the high-tech industry, withdrew billions of shekels from Israeli banks, exchanged them for foreign currencies, and deposited the funds abroad. Such economic sabotage recalls lockouts organized by Chilean employer associations to destabilize Salvador Allende's government before the 1973 military coup. Although Avi Himi requested the Attorney General, not the military, oust Netanyahu, former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz predicts soldiers may refuse government orders. Halutz stated during a "Meet the Press" interview, "Soldiers and officers who will recognize that there is a dictatorship here - they did not come to be mercenaries of a dictator." Recent polls suggest opposition hyperbole and economic sabotage is eroding popular support for the government. Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Chairman Simcha Rothman ascribes government supporters souring on restoring parliamentary sovereignty to opposition extortion, summarizing their logic as: "We think it is critical to enact the reform, but if it does actually happen, there is a group here that will set the country on fire, and we love the country more than we think it's necessary to enact the reform." To those citing survey results showing voters overwhelmingly prioritize lowering living costs over judicial reform, Rothman warns the government cannot legislate its economic agenda as long as the Supreme Court remains the "preserve of the privileged." Rothman insists, "When the court annulled laws in the name of the principle of equality, it almost always did so in order to protect the white Ashkenazi majority from Tel Aviv... They turned the bottom of the barrel of socioeconomic classes into the evil, greedy majority from whom we have to protect ourselves." Thus, social justice and judicial reform remain inseparable.]]>
History
The
collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 left America as the sole
superpower. The situation was even seen as the End
of History, with America the indispensable
nation. But this was immediately followed by a major
and largely unrecognized strategic blunder: the failure to integrate Russia into
the Industrialized World. The Russian people had vague but optimistic hopes
that the end of the Cold War would lead to a new era of peace and prosperity.
But those hopes were immediately destroyed. The West stood by while the
fragile democratic effort was overwhelmed as former elites seized the nation's
assets. Under-employment was replaced with widespread unemployment. The
population was encouraged to see democracy and market capitalism as Western
ploys designed to humiliate Russia.
This
blunder also had a military dimension. The collapse of the Soviet Union also collapsed the
basic rationale for NATO as a military alliance. But instead of a drawdown and
despite earlier informal assurances, NATO integrated several East European
nations. Russia naturally took this as a military challenge and objected
strongly.
Recent Developments
Putin
consolidated his position by blaming the West for Russian economic problems, skillfully
appealing to traditional Russian ambivalence. Stressing the need to counter
NATO, he rejuvenated the Army, a source of pride for the average Russian. Emphasizing Russia's rightful position as a
world leader, his broadly confrontational stance gained domestic support. It
also undermined democratic movements on Russia's periphery: supporting
breakaway provinces in Moldavia and Georgia, annexing the Crimea and backing up
an occupation of eastern Ukraine. Strong Russian support for Syrian President
Assad resulted in thousands of deaths and major refugee flows into Europe. As
the United States pulled out of northern Syria, abandoning its Kurdish allies, Russia surged
in
as the new power broker. Closer relations with an increasingly autocratic
Turkey deteriorated as military elements came in contact. Across the globe, it
is Russian support that allows Venezuela's Nicholas Maduro to remain in power.
This effort is particularly sensitive to the oil market; one of Russia's major
oil companies, Rosneft, is just
recently exiting its investments there.
On
a purely military side, Putin announced a major increase in
defense spending, boasting of
powerful new weapons that could make American defenses obsolete. His belligerent military emphasis is fundamentally a show
for the Russian people. He needs a visible enemy to distract public attention
from his plutocratic elite, from internal repression, and from actions undermining
Russia's professed democratic ideals. His central fear is not some Western
intrusion, but internal unrest. This is the basic reason he reacted so strongly
to the Rose Revolution in 2003 and the Orange Revolution the next year that
removed pro-Russian governments in Georgia and Ukraine. His central objective
is retaining power, while provoking the West is his main approach.
Russian
meddling in the 2016 US Presidential elections reached well over 100 million
Americans
with false, misleading and inflammatory postings on Facebook, messages on
Twitter and over 1,000 videos on YouTube. While America is vulnerable to such deceptive
postings, Russia is vulnerable to truthful ones. Russian meddling seems to have
been
retaliation for the Panama Papers, revelations from thousands of
documents from a Panamanian law firm that exposed corrupt financial ties of
several prominent Russians. A furious Putin attributed the papers to Western
intelligence. This allowed him to depict it as simply Western propaganda, but demonstrated his sensitivity to exposure of
corruption.
The
United States has a considerable advantage in open broadcasting. For almost
eighty years, Radio Liberty has been a major challenge to Russia, becoming the
most listened-to Western radio station. In
2014, Radio Liberty launched a new Russian-language TV news program, Current
Time. This has reported on such sensitive topics as Russian intervention in
Syria, the poisoning of a Soviet refugee in London and the revelations of the
Panama Papers. In 2018, its website had over 90 million visits, its Facebook
page had some 600,000 followers, and it was active on YouTube, Twitter and
other social networks.
Democratic
ideals have strong resonance in Russia. The more difficult everyday economic
situations become, the more the government has to suppress unrest over low
living standards. Independent
candidates make electoral politics increasingly contested and the government
reacts with voter
suppression; over 1000 people recently protested in Moscow over barring opposition candidates from the city
ballot. Open broadcasts have a significant potential
to influence developments in Russia. A current wave of
arrests
against journalists vividly illustrates the Kremlin's concern about popular protests,
while thousands
recently marched to mark five years since the assassination of an opposition
politician. It is understandable that the Russian populace wholeheartedly
embraced a strong leader who brought stability and pride back to Russia. But discontent
over corruption and economic conditions have been growing. Health and
demographic issues and a reliance on raw material sales downgrade the
potential for economic development.
Presidents
Trump and Putin have had a long-standing personal rapport but details of their
phone calls have been carefully
controlled
by the White House. During their most recent
conversation
on March 30, 2020, they agreed that the oil price war between Russia and Saudi
Arabia did not suit either of them and Russia would be willing to reduce oil
output. There was also discussion on Venezuela and the need for an eventual
democratic transition. And they agreed to work together on addressing the
coronavirus. Two days later, a Russian military plane with needed medical
supplies landed in New York. A Russian
spokesman
said that "We can provide emergency equipment needed to save Americans....We are
sure that the U.S., if necessary, will also assist us and we will gladly accept
the aid." This is clearly an ideal time for re-engaging.
Future
The
core Western objective should be doing what it should have done thirty years
ago: integrate Russia into the Industrialized World. Western open broadcasting can
make Russian corruption and repression as transparent as possible, exposing the
underlying reason for low economic levels and the total fiction of a Western
threat. NATO now focusing on Russia as an enemy only supports Putin's threat narrative,
while some misstep could actually result in armed
conflict. It also drains huge amounts of resources from positive uses
(including disaster preparations) to supporting interminable wars.
NATO
should issue a strong statement deemphasizing military operations and focusing on
Russian political, social and economic integration into the Industrialized
World. NATO has to demonstrate that it is not a threat
and emphasize economic collaboration.
Russian ambivalence towards the West has been a
driving force for centuries. A real move to integration could have strong
appeal to the Russian public increasingly dissatisfied with the internal
situation. Russian protestors want democracy, but have
nothing to rally around. We should give them something, actively inviting
Russian to join in development efforts. Programs that promote real development
and provide Russia its own position on the world stage can have a strong
resonance with the Russian people.
Overall, it is economic pressures,
opportunities and incentives that could most effectively move Russia toward a
more democratic and cooperative posture. A NATO outreach policy needs to be
supported by significant actions. The coronavirus will certainly pressure NATO
to modify its standard of 2% of Gross Domestic Product supporting defense
expenditures. A small portion, say, initially 0.25 %, could be dedicated for a
new Russian Partnership Fund to improve Russia's internal economy and increase
collaboration. The fund could work with Russian representatives to identify
most attractive projects, ones that could have maximum impact for minimal cost
while simultaneously demonstrating project transparency and accountability.
Creating a new approach to helping
Russia become a true global partner with other countries is key. We already
have an existing partnership in our joint operations on space exploration as
well as continuing cooperation on securing nuclear materials and knowledge. We
need to expand our approach to include assisting with infrastructure issues,
medical issues, educational exchanges, environmental issues and other
scientific matters. Russia, for example,
has a totally inadequate highway system while the United
States has deep experience building a nation-wide transportation network.
Investment projects outside the oil industry are badly needed, but that has
been a main focus for Russia for years. And, of course, the coronavirus is also
making medical shortcomings increasingly visible. Diplomatically, collaboration with Russia
could help resolve confrontations in Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and Syria.
Rather
than promote a new Cold War, now is the time to definitively end the last one.