Strenger than Fiction / Advice to Netanyahu: Forget Churchill, try de Gaulle
Prime Minister Netanyahu likes to model himself along the lines of great statesmen.
By Carlo StrengerTwo weeks ago I published an article in which I predicted that the Middle East peace talks would fail. I continue to be highly skeptical, but will be more than happy to eat my words and to light a candle for Bibi, if they succeed.
 |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairing a weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on Sept. 5, 2010. |
| Photo by: AP |
Netanyahu likes to think in large historical contexts, and he likes to model himself along the lines of great statesmen. So far, Churchill has been his favorite, because Bibi thinks of himself of the Churchill that warns the world of Political Islam while the Chamberlains of this world are trying to appease it. Churchill certainly was a great statesman, but he was not without his faults, so I would suggest that Netanyahu tries another role model, no less grand in stature (and a lot taller): Charles de Gaulle.
Let us assume that Benjamin Netanyahu is indeed going for the historical peace of the leaders that he has been talking about since Washington. Let us assume Ehud Barak’s statement that Israel is ready to accept that the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be part of Palestine, and that the holy basin will be under some form of international sovereignty, reflects Bibi’s intentions. Let us assume that Netanyahu indeed wants to be a leader who wants to convince Israelis that peace is possible. How can he do this?
Netanyahu’s situation is not that different from that of de Gaulle when he came to power in 1958: de Gaulle initially supported France’s continuing rule over Algeria. He showed that great leaders can change their minds on crucial issues, and began to work towards Algerian independence.
Like de Gaulle, Netanyahu doesn’t come from the left that has supported the idea of a Palestinian state for many years, and that supported Algerian independence in the 1950s. Like de Gaulle, Netanyahu faces stiff opposition from his own constituency, if he moves towards establishing a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. But if anything, de Gaulle’s situation was more difficult. There were more generations of French settlers who had been born in Algeria, who felt that France was betraying him than there are generations of Jewish settlers in the West Bank. In 1961, a group of French generals with wide support attempted to overthrow de Gaulle, and there were several attempts on de Gaulle’s life led by French settlers in Algeria.
Netanyahu, I believe, is better off. I don’t think that he would face either an attempt on his life or that he would have to stare down a military coup. It seems that the majority of settlers are gradually coming to terms with the fact that Israel will not hold on to the territories. The recent discussions about how a one-state solution would look have served an important purpose: they have made clear to overwhelming majority of Israelis that the one-state solution is unworkable, and that that the window of opportunity for the two-state solution is closing. Hence Netanyahu is entering the process under favorable conditions.
De Gaulle was greatly helped by his credibility in leading toward Algerian independence: the French didn’t forget that de Gaulle had represented an honorable and free France during the Nazi occupation. Nobody doubted his patriotism. And it helped that de Gaulle was not perceived as part of the left that had wanted to get out of Algeria for quite some time, but that he had made up his mind, that the current situation was impossible.
The analogies are quite surprising. Netanyahu is perceived as a staunch patriot, and is placed solidly right of center. This is good, because many Israelis are highly suspicious towards leftists who speak too much about Palestinian human rights. He was an opponent of the Oslo process, which also helps, because many Israelis see it as a symbol of the left’s naiveté. He can play the card of telling the Israeli public, that, despite his pain, he has come to the conclusion that, after all, Israel needs to let go of all the territories, and that he does so because it’s good for the Jews and not for the Palestinians.
Netanyahu is possibly in the strongest position an Israeli prime minister has had for a long time. None of his coalition partners have a stranglehold on him, because he has the backup option of pulling Kadima into his government to support a bid for peace.
So it’s now up to Netanyahu. Picking de Gaulle as a model has many advantages; and it won’t require Bibi to exchange Churchill’s Cigars for de Gaulle’s uniform. Monsieur de Netanyahu: place your bets. History’s croupier is about to say “rien ne va plus.”
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
the west bank is not some distant edge of a large country, or an overseas colony, like algeria was to france, or like kurdish areas in turkey, basque areas of spain or northern ireland was to britain. this is an area that is literally on the outskirts of the two largest jewish population centers and in a country that is only 15-20 miles wide at many points. to make this analogy is ludicrous, based on the geography alone. algeria was not a potential future base for rocket attacks!
I tell you, France would act against the King of the jews with magic, bird magic, which is against the laws Moses gave the people. The question is, how much are the jews involved in it. If you are involved in Paris, jewish city Nr. 1 in Europe, than go down on you're knees and pray to YHWH for forgiveness, cause i am the witeness there for. When you are involved, just join the Teshuva movement, the door is not closed yet. Forget France and England. Remember David ben Yischai, he is the biggest jew of all times. What did David against the Magic? Just sing a new song for YHWH , Israel !!!!
I studied the French language and culture, existential philosophers and history, as opposed to being an anglophile. Churchill was a supporter of the British empire, and did not want to lose any part of it, certainly an imperialist. The "Battle of Algiers" discusses the Algerian situation, although through the eyes of the storyteller, who was a leftist. I am not sure he was entirely accurate in depicting the characters either according to wikipedia. French still had Vichy people in the govt. who were drowning Algerians in the Seine and Vichy generals in Algeria. I don't think you can quite compare Nazi sympathizers with Israelis to be fair. However, DeGaulle was highly regarded. According to the movie, the French moved out of Algeria because of the terrorism. I hope your analogy means to pull out of the territories only. Algeria did not become completely independent of France when it became independent; its economy was still dependent on France. Algeria became independent after terrorism, but even the terrorists did not know what to do when it became independent; no plan for the future according to the movie. Israel tries to be an independent nation, not a colonial or imperial nation. One state or two states, they might end up being interdependent economically. No fair to compare Israel to England or France, colonials. However, DeGaulle or Churchill? I'll take DeGaulle, if you say so.
He gave independence to Algeria, and look what it got them.. Islamization of France.
They never wanted to flood the French mainland with 20million Arabs. That's the problem with this author - he has the historical analytical mind of an amoeba.
sorry for the bad news. now let us hear some good news. try to publish material from new people.
Every person has their narrow beliefs, including their belief that they deserve more life than those weaker. There is no question that Netanyahu has narrowness of mind, in spades. Whether he can climb above his small world briefly, and see a bigger picture, is something we have to wait and see.
While the French colonial administration in Algeria was collapsing, the Israeli hold on the West Bank hasn't reached that point yet. Making peace now would be an investment in a more peaceful future, but it's not a necessity yet. Ironically the fact that Abbass leadership is keeping the peace so effectively in the West Bank, allows many Israelis to kid themselves that the staus quo can continue like this indefinitely. When the West Bank leadership returns to the path of violence again, there will not be another leader ready to make peace. Plus the Arab countries around the region will go back to supporting the Palestinian war effort against Israel, arguing Israel had many chances and blew them all. To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle: "We're returning to Vietnam because we're the stronger." Well, after the French forces lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, they pulled their troops out of Vietnam to keep control of the Algerian colony, which they lost in 1961. The point is Israel may be stronger now, but their best hope is to make an honest peace with the Palestinians so they won't need to be stronger to assure Israel's survival in the future.
wish full thinking, the one point i can agree with would be.it is that the window for a two state solution is gone! caused by israelie facts on the ground, settlements etc. i can only see a long and very bloody fight for equal rights in that small peace of land. equal rights means just, that for everybody and not with a extra bit on the" more rights for jews/isaelie/zionists". i think you the isaelies have shot themselfs in the foot with that one . the fact that the opressed people just make more babies, it gives a new meaning to the saying make love not war. so either make more babies or cop on to the fact that you are a losing train
Natanyahu would be better off modeling himself on Nelson Mandela, whose leadership prevented a civil war. He did this by learning Afrikans in prison, and then charming the people ready to cause a civil war, by demonstrating his openness to reconciliation and compromise.
Israel still can't afford the Pal state no matters where its borders will be drawn. Because Pal state would mean to replace Israel with itself. There are plenty of arabs, who would never leave Israel in order to re-settle in Pal state, etc The whole matter is simply building momentum for next war in the region. Conversely, Pal state would never resolve any problem - it certainly would stir another round of violence, and upsurge of antisemitism elsewhere.
Just speaking last night after our Rosh Hashana meal at close friends of mine, politically and religiously right of me, it became prevalent that a) they seem supportive of PM Netanyahu and b) they would probably accept a peace agreement he would sign on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people. They were skeptical of any previous Israeli leadership and of course, I on the other hand, was not supportive and skeptical of Netanyahu/Likud's sincerity when it came to peace with Israel's adversaries. Time will tell.... Churchill or de Gaulle, doesen't matter every leader needs some kind of role model.
De Gaulle, in 1967, made virulent Antisemitism not only acceptable but a respected attitude in France with his attacks not on Israel but on Jews. Haaretz yet again promoting Antisemitism in its guise of leftist liberation Charles De Gaulle's 1967 declamation on: "The Jewish people, this in elite people, sure of themselves, domineering." http://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+Charlemagne+to+Charles+De+Gaulle%3a+the+fateful+shaping+force+of...-a0229717541
There are only two possibilities, either we go all the way and come to the pre 48 idea of unique state for all it's inhabitants based on secular system and perfect equality; or go for a two states for two peoples based on the 67 borders with some minor modifications and more or less religion influenced regime. any other solution implies permanent conflics an periodic wars.
Tony, don't be naive. The moment Muslims become a majority in any county they subject all others to opression or worse, specially if they are Jews. You know what happened to Jews in Lybia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. You think they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?
Another analogy is Northern Ireland Unionism. They did everything to oppose peace, then in the late 90's the leader (Trimble) of their 'respectable anti-peace' party signed a peace deal and was voted out the next election, then finally the Unionist 'ultra-ultra-loyal' party leader (Ian Paisley) saw the peace deal through in the late 00's, became first minister, and was 'retired' from the party he created as well as the ministry he formed. Trimble is part of Bibi's 'flotilla' enquiry group. They may be friends. Northern Ireland Unionism proves that the ultra-right can completely change their view on peace deals, for whatever reason.
Charles de Gaulle referred to the Jews as an "arrogant and dominating people."
Mr.leftist the only diferent is de Gaull was leftist like you and we happened to not like them so your advice is garbege and we do not want leftist government we had sarid and belin and they cause too much of danage if you can not see this go to eye doctor
an excellent artikel /has allmost all the truth and reality in it / hope with all my heart that bibi is taking this route /God will bless him
did you read it to him...did he listen or interupt with stupid slogans?
In antiquity, the Israelites came and took over the Land of Canaan. Some of the local peoples (Canaanites, Philistines, etc.) were assimilated into Israel and some remained non-Israelites. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, many more non-Jews settled on the Land. Due to oppression by the Roman government in particular, most of the Jews left the Land into exile. They were able to maintain their Jewish identity and culture through the ages. The peoples who remained on the land were Arabized during the Islamic conquest of the 7th century, most adopting Islam. These Arabs are today's Palestinians. In the Zionist era, the Jews returned to Palestine/Land of Israel, but refused to accept the local Palestinians as their relatives. Wars ensued, and finally settled by the division of the land into two countries, Israel and Palestine. And they lived happily ever after./// Such a narrative will not be problematic for either side. Jews might initially be a bit unhappy, because it seems that they were the ones who refused to recognize the Palestinians as a related people. However, this is exactly what the Jews did following the Return from Babylonian Exile. As described in the Book of Ezra, the Jews refused to let local people join them in building the Temple and worshiping the same God. (Apparently, the reference is to the Samaritans, a mixture of Israelites and foreign people brought into the Land.) Behaving in the same way again and again is a mark of authenticity, so will be acceptable to the Jews. End of conflict. Amen.
Netanyahu is no Churchill and never was. He likes to think of himself as Churchill because he believes that he can see the distance, like Churchill. This is laughable, given how long it took him to see that a Palestinian state is the solution. As far as the de Gaulle analogy, de Gaulle was courageous while Netanyahu is a political coward. De Gaulle had to escape from Vichy France and lead his resistance. For this he gained his stature, which later helped him in solving the Algeria problem. Netanyahu is luckier, because earlier Israeli leaders, Rabin (Oslo) and Sharon (Gaza) did some of the job so that Israelis got used to the idea of "separation", which until recently Netanyahu opposed. If Netanyahu's cowardice prevent him from completing this job, it will be to his eternal shame. If he does complete the job, he will attain a somewhat undeserved respectable position in our national history. Perhaps this can be compared to King Solomon's historical standing: an actually politically unwise ruler (taxing all tribes heavily except for his own tribe of Judah) whose behavior cause damage in later years, but he escaped criticism.
The borders promised to Abraham are the ones to seek. Netanyahu is seeking YHWH God. "The fear [respect] of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs Will no one stand up against the Philistines, Anuk and worshipers of false gods? II Chron 7:14 "If my ppl which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, then will I hear from my heavenly abode..."
i think we had one never had one but israel had plenty israel
who was without faults? de Gaulle? smart article mr strenger.
Time to give it back---in your birthday suit if necessary. ATTIRE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
How ridiculous can you get? To compare these two is like comparing Washington DC to Montana. Netanyahu is negotiating an area so small in size there can be no comparison nor equivilance in all of history. Netanyahu is dealing with land that belongs to the G-d of Israel. This is G-d that swore the land to Israel. If anyone stands between the Palestinians (so-called) it is the almighty. I too would like to avoid confrontation, but it is time to occupy what G-d gave from the Nile to the Euphrates. So Netanyahu needs to be a Joshua not a Degaulle.
Algeria was a French colony, Judea-Samaria and Gaza are Jewish territories occupied and colonized by Arabs. Bibi must not act as an European leader but acts as a Jewish leader and preserves Jewish rights and the security of Israel.
The Palestinians are the indigenous people and able to prove their descent from this land back to umpteen generations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLbFXE6kGC0 ; http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html ; http://www.fantompowa.info/koestlerindex.htm
you are 100% right Frank thnx
"Judea-Samaria and Gaza are Jewish territories occupied and colonized by Arabs. " LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOL, ya right man, and Liberman is the Mesiah too right?
I beleive even Bibi dropped using it recently when talking about the West bank.
Biblical fairy tales no longer cut it in today's volatile world. Best wake up to that reality sooner than later.
In the 1st and 2nd Century, most Jews moved out of the Holy Land, but some stayed. Many, but not all converted to Christianity, then later many but not all converted to Moslems. Over the many centuries, there was some intermarriage amongst these indigenous groups. "geneticist Ariella Oppenheim concluded that genetic evidence coincides with historical accounts that at least part of the Arab Israeli and Palestinian population is mainly descended from local Christians and Jews " Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people
That is the whole issue. The 5 million people who live in what you call “Judea-Samaria and Gaza” and the most of people in the rest of the world do not agree with. That what makes it a conflict!
Interesting analysis on history here. There is a history of loss by the Jewish people of the land - the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Romans. It was Darius (Persian) who freed them from Babylon and ordered the temple to be rebuilt - the one the Romans destroyed. Jerusalem was a Canaanite city with a history at least 1000 years prior to the Jews arriving. The Canaanites are the ancestors of the modern Palestinians. Sinful Israel(i government) should be more concerned with its own actions than those of other men? The fear is that history will repeat itself.
No israel, No Palestine. One State Solution is the best for all. One Man, One Vote, Equality for all inhabitants. Equal Pay for Equal Work, Equal Water Rights. No Apartheid, No Segregation...A Very True Secular Democrac Let us call it: “State of Holy Land”.
This would actually be an Arab state with a large Jewish minority. It can work (look at Morocco for example) but we don't want to become another Jewish community in an Arab country. If there is no reason for the Palestinians to be ruled by another people, I don't see why Jews should accept that kind of situation.
A "one state solution" very similar to yours already exists. One single state for catholic, orthodox & oriental christians, for sunni & shia muslims and for druze. No apartheid, no segregation. In this One State Solution, they fough a civil war for 20 years, got occupied by their neighbor country, and today they are governed by Hezbollah fanatics. The One State Solution you are dreaming of already exists, it's called "Lebanon". And nobody on the planet want to live in a state like this.
You apparently didn't give that much thought, either that or my scarcasm detector is on the blink today.
Bring Equality to the people of Africa, let them have the same rights and rivileges as you have in Kopenhagen. Lets talk again after about 7-8 million new immigrant from the dark continent enjoy One state one vote in your country in a true democratic way.