Source: Jewish Herald
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Eight, Not Seven
The following appeared in an article by Yoel Marcus in Haaretz:-
However, Mr. Begin only succeeded to gain a parliamentary majority in 1977, the ninth time he ran for election.
He failed in the previous eight times:
1949, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1969 and 1973.
Menachem Begin served seven terms in the opposition and many people believed he would never rise to power. But not only did he not give up, he spoke up on every matter in mass demonstrations and in the Knesset. Begin was present in our political life, although in his era the opposition leader did not have an official status. It was no accident that when he finally gained power, a veteran at Mapai (the precursor to the Labor Party) used a biblical verse to describe him: "For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again."
As a prominent opposition leader, Begin showed the government no mercy. When Shimon Peres once interrupted him during a speech at the Knesset, Begin shouted: "Sit down! I'll tell you when to interrupt."
The days of the giants are over...
However, Mr. Begin only succeeded to gain a parliamentary majority in 1977, the ninth time he ran for election.
He failed in the previous eight times:
1949, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1969 and 1973.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Begin and Bi-Nationalism - A Comment by Meron Benvenesti
After the 1967 war the Israeli political Right played with the concept of bi-nationalism, in the shape that suited its ideology (the Autonomy Plan). Likud ideology rejected the” transitory” nature of Israeli occupation but its belief in “Greater Israel” clashed with the demographic reality, and liberal circles in Likud (led by Menachem Begin) struggled with the famous dilemma: a Jewish or democratic state? Begin’s answer was based on the (failed) system known to him in Eastern Europe after WW1—non- territorial, cultural and communal autonomy for ethnic minorities under the League of Nations minority treaties. Begin’s Autonomy Plan had been modified in the Camp David (1978) accords and territorial components were added. The Oslo model used many components (with major changes) of Begin’s Autonomy Plan, and the Oslo accords can be viewed as bi-national arrangements, because the territorial and legal powers of the Palestinian Authority are intentionally vague; the external envelope of the international boundaries , the economic system, even the registration of population, remained under Israeli control. Moreover, the complex agreements of Oslo necessitated close cooperation with Israel which, considering the huge power disparity between the PA and Israel, meant that the PA was merely a glorified municipal or provincial authority. So, in the absence of any political process, a de-facto bi-national structure, was willy-nilly, entrenched.
It is no longer arguable; the question is not if a binational entity be established but rather what kind of entity will it be. The historical process that began in the aftermath of the 1967 War brought about the gradual abrogation of the partition option, if it ever existed. Hence, bi-nationalism is not a political or ideological program so much as a de facto reality masquerading as a temporary state of affairs. It is a description of the current condition, not a prescription.
Source
