AMERICAN LEBANESE COORDINATION COUNCIL

The Jewish state controlled by four informal networks, not by governmentGabriel Sheffer
Published: 09.28.07
In light of the battle between Olmert, Netanyahu and Barak for the next premiership, the public debate focuses on the question on who of these three politicians is the “strong leader” many Israelis yearn for. At the same time, the failures of all Israeli leaders throughout history and their inability to implement their policies are attributed to a series of elements, including political instability, the plethora of parties, and the low popularity of all government institutions.

However, despite the weakness of leaders and the Knesset, policy is still formulated and decisions are still being taken both on the diplomatic and local level. This gives rise to the following question: Who rules the State of Israel? If we closely examine the state of our political system, and particularly the question of who rules Israel in practice, which is something that is not done often, a disturbing picture emerges:

Four informal “networks,” which are unelected and often act surreptitiously, rule Israel, with “strong leaders” associated with them to some extent and even being controlled by them. The membership of these networks is not permanent and their makeup changes. Yet the members of these networks have a joint agenda, common ideological and practical perceptions, joint interests, common ways of acting, and the ability to influence public opinion, and of course influence politicians.

The defense network is made up of senior military officers, both past and present, heads of the secret services and police, and business owners in the security sphere. The members of this network have determined the political and military moves en route to all our wars, and between them. They are both leftist and rightist (as of late, there are more rightist and religious ones) and also took part in important political moves and in the peace process.

In addition, they are also intimately involved in economic, political, and cultural developments that pertain to the defense establishment. It is no secret that most Israeli prime ministers, even if not all of them, were members of this network. There was not always agreement between them and between those serving in the defense establishment during their tenure, but ultimately they acted together – and this can be clearly seen when we examine the evacuation of southern Lebanon, the disengagement from Gaza, the security fence, etc.

The capitalist network is made up of the 12 or 18 wealthiest families in Israel, as well as the large business owners. Its members are interested in the continuation of privatization processes, low taxation levels, low salary levels, etc. The members of this network are connected to senior politicians who enjoy their assistance and are willing to maintain neo-liberal policies, which led to great destruction of the Israeli welfare state and huge gaps between the highest and lowest echelons.

The strictly Orthodox rabbinical network is relatively small, and its members share common interests in all matters pertaining to the relationship between religion and state. They influence, and in fact determine, matters of personal status, yeshiva students’ exemption from military service, conversion policy, attitude to foreign workers, and to a growing extent our policy in the territories.

The network of senior bureaucratic officials is particularly important. Its most prominent members include senior Treasury, Bank of Israel, Defense Ministry and Education Ministry officials. On the one hand, they are the ones who determine and formulate most of the important decisions and laws passed by the Knesset, and on the other hand they have the power to torpedo decisions and laws, particularly through inaction.

All Israeli prime ministers and senior ministers in recent decades were connected to or members of these networks. The three candidates for the next premiership are also connected to these networks: Benjamin Netanyahu is affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Ehud Olmert is also affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is associated with the defense and capitalist networks.

The three of them have attempted to, and will continue to attempt to, cultivate their relations with the network of senior bureaucratic officials.

This is one of the major problems of Israeli democracy. Until it gives power to the representatives of the genuine sovereign – the people – Israeli democracy will suffer from these ills, and even talented and inspirational leaders who subscribe to ideology that meets the needs of the people won’t be able to function properly.

Sources said that Syrian agents left Lebanon as soon as the operation was carried out. They were disguised as Syrian workers.

Hazem Saghieh     Al-Hayat     - 25/09/07//

Every time that the criminals strike at a politician or journalist in Lebanon, the name Michel Aoun immediately comes to mind.

The man, certainly, is innocent of assassination, whether in terms of implementation or planning. However, certainly, he is not innocent of producing the political circumstance that permits it, just as it permits the obstruction of political life in general. Perhaps we can say that he is the most important architect of what is happening today; it is a situation in which it is impossible to see the country lay anchor on a clear and stable political quorum that prevents murder. However, what is this Aounist phenomenon, which forms the strongest bridges connected to the murderous confusion, and how can we explain it?

Let us say, to begin with, that it is a combination of hatred and rancor. Thus, the Aounist is one of three things:
He hates the Lebanese Forces because of the civil war, which was crowned by the “war of elimination” (between Aoun and the LF).
Or, he hates the Hariri family and envies them - behind them stands the Sunni community, in general, imitating the Christian sectarian model, which grew to confront the Sunni sectarian model, just as the Sunni imitation of the sectarian model arose to confront it, when the Shiites were marginalized in terms of rights and political presence.
Or, he hates Walid Jumblatt, and behind him stands the Druze community (with the exception of Wiam Wahhab, of course), due to the War of the Mountain.

Regardless of whether or not these feelings of hatred are justified, the coming-together of various hatreds does not make a political program. In fact, the weak political element that arises in these hatreds will quickly shrink, gradually, in favor of trouble-making and seeking vengeance. To this combination of hatred, didn’t we see a very inflated ego, which doubles its personal considerations and gives them prominence, destroying anything having to do with objectivity? Needless to say, the “me” in question here is only the famous ego of the general, who behaves, when it comes to the presidency of the Republic, like a child who cares only about getting his hands on a toy!

Between the self-obsession of Aounism and the explosive self of Aoun, a state of political stupidity is spreading, the like of which is difficult to find elsewhere. The Christian Aounists, who don’t know political party work and never once approached the complexities of political life, draw up their political position in one or two expressions, which do not breed or reproduce; they are unaffected by any transformation, change or circumstance.

As a comment on the political Lebanonization that overcame the Sunnis in Lebanon after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, the Aounists say that it’s a passing event, because any transformation that happens in Syria to the benefit of the Sunnis will return Lebanese Sunnis to their old Arabism. This is an example of fortune-telling and it’s inappropriate for him to call it a policy, especially since it includes transformations in the meaning of “Arabism” in its countries that have an impact on Lebanon. This is not to mention the fact that a Syrian transformation of this type might put the entire Mashreq before questions in which the positions of Lebanese sects become a passing detail. Meanwhile, the sane find it hard to believe that we can witness coexistence between this wariness about the Arabism to which the Sunnis of Lebanon might return, and an “understanding” that links the Aounists to an armed fundamentalist party like Hizbullah, which threatens the foundations of the political entity itself!

As a commentary on the assassinations, it’s said that nothing has been proven until now, while the razor is aimed at the government of victims, accused of negligence in pursuing the killers and exploiting their blood for partisan ends.

This is how, unexpectedly, we see the use of a language of persistent, investigating judges, which is neither a trait of Aoun nor the generous discourse of Aounism. One politician after another might be killed, or one journalist after another, while the judge remains a persistent and investigating judge, who repeats the same refrain.

A European thinker once wrote that “anti-semitism is socialism of idiots,” meaning those who complain, those who have been harmed, and the exploiters who don’t know the reason for their defeat, can easily blame it on “the Jews.” Thus, Aounism is the nationalism of idiots, a nationalism that prompts its followers to ally with the true danger to the country against false threats… to ally with the killer, against the killed.