Netanyahu and his Electorate

Israel’s election last week appears to offer more of the same: Half of the country voted for Netanyahu and/or for parties that have declared that they would not join a coalition without Netanyahu.

Half of the country voted for Netanyahu, despite the fact that his main motivation now to hold on to power, is to ensure some deal that would grant him immunity from trial on various very serious corruption charges that are awaiting him.  

Netanyahu’s main opponent, a party that is headed by three former chiefs of staff, is not an opponent in policy, only in personality. They are not offering a new policy on settlements or on peace, indeed, they speak the one language that seems to be a prerequisite for almost any Jewish politician in Israel: being tough with Arabs.

Israel has no constituency for peace, none for a departure from the occupied West Bank, none for a dismantling of its illegal settlements, none for a compromise and fair deal with the Arabs.

21% of Israel’s population are Arabs, yet their only political party, a sectorial Arab party, which got 11% of the votes, is not considered to be a worthy coalition partner by the majority of the country’s Jewish population.

Full stop.

Perhaps, a charismatic post-Netanyahu politician will appear one day, able to convince the Israeli electorate to take a new course. Currently, there is no one.

Full stop.  

German Courts

A Berlin court recently decided that the German politician, Christine Künast, of the Green party, who has been referred to as “crazy”, “old green dirty pig”, “sick woman”, “hazardous waste”, “piece of shit”, “slut”, “brain amputee”, and “old perverse bastard” on Facebook, would have to accept it. Künast had attempted to get Facebook to hand over the details of those who had posted the hate speech. The court ruled against her.

I wonder what would happen, if anyone would dare to use the same language about the learned judges?

Smot not Smut

The right-wing deterioration of Israel has been producing an ever-viler brand of politicians in that country. A recent addition to Netanyahu’s government, and a member of the Israeli government’s defence cabinet is the despicable and racist religious politician, Bezalel Smotrich. I had always thought that his name was Smutrich (the Hebrew spelling for both smut and smot is the same) and found rich in smut quite appropriate. It turns out that his name is Smot not Smut. 

This disgusting fundamentalist, who hates Arabs and hates homosexuals, has explained what he wants: "The State of Israel, the country of the Jewish people, with God willing, will go back to operating as it did in the days of King David and King Solomon… I want the State of Israel to operate according to the Torah in the long run. That’s how it should be, it’s a Jewish state." And he says it all and does it all with a smile:

Travelling in the Ukraine, last week, the guide mentioned Smotrich as the name of the river we had just crossed. 

Evidently, the Israeli politician’s family is from the Ukraine. Legend has it that Ukrainian politician Yuri Chmelnitzki, who was strangled by the Turks in 1685, had his corpse thrown into the Smotrich.

Krim

Here’s a poster, I saw in a restaurant in the Ukrainian city Lviv:

The text reads:

From the very beginning of the war in Donbas, Merkel insists on peaceful conflict resolution and refuses to supply weapons to Ukraine. It’s the first time in history when we face bloodshed because of EU and European values. And it’s blood of the Ukrainians. Germany tries to do the impossible – to fight and to continue business with Russia at the same time. Danke Frau Ribbentrop.   

At the church next door, they had one board after another with photos of servicemen, who had given their lives for the defence of the Ukraine.

Lviv Airport

This was the sign at our gate for the flight from Lviv to Warsaw. The Lviv airport managers probably have an explanation.

The Joys of Train Travel

"Ich liebe Dich, ich liebe Dich..."  “I love you, I love you, do take good care of mummy, kisses, kisses”, and as the train started moving, he couldn’t rip himself away from his wife and children and waved until they no longer could be seen on the Karlsruhe station platform. Half an hour later, in Mannheim, a young woman boarded the train and sat next to him. He had been expecting her. They were very close; I would say intimate.

Britain – A Democracy?

What’s a democracy? The developments in Britain raise the question whether Britain should be considered a democracy.

Britain – a democracy?  I

The United Kingdom has 650 parliamentary constituencies and the candidate with most votes in a constituency becomes its member of parliament. All other votes get thrown in the bin. These voters are represented by someone, whose agenda they do not share.  For example, with party A getting 29%, party B 28%, party C 27% and various small parties the remaining 16% – party A’s candidate would get into parliament. In that constituency, a minority of 29% gets 100% parliamentary representation. Theoretically, this pattern could take place throughout the country. And 29% of the population would get 100% of all MPs.

This system has, for many years, produced stable parliamentary majorities, which in turn, enabled many governments to run the country, without having to constantly compromise with coalition partners.

Is it truly democratic?

Britain – a democracy? II

British politicians working to deliver Brexit, constantly argue that “the People” have voted for Brexit and therefore, the only democratic thing to do, was to deliver Brexit. That, of course, is misleading: The vote was 48.5 vs. 51.5, which means that virtually half of all those who voted, are Remainers. Would the result of 50% minus one vote for Brexit vs. 50% plus one vote against Brexit, have meant the country has decided against Brexit? No. In both cases, it shows that “the People” are divided.

But even that 50/50 result was only achieved with the help of a campaign permeated by lies and deceit. Lies are common in politics but let us not delude ourselves that this is democratic.

David Cameron and his government failed to prepare the Brexit referendum and clarify the ramifications of a Brexit outcome. Moreover, they said that the referendum would be only consultative, whereas, it is now presented as binding. The British political class seems to treat the whole process like a game of poker – you win some, you lose some. Only, if it is but a game of cards, how exactly should one reshuffle the cards, once Britain has left the EU?  

The United Kingdom has a government acting irrevocably, on the basis of a badly prepared referendum, a campaign saturated with false information and an undecided and torn electorate – a democracy?

Britain – a democracy? III

Britain’s High Court has ruled that Boris Johnson acted lawfully, when he got the Queen to shut down parliament for a few weeks.

Britain’s unelected prime minister – who was put into Downing Street, after Theresa May’s resignation, by 92,000 members of the Conservative Party in an internal vote of party members only – has gotten the unelected Queen to close the elected parliament of the country.

It might all be lawful, but democratic?

The Living Goddess

Last week’s “rape” of the Queen by the Eton Hooligan, Boris Johnson, somehow reminded me of the Kemari devi, the Living Goddess and of the discomfort that I felt many years ago in Kathmandu, with this institution and concept of the revered puppet. The Nepali goddess is revered until she reaches puberty, at which stage a replacement is sought. Becoming an ex-goddess is the price the girl pays for the benefits endowed on her and her family during the goddess years.

We were delivered an in-your-face reminder of the fact that the Monarch in Britain is just a puppet that must do what she is told. In return, she and her family are allowed to enjoy a life of sumptuous luxury, with popular reverence thrown in as an added bonus. The extent of the pretence was made painfully obvious, when the new British Prime Minister arranged for the Queen to endorse his plan to shut down Parliament during a period in which, he wishes not to be disturbed by the country’s legislative body and true sovereign.

One is always reminded of the absurdity of the role of the Queen, a sovereign who is not the sovereign, when at the ceremonial State Opening of Parliament, the Queen delivers the “Queen’s Speech”. The Queens Speech is an announcement of the government’s plans during a new legislative period. So, when the Conservatives are in power, the Queen announces that her government will reduce taxes and do other things which please Tories, whereas when the country has a Labour government, the Queen announces that her government will do the exact opposite. Thus, her speech is not her speech. Her words are not her words. She must read aloud, what she is given by the government of the day. She has no say whatsoever.

The Queen is very old and before her death, she could have shown greatness. She could have tried to save the country from the disastrous downward slide it has embarked on. She didn’t. Britain should now reconsider this arrangement, in which it has a hereditary Head of State. 

British Vulgar Press

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. People buy these newspapers. However, …

these aggressive headlines are weapons and they are meant to act as weapons. In this case they are meant to help destroy the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. He is leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, the political party with the second-largest number of seats in the House of Commons.

The Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere, and the Sun is part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire. These oligarchs’ money influences elections and politics in Britain. Whereas, freedom of the press is a central tenet of democracy, this should not mean allowing the ultra-rich to use their money and influence the results of elections. A way must be found, for democracy to defend itself from such interference.