Let Netanyahu put his money where his mouth is

Efforts by Western politicians to help Benjamin Netanyahu climb down from his high horse are not working. He is outraged because they have refused to fix “red lines” for Iran. In the worst case scenario, the upshot of his threats will be a regional war. And it would be a costly. Before the bombing even starts, Western taxpayers must ask themselves who will foot the bill.

Few may question Israel’s military capability to launch an attack; however, many doubt its financial ability to sustain a protracted war. The global recession did not exempt the Israeli economy from its ravages. A high cost of living, especially for food, housing and fuel, has exposed deep social and economic fault lines. Last year, hundreds of thousands marched in Tel Aviv in protest at the government’s economic policies. There has been no improvement in their condition; in fact, all of the signs suggest that it is actually getting worse.

In July this year, at least two Israelis died after self-immolation protests. One of them, Akiva Mafa’i, was a former soldier. Casualties from Netanyahu’s deranged war cannot expect better treatment.

Already, Israel’s incumbent coalition government has been late in submitting its budget for 2013; it was due in the first half of August. Analysts believe that the Prime Minister is fearful of the hostile backlash it will provoke. Israelis are bracing themselves for sweeping austerity measures that will involve price rises and cuts to social security and welfare benefits.

According to the OECD’s definition of poverty, Israel, in 2010, had the second highest rate of poverty among families in its member countries. There were 433,300 poor families in the country (20 per cent of all families). Similarly, a 2010 National Insurance Institute report found that 19 per cent of Israeli families experienced some form of food insecurity.

Meanwhile, Israel’s sabre rattling is having a destabilising and corrosive effect on Western economies. The constant threat of war in this strategic region has created unnecessary tensions, leading to spiralling oil prices for Western consumers. The Gulf region contains 55 per cent of the world’s oil reserves and 41 per cent of the world’s natural gas reserves.

Netanyahu’s adventure is not just economically untenable, it is politically uncertain as well. For one thing, the Israelis are at loggerheads internally. Many generals and intelligence chiefs, past and present, are not convinced that war is the right course. A public survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute and TAU Mediation and Conflict Resolution programme last month revealed that only 27 per cent of Jewish Israelis support an air strike on Iran, while 61 per cent of those questioned opposed it.

Externally, Netanyahu has failed to mobilise a coalition of the willing. Politicians from Britain, France and Germany have all conveyed their concerns to him. Saddled as they are with recession and the Euro crisis, none of these countries, Britain included, could commit itself to a war of unknown consequences. To put it more bluntly, there is not a single European economy that can withstand the trauma or meet the demands of such an enterprise.

Against this background, European leaders must make it absolutely clear to the Israelis that they would be on their own if they choose to go to war. There is talk of special relationships and strategic alliances but, when one party proves to be untrustworthy, and undertakes actions that jeopardise the interests of the others, then real “red lines” must be drawn.

There is an obvious clash of interest here and the Western public will not be beguiled by diplomatic niceties. The almost weekly visits by American officials to Tel Aviv are, perhaps, the clearest proof that all is not well with Washington. Despite the public declarations that they are united, there are major differences between the US and Israel.

Reports of an “unprecedented” row between Netanyahu and Dan Shapiro, the US ambassador to Tel Aviv, did not take long to make the headlines recently. In the presence of the Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who also chairs the House Intelligence Committee, Netanyahu ridiculed President Obama and expressed his mistrust of him. Whatever the personal chemistry or lack of it, the ethics of diplomacy dictate that such views are never expressed, least of all to subordinates.

President Obama has only himself to blame for this imbroglio. Had he stood up to Netanyahu on the settlement issue, things would have been different today. By pandering to Netanyahu’s tantrums, Obama has found himself having to placate his errant ally regularly.

No one can assert reasonably that this is the end of the US-Israeli alliance. It will survive. What the current crisis confirms though, is that America has other interests in this region, apart from Israel, and that there are times when the US will put its own interests before all others.

It is fair, therefore, that only those who pay should qualify to draw the red lines. The world is still suffering from the consequences of the Blair-Bush invasion of Iraq. Call it liberal interventionism or pre-emptive strike; it comes at a huge cost. The notion that Israel can bomb its way to peace and security has been disproved by history. The best advice that can ever be given to Netanyahu is to tell him to put his own money where his mouth is.