Tel-Chai Nation

Sera and Ez's blog offers up a good essay on how Benjamin Netanyahu gave some very welcome boosts to Israel's economy:

The United States has something to learn from Israel once again. Bibi Netanyahu recently resigned from his post as finance minister of the State of Israel. The immediate impact was a full 5% drop in the stock market within just minutes of his resignation. For comparison's sake, Hurricane Katrina could not affect the United States economy by anywhere near that scale.

Clearly, Netanyahu was doing something right: Notably, turning the old socialist economy into a new, free-market, capitalist haven in which taxes were chopped dramatically and government purses tightened. His plan, while hard for many - especially on the poor end - to stomach at first, did in fact bring about a world of difference for everyone, including the poor.

Indeed. Speaking of which, if there was anyone who was hurt by bad management of welfare for children and even adults, if we were to refer to that, it was because - are you ready for this? - Ariel Sharon's own favoratism for the idea of expulsion, which he concentrated upon almost 99%.

So while Netanyahu did his best, and handled it well, in the field of economy, Ariel Sharon himself and the Labor party officials he appointed to the social affairs ministry didn't just fail the task - they abandoned it. So much for helping people in need of good employment.

But while the US could certainly learn a thing or two from Neyanyahu's own efforts, there are still those who don't think so, such as the ultra-establishment New York Times, which wrote a predictably insulting goodbye note to him:

"He has certainly done all he can to fan Israelis' fears with fiery speeches warning that Gaza could become a base for radical Islamic terrorists. In resigning from his post, Mr. Netanyahu is making the political calculation that he can cordon off the far-right wing of Likud from Mr. Sharon, and then manage to look prescient if the Gaza pullout is a disaster."

Soccerdad counters by pointing out:

Let's be clear, Netanyahu was probably motivated in some part by self interest. But it's ridiculous to say that if the Gaza pullout woud be a disaster he would "...manage to look prescient." Come on given the Palestinian behavior over the past several years only someone ideologically blinded could not have expected the worst. Anyone who expected the worst was a pragmatist; those who didn't were living in a world where the sky wasn't blue.

Let's just go over what's happened in the past week:
1) The Palestinians destroyed the standing buildings that used to be synagogues.
2) Hamas blew a whole in the security fence and the border between Gaza and Egypt was open to uncontrolled traffic both ways.
3) So many arms came into Gaza that the prices for weaponry and ordnance dropped precipitously.
4) There are indications that Al Qaeda is planning or has set up a base in Gaza.
5) The Egyptian army did nothing to stem the tide of the traffic either way ensuring that the security situation would deterirate.
6) Once again (or more) Abbas said that he'll confront Hamas. (He sounds like Annie. "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Tomorrow ....")
Were any of these outcomes unforeseeable?
Netanyahu was not engaging in empty scare tactics. He was warning the Israeli public of the high risk Israel was undertaking for uncertain rewards. Yes he's been made to look prescient. But it's better than being made to look blind.

Quite right. And the NY Times has done little more than to turn to yet another example of telling everybody what to think/believe, ignore the hard-hitting questions surrounding any terrorists in Gaza themselves, and try and get people to dislike someone whom even the journo-talkers at the paper themselves don't exactly know personally. And also, they dismissed/ignored a positive argument about Netanyahu, that being his success in the economy. Thank goodness that we got bloggers to do what the NY Times, in all their utter self-loathing, won't.

Labels: Israel