Now I admit, it may seem like a strange thing to say. Especially in a forum where national leader hero worship would not seem like a good thing.
But my god, look at this man's history. For a second, pretend to be a deluded patriotic nationalist.
1. Elite special forces commando who commanded other commandos in major high-risk hostage rescue operations of the 1970s, including a plane hijack.
2. Fighter of every major war of the 1960-70s in Israel from Yom Kippur to Suez Canal to Golan Heights.
3. Harvard and MIT engineering, politics and business graduate.
4. Consultant in top business consulting firms in the US.
5. Brother of another elite commando who died in one of the most hostage rescue operations of Israel in Uganda.
6. A high level diplomat in the US by his mid-20s.
7. As a finance minister, the most pro-market, pro-free-trade minister in Israel ever known, who was the enemy of labour unions, and a vigorous cutter of taxes and government spending.
8. Youngest prime minister of Israel.
9. Lone man who was opposed by both the Israeli left-wing parties and right-wing parties for having chosen peaceful choices in letting Palestinians peacefully have a self-determined local government in Hebron, West Bank, instead of choosing to fight them. Stood for principles rather than electoral popularity.
10. Was leading minister for half a dozen major ministries.
11. Only Israeli PM to speak in a perfect American accent
I am sorry, but if I were a non-libertarian living in Israel, I would so vote for this guy. Hell, he could be the leader of my country if he wanted.
He is like the Israeli Barry Goldwater. Some newspapers were tagging him as a nationalist extremist, because he belongs to a far right wing party. But even so, he has taken unpopular pro-peace, pro-market stands that alienate even right-wing populists, and refused to succumb to right-wing nationalist protectionism. Like I said, an Israeli Barry Goldwater.
This man...he is perfect. On the occasions that he speaks on television, he is clear, articulate, and straightforward, and without the evasive mannerisms of many politicians. He is not insulting or hyperbolic.
Hell, he is too intelligent to have been a national leader in most parts of the world. His education, his sane smart policies, his scholarly perspective which looks at foreign policy with respect to a good grasp of history - the man knows what he is supposed to know.
And if you pretend to be a patriot, then you can't help but admire his background as a dedicated special forces soldier fighting in dangerous battles. The man is a hero.
Haha. Looks like you've got a man-crush.
The military crap doesn't impress me and a lot of that stuff seems only relative to Israel, which isn't saying much. Since they are nowhere near a free society. Barry Goldwater would never get elected there in a million years.
I don't see the good in being 'enemy of labor unions'. It's not like they have a free market for labor in that country; and even so, a free society is not anti-labour union. The whole thing is a command economy, so the point is moot. Did you know that only 5- 8 percent of Israel is private property? Being such a small country (meaning none of it is unused), that is a pretty sad.
"This man...he is perfect."
- "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." - The Who. You, too, will become disillusioned with "government leaders". It will not matter who they are. Give it time.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
By David Rosenberg
Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Benjamin Netanyahu plans to apply the same small-government policies when he becomes Israel’s prime minister as he did six years ago as finance minister. Then, his tax and spending cuts helped lift the economy out of recession. They may be less suitable this time around.
The Likud party leader, who has until April 3 to form a coalition, faces a shrinking economy, a growing budget deficit and a frozen corporate bond market. The recession in the U.S. and Europe has clobbered Israeli exports, which account for about half of gross domestic product in a country whose economy is smaller than Singapore’s. His only fiscal tool for the moment is a budget drawn up in August and stalled in the parliament.
“Israel must take steps in same spirit as the U.S. and Europe, to allow an even bigger deficit,” said Avi Ben Bassat, a professor of economics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “The situation requires a change in economic policy.”
Netanyahu’s plans for the economy may encounter objections from his future partners. Although assembling his coalition could take several weeks, one probable member, the Shas party, said during the election campaign that it would seek to restore child allowances that had been reduced under Netanyahu.
Israeli GDP fell at a 0.5 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2008. The Bank of Israel, whose index of leading indicators posted its steepest drop in January since records began in 1975, forecasts a 0.8 percent decline in GDP this year. Merchandise exports fell 26 percent in January to $3.18 billion from $4.32 billion a year ago.
Losing Jobs
The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange’s benchmark TA-25 Index is down 46 percent from its peak on October 2007. Israel’s state Employment Service says a record 19,700 people lost their jobs in January.
“There will be a certain amount of deterioration before we can turn around the economy’s direction,” Netanyahu said Feb. 23 at a meeting of Likud lawmakers. “We face an economic crisis that we haven’t seen in many years.”
Netanyahu, 59, has vowed to lower Israeli taxes as he did as finance minister. He also promised during the campaign to liberalize the real-estate market, saying the Israel Land Administration’s near-monopoly inflates housing costs.
To solve the credit crunch, he says Israel should use existing U.S. loan guarantees to extend credit to companies, and proposes spending an unspecified amount of money on building roads and rails.
Industrial Policy?
Gidi Grinstein, president of the Tel Aviv-based Reut Institute policy group, said that won’t be enough. He proposes the government undertake an “industrial policy” aimed at opening markets in China and India and developing new technologies.
“The paradox of Netanyahu is that he has set very ambitious growth objectives for the Israeli economy, but the steps he has proposed won’t bring about the kind of growth he is talking about,” Grinstein said by telephone.
Almost since its creation in 1948, Israel’s economy has been dominated by government. Officials decided everything from the exchange rate to whether companies could raise capital. The government and labor unions controlled such big companies as Koor Industries Ltd. and Israel Chemicals Ltd.
While liberalization began in the 1980s, it stalled in the following decade -- including during Netanyahu’s first tenure as prime minister from 1996 to 1999 -- as the country’s technology industry and the Palestinian peace process boosted growth.
Selling Companies
By the time Netanyahu left the finance ministry in 2005 to protest the government’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, he had sold or begun selling El Al Israeli Airlines Ltd., the biggest carrier; Bezeq Ltd., the biggest telecommunications provider; and Israel Discount Bank Ltd., the third-largest lender.
“It’s very important to create an internal engine by reining in the size of government, cutting taxes and the bureaucracy,” said Ohad Marani, who served as the top aide during Netanyahu’s first year as finance minister. “He’s very much for small government.”
By cutting spending, Netanyahu helped reduce Israel’s budget deficit to 1.8 percent of GDP in 2005 from 5.1 percent in 2003. The TA-25 plunged 5.2 percent the day he announced he was stepping down. The deficit may reach 5 percent of GDP this year, Ben Bassat estimates.
“He was very decisive,” said Yossi Bachar, who replaced Marani. “He resisted all the pressures on him, even if it cost him politically.”
Fewer Challenges
Thanks in part to Netanyahu’s actions as finance minister, his government will have fewer challenges than those in the U.S. and Europe, said London-based Senior Economist Reinhard Cluse of UBS AG.
“Israel has a tough business cycle outlook, but no more than that,” Cluse said by telephone, adding that the government must take “expansionary” fiscal measures soon or risk seeing the slump extend into 2010.
One of the biggest challenges Netanyahu faces is the crisis in Israel’s corporate bond market, said Leo Leiderman, chief economist at Bank Hapoalim Ltd. in Tel Aviv.
The Tel Bond 20 index of the biggest corporate bonds fell as much as 19 percent in the last quarter as pension funds and other institutions were forced to sell securities to meet cash calls from investors. About 20 billion shekels ($4.7 billion) in non-bank debt comes due this year, the Bank of Israel estimates.
“The question is how the corporate sector will meet its obligations to bondholders and banks,” Leiderman said by telephone. “The economy is small enough that two or three significant players getting into trouble could paralyze the whole system.”
To contact the reporter on this story: David Rosenberg in Jerusalem at [email protected]
Last Updated: February 25, 2009 17:01 EST
The problem with Israel is the unions there, their like French style.
I didn't know all that stuff. I like him even more now.
John Ess: Haha. Looks like you've got a man-crush. The military crap doesn't impress me and a lot of that stuff seems only relative to Israel, which isn't saying much. Since they are nowhere near a free society. Barry Goldwater would never get elected there in a million years. I don't see the good in being 'enemy of labor unions'. It's not like they have a free market for labor in that country; and even so, a free society is not anti-labour union. The whole thing is a command economy, so the point is moot. Did you know that only 5- 8 percent of Israel is private property? Being such a small country (meaning none of it is unused), that is a pretty sad.
About labour unions - like somebody else said, we are talking about legally powerful labour unions that can arbitrarily ensure to legislate a lot of things they want in ways similar to how French airport controllers can keep their shifts secret from managers and still get several weeks of vacations, and so on.
Anyway, yes, being a free marketer is moot in a non-free country. It's interesting how it is the other way round too.
Kevin Rudd is a "revolutionary socialist" in a relatively hardcore capitalist, classical liberal nation like Australia, which keeps refusing to implement whatever he demands. The same with statists in Chile.
That's the amusing thing about coalition governments. The one who becomes the leader least reflects the political climate of the nation. See Stephen Harper in Canada or Herman van Rompuy in Belgium. Netanyahu is one such person.
I'd say a lot of nations would benefit if they exchanged leaders with Netanyahu. Maybe Australia or United States can take Netanyahu, and Israel can take Obama or Rudd.
Paleo-conservatives themselves want Netanyahu as the American President. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2010/03/23/netanyahu-for-president/ As Fleming says, there has not been an intelligent educated leader in the US for a long time, while Netanyahu boasts more intelligence and knowledge than Obama, Bush, and Clinton combined.
I like Goldwater, and I like Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is certifiably insane and may start WWIII. Also, he just ordered his special forces to kill humanitarian aid workers including an American in international waters. If I were a deluded nationalistic patriot, I'd say he should be bombed.
>>Netanyahu is certifiably insane and may start WWII
where is the certificate?. Hyperbole may be cute, but it doesn't advance your argument, it just says 'I'm upset about X'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Prateek:
I think it's okay for someone to be for freedom in a non-free country, of course, but I wouldn't look for him to break out of the basic paradigm in the political sphere. Most, if not all, of the owners of property in Israel did not get it through the free market, but through the coercion of the state. So it is difficult to say that tax breaks for them are meaningful, since it isn't even tax on their property. Since they don't have any property. I don't think one should talk about property rights, unless one can define meaningfully what they are and how each person is entitled to it. Otherwise, any common criminal or crime boss getting 'tax write-offs' for laundered money would be the same as someone who earned it through being a worker or entrepreneur .
Benjamin wrote:
Thus said socialists of Goldwater, claiming he would start a war with Russia; thus say socialists (see above) of Netanyahu. The usual socialist propoganda, about why we need (lol!) more socialist politicians, whether Johnson in the US back in the 1960's, or some socialist in Israel today.
Because good socialists are anti-nationalists apparently. (In fact, socialists are the definition of nationalists: see Sennholz 1955. How Can Europe Surive?)
*Aid workers, or bandit sympathizers armed with knives and poles, who attack first? Videos show the latter.
Are you commenting on a style of a post (poetic exaggeration) instead of on the message it is trying to convey? Does that mean that you were irritated enough by the post that you had to respond, but at the same time found it hard to refute its point?
John Ess: Most, if not all, of the owners of property in Israel did not get it through the free market, but through the coercion of the state.
Nearly all of the land in the hands of Israeli property owners today was unoccupied unused land. We had this debate already in the other thread and I don't want to repeat everything all over again. Unless you're a closet statist and believe in the legitimacy of States to just arbitrarily claim unused territory, then your accusation above is pure statist nonsense unless you invert the "Most, if not all,.." to say "Few, or some, ..."
Though it's certainly nice that he wants to cut taxes and government spending, he would be better off privatizing and deregulating at first. Israel's economy has more to gain from deregulation than it does from tax cuts.
Political Atheists Blog
DD5, I don't understand what you are saying. Since your premises seem to lead to a pot calling the closet statist kettle black. You are saying that it was unused and that states can't "just arbitrarily claim unused territory." I don't believe the first (even the Israeli government does not say this; it is basically people who believe the much-debunked Joan Peters account of fake history), but even if both are true...
How exactly does that legitimize Israel's ownership of the land? If states have no ability to arbitrarily claim territory, which I don't dispute, then Israel still owns no land since that is how they acquired land. Rather than through the free market. And thus it is still in question as to who owns what within Israel. Maybe there is no question and they own none of it. But at the very least, it is still in question. And thus the cart is before the horse in talking about tax cuts.
And it's not even the land that they occupy. But all the property damage, that is obviously a crime, against people who want to live there but fail to live up to lame governmental bureaucratic standards.
" Like I said, an Israeli Barry Goldwater."
An Israeli George Bush (I and II) would be the more appropriate comparison.
The man is a fascist pig using market terminology he doesn't even understand to propagate his interventionist agenda he probably doesn't understand either.
Like Bush, he gets the reputation for a free marketeer by mostly his socialist opponents and vastly no better ignorant supporters. His interventionist and fascist policies get confused for "privatizations" and free market policies, and when they fail, the free market gets the blame.
He supports bail-outs, Monetary pumping, government spending during recessions, etc. Yeah, he's your typical Keynesian supply side Republican.
I just watched Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations from last September. I agree that he is a very good speaker, and I was happy to hear him call the UN Human Rights Council "a misnamed institution if there ever was one."
Nearly all of the land in the hands of Israeli property owners today was unoccupied unused land.
[INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION DELETED]
Most land in the hands of Israeli property owners used to be owned by private induviduals of Palestine extraction that had been expropriated. It is the most land now in the "public ownership" of Israel that used to be unoccupied and unused.
"If states have no ability to arbitrarily claim territory, which I don't dispute, then Israel still owns no land since that is how they acquired land"
Rightly so, but then the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is nothing but a statist manufactured conflict.
"Maybe there is no question and they own none of it. But at the very least, it is still in question."
It makes no more sense to talk about Palestinian right to some land then Israeli then. What else could you have implied by saying that most of the land was acquired by coercion? Or in other words, stolen. There is no way to justify that claim in its totality without resorting to some statist theory of property rights.
"And thus the cart is before the horse in talking about tax cuts."
Since we live in a statist world, I don't see how this can possibly be relevant to just Israel and not also to every other State currently on the map of the entire Globe.
"And it's not even the land that they occupy. But all the property damage, that is obviously a crime, against people who want to live there but fail to live up to lame governmental bureaucratic standards."
The fact is that the Palestinians want to simply establish their own tyrranical State. This fact alone makes their side no more morally superior then that of Israel.
Not only that, but even from a sort of purely humanist point of view, I'm not at all convinced that the lives of the people currently living under occupation would be better off under a "free" Palestine. At least as compared to before the Intifada of the 80's. Please provide me your case to as why their lives would be better off.
" I don't understand what you are saying"
Somehow anti-Israel is being conflated with anti-State. This is a fatal mistake. Supporting the various Palestinians liberation movements is actually a very extreme statist position.
LeeO, that's one thing we have to hand to the man.
He is a good speaker.
Not in the sense of the evasive, charismatic, wool-over-your eyes political speaker.
But a man who can articulate positions properly, speak directly and assertively, and address matters with a thoughtful scholarly perspective.
Just compare this man with people like Dan Quayle, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, John McCain, or James Inhofe. All these American politicans look like clowns and buffoons compared to this man from a tiny moderately wealthy country .
"[INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION DELETED]"
And you're delusional. What's wrong? A little inconvenient truth to disturb your previous justification for taking sides? This is the part when you should envy Bloom for not having to relinquish his statist views.
If it is truth then you'll have no problem substantiating it.
It is telling that the only way you can remain an irrelevant sectarian droning about how both sides are equally guilty only by mispresenting the facts.
Sarah Palin is the worst. Although I have mostly detached myself emotionally from all the idiotic politicians out there, her attempt to become the "face" of tea-party movement still makes me angry. Many tea-partiers actually understand that free markets are good and government is bad, which automatically makes them 100 times smarter than Palin. It looks like the powers that be are setting her up as the next Republican nomination for President so that Obama can serve another term. Maybe I'll move to Israel....
DD5: I think that it is unfair to both Jews and Palestinians. Since both are victims, at least some of them, to the policies. So I am not speaking here just of external problems but internal ones as well.
It's manufactured by statism; agreed. Every state is as bad; disagreed. Some are worse and some are better. There is no proof that Palestine would be better or worse in terms of politics, but I don't think they would be any worse than say Jordan or Egypt. Which at the very least allow food and trade into the country and there is very little malnutrition or lack of educaton. And Jordan and Egypt may liberalize very soon, maybe sooner if they didn't walk on egg shells nor were under US supervision. As circumstances would obviously change their luck. We know from history that economic sanctions tend to lead to fascism and a strengthening of extremism. Israel's money to Hamas in the past has also lead to a mess as well in their desperation to support someone like them over secular groups. I think they depend on these groups more than other Arab countries, because Arab countries can usually afford secular schooling and services with a functioning economy and society. At the very least, Palestinians would be able to go abroad and be educated by good universities without being blocked from returning ever again. Which, again, would lead to greater industrialization and the division of labor. To say nothing of providing basic health services for themselves... whether it is free market or not.
As for coercion, I think their absurd bureaucratic system and demolition of housing is enough. This doesn't exist in very many other states to such an extreme degree. It's specifically to keep property in the hands of those the state likes. There would be majorly different property titles if this did not go on... usually for some collective punishment. Meaning your house gets taken out because someone next to you looks like the guy who someone heard shot a rocket. As someone said, too, deregulation would be better, too, but in many cases things like kibbutzim and other businesses are too also run "privately" by those the state likes. And obviously some Jews, say of the wrong denomination or class in Israeli society, are usually out of luck in these decisions. This also seems absurd. Because they have a socialist society, but it is nonetheless not equal even among Jews. If I was a poorer Jew, I would be understandable angry. Though, I think, ironically, that many of these people nonetheless love Likud (like poor folks here love Republicans who could give a crap about them). So...
John, I'm wondering whether you have confused Hamas with Fatah, in terms of who Israel is more diplomatically close to...
Did you know that in the Palestinian Authority there is legislation prohibiting 'foreign land ownership', in particular.... Israeli's, if a Palestinian sells property to an Israeli, he can receive the death penalty. You can search news reports......
They obviously are not close to Hamas anymore, but they supported Hamas in the past over the more secular, and thus stronger, PLO. Neither of these groups are necessarily good (for their own people, just like Israel doesn't make good decisions in the interest of Jewish security either), but they are effects of the occupation. Either through direct effect or through subsidization (like Hamas).
There are laws and indeed also boycotts against Israel. Many people do not like Palestinians using Israeli goods, buying their products in stores, working for Israelis, or doing business with them in some other way. (though many working-class Israelis feel cheap Palestinian labor, one of the reasons the occupation isn't as harsh as it could be, is also a great evil, not unlike workers in this country thinking Mexicans are taking their jobs). Many times they are forced to, because it is too difficult now to make their own products and Israelis have greater economic privileges. They believe economic means will help end dependence on and dominance of the Israeli state. It is not good, but it is in my opinion contingent on the occupation itself.
John Ess,
Look, this entire conflict is nothing but Statism 101, which is why you should consider the possibility that you are a victim of yet another brilliant statist hoax.
About 75% of Palestine is actually modern day Jordan, so what the F#?K? When the PLO actually dared to imply their intended consistency on the matter, King Hussein slaughtered them indiscriminately. It's been quiet there ever since. Your comparison, therefore, between Jordan and the occupied territories is invalid then. You should at least imagine how a persistent Jordan/Palestinian conflict would look like for a fair comparison.
Both West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively until 1966. Why weren't they granted a State back then? Who even gave a crap about them back then?
On the Israeli side, the entire Zionist ideology is nothing but another badly manufactured nationalist anti-capitalist ideology designed to indoctrinate Israelis that the solution to their historical [statist originating] problems was simply statism of their own.
So this entire conflict is nothing but a statist manufactured setup that you are falling for. The Palestinian supporters (alleged peaceful or violent) are not supporting any solution that would improve the real state of the Palestinians. So you want to blame the hardship of the Palestinians on Israelis, go ahead. I say you're committing a kind of "broken window" fallacy. You react to what you see without grasping the far more complex reality of the unseen.
I don't see how it is a statist setup anymore than say former Soviet states wanting to get out of that mess. It would further delegitimize states to have more states rather than less. The point about Jordan and Egypt is that they run states that at least, provide the very basics for a foundation of civilization. No states are good, of course, but they are proof that the region can provide a better standard of living than the one in Gaza. I think Jordan holds on to Palestine, because Israel's encroachment and their larger bargaining power. Egypt and Jordan are only problematized by the fact that they have compromised themselves due to expedience in a middle-east that has US backing Israel. I don't even care about the historical 'boundaries' of Palestine or that they call it Palestine, so much as the escape from the bureaucratic and fascist nightmare of what they live under now. It is obvious that they have different values than Israelis, so it is enough. It would be the same if there were Jews who began to disagree with the Israeli state very strongly and wanted to escape into an Israel II.
And it is not like there is a choice of state versus anarchism. At the current stage, there is no way to shift into anarchism. It is not as if that is the course of events that would occur were it not for people who intervene to 'believe' in the Palestinian state. I don't believe this anymore than I believe that Iraq would choose a more liberal society, if I was against the US's occupation of that country.
It seems you are using pessimism to wipe the blood of the Israelis hands.
"The point about Jordan and Egypt is that they run states that at least, provide the very basics for a foundation of civilization."
And the point is that it is an unfair comparison since there is no conflict there. "Where" the Palestinian conflict takes place is manufactured. Logically, it should take place in Jordan where they are actually the majority. Maybe you didn't get that part.
" I think Jordan holds on to Palestine, because Israel's encroachment and their larger bargaining power."
Jordan doesn't hold on to Palestine. It is Palestine! I think you missed that little piece of detail also.
"And it is not like there is a choice of state versus anarchism. At the current stage, there is no way to shift into anarchism."
Supporting the solution of a Palestinian State is not somehow a support in the right direction. The case could be made that it is actually a solution promoting even more statism. I don't see how it is the right direction to support groups that are using violence to establish their own State instead of Israel, or side by side.
You also haven't made the case that Palestinians would be better off. Your assumption that it would be no worse off then Egypt or Jordan is a rather curious one. Egypt and Jordan are not exactly freedom paradise. They are also very poor. I could make the case that Palestinians embracing Israeli occupation could have a much more prosperous and healthier life. The reasons for this are obvious. I'm not advocating this, but just pointing out the fallacy in resorting to present human conditions that are mostly the result of the statist conflict itself.
"It seems you are using pessimism to wipe the blood of the Israelis hands."
But that blood is shared with just as many (if not more) Palestinians, other Muslims, and western hypocrites who support this statist fabricated Palestinian resistance movement. So spare me the left wing statist propaganda about Israeli atrocities. I'll take their short sighted perspective on this issue when they convince me that Capitalism is the cause of poverty.
That is terrible. What could have ever drove them to pass such a law I wonder?
>>What could have ever led them to pass such a law I wonder?
maybe they got up on the wrong side of bed.