It’s Up to Bibi
As the world awaits the forthcoming speech on Sunday by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it becomes clear that what he says will have a great effect on relations with the United States. As George Mitchell and the other representatives of the Obama administration continue to demand that Israel both recognize the two-state solution and agree in advance to curb expansion of existing settlements, as well as to dismantle others completely, any failure to do just that by Netanyahu will be made to appear that it is he and Israel that stand in the way of peace in the Middle East.
Some have speculated that it is the Obama administration’s actual goal to bring down the Netanyahu government, and force its replacement by a new one headed by opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the head of Kadima. How Netanyahu decides to handle things will either defuse the growing conflict between Israel and the United States, or lead precisely to the collapse of his government. The latter could occur should he appear to be willing to capitulate and harm Israel’s national security, and agree with the demands set forth by Mitchell and others.
Thus, the suggestions discussed by Ari Shavit in today’s Haaretz, Israel’s left-of-center daily newspapers, bares careful reading. Shavit wisely notes that Netanyahu cannot utter a simple “no.” Were he to do this, “he would be playing into the hands of those who want Obama to deal with the settlements rather than with the [Iranian] centrifuges.” But he cannot say “yes” either, Shavit writes. A yes means permission for the United States to begin a push for even more Israeli “concessions,” including perhaps a demand that Israel retreat to its June 4, 1967 borders. Next an armed Palestinian state would be established on its borders, with the threat that would create to Israel’s very existence.
Shavit also notes that “the American left, European left and Israeli left would push Israel into a hopeless, risky undertaking that would undermine its stability.” (my emphasis) These wise words, remember, appear in a left-wing paper. Never underestimate the advice that will be given by would-be friends of Israel whose own programs guarantee only extreme danger for the Jewish state.
Thus, Shavit suggests that Netanyahu appear to go along with the proposed “road map” to peace, although we all know that the past attempts have ended completely in failure. Nevertheless, he argues that Netanyahu should offer his support to a two-state solution, but in a manner that makes it very clear that it means only “a demilitarized Palestine alongside a Jewish Israel.” No more and no less. Israel cannot afford what happened in Gaza after Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal, and Hamas made the area into an armed camp aimed against Israel.
But a word from Israel’s PM that the nation will accept an actually demilitarized state, as Havit writes, “would transfer the onus [for the lack of peace] from Israel to the Palestinians.” It would be an announcement to the world that Israel will agree to a responsible end to the conflict; one that will not mean new dangers for Israel. If the Palestinians reject this overture, it will be clear to the world what side is not committed to peace and the existence of a secure Israel.
Kadima, he argues, made a major error when they said they would recognize a Palestinian state without “qualifying their consent.” True enough. But Havit ignores asking why this is even necessary? Doesn’t the world realize that given Israel’s experience with Palestinian promises, they could not accept a state that could immediately use its existence to try and bring an end to Israel— as many of its leaders claim they actually want? Havit responds that in diplomacy, nothing can be taken for granted. It has to be spelled out in detail, leaving no loopholes.
Netanyahu is a shrewd, smart and experienced leader. He knows from past experience as Prime Minister that he has to tread a careful balance between defending Israel’s interests and not doing anything to harm its alliance with the United States. What makes his position rather difficult this time is the growing demands from the Obama administration to put the blame for progress solely on Israel’s shoulders, and to continually imply that they alone have to take the first step.
So those of us who want to preserve a strong and democratic Israel need to increase our pressure on the Obama administration, letting it know that it is time to tell Abbas and the Palestinian Authority that they too have to make it clear by words and deeds that they really will accept Israel’s existence, side by side with their own state. Up to now, sadly, there is little evidence that Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell are doing this.
With all due respect I’m not sure that’s how international relations work. Suppose Bibi agrees with whatever Obama wants with some condition or other. Why would that cause Obama and the world to start pressuring the arabs or doing something about Iran if they didn’t intend to do that from the start?
What do they care who seems like an “obstacle to peace” if they have a prior preceived interest to pressure Israel and judging by what happened in last 15 years they do.
I also nottice that the heaviest pressure on Israel was always in times when it was the most forthcoming and patient (like the big terorist atacks of 2001 and recent rocket rains)
Sorry about the funny English and speling
“Up to now, sadly, there is little evidence that Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell are doing this.”
All three of these naive people are existentially committed to the notion that the predominantly white Israelis are victimizing the darker skinned Palestinians. This is the consensus mindset of the Democratic Party and its “moderate” Republican allies. The very idea that the Pals should be legitimately upset by the settlements is utterly absurd. It is clearly the result of their anti-Semitism. They just don’t want Jews to live next door to them. And therefore—they will simply add to their demands in the future. The Palestinian leadership will never be satisfied until the Middle East is judenfrei.
Netanyahu should spell out his red lines; Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza should have made it clear that the Philidelphi corridor was to perpetually remain in Israeli hands (his intention); but he had the stroke and Olmert was able to give in to Condi Rice’s demands that Israeli troops pull out from the corridor leading to massive arming of Gaza.
David Thomson’s is correct about view of some that Israelis are the whites; truth be told, however, in the Middle East the Jews are the African Americans. Jews preceded the Arabs and none of the conquerers ever made Palestine a state except for the Jews. Jews lived continually in eretz Yisrael throughout the centuries and never lost title to the land. But the ruling Arab elites maintained Jews in dhimmi, subordinate status. Any change in that status was seen as a violation of what is proper as was the case in the American South re: blacks. Israel’s independence is akin to America’s reconstruction period where blacks begin to have power. The Klan was Hamas and Fatah. The effort to return Israel to 1949 armistice lines or to eliminate the Jewish state via warfare or demographic infiltration is like 1876 when the American troops leave the South. The moderate Arabs will be happy to have Jews return to dhimmi status; but ask the descendants of the dispossessed 800,000 Jews from Arab lands (who arrived in those areas up to a millenium before Islam was established) what it is like to live as dhimmis.
Now Netanyahu has spoken, and has drawn the red lines.
All this talk about peace is just smoke. Peace between two countries is a matter of mutual consent. There won’t be any change of mind of the arabs until they decide that peace with the jews is Allah’s will, after all.
This kind of epiphany is possible, but peace talks does not cut it. Islam needs to make peace with modernity before the palestians recognize the dignity of the jews.
Dramatic changes in Iraq, in Lebanon and perhaps even in old Persia are required first. All the US presidents who have presumed that this would happen under their watch as the result of some brilliant plan have been proven vain. Obama’s obsession with the settlements misses the mark by a million miles. He should work on helping the Ayatollah’s fall instead.