-
Health Care, Israeli-Style
August 9, 2012 | 58 comments
-
My ‘Israeli’ Roots
July 31, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Kicking the Palestinian Addiction
May 8, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Israel’s Egypt Conundrum
April 11, 2012 | 62 comments
-
Report From an ‘Asymmetrical’ War
March 13, 2012 | 76 comments
At Large
Netanyahu’s Jewish-State Gambit
Another nonstarter so far as Messrs. Abbas and Obama are concerned.
In May 2009 the Obama administration called on Israel to stop all settlement activity in the West Bank, including “natural growth.” President Obama assumed that this settlement activity was the basic obstacle to peace with the Palestinians — even though since 1992 there had been both on-and-off Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and West Bank settlement, and the Palestinians had never made the former conditional on a stoppage of the latter.
In November 2009, with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas boycotting talks with Israel since the Obama administration had made its demand about settlements, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu imposed an unprecedented ten-month moratorium on Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Yet Abbas continued to boycott talks. He only, finally, consented to join them a few weeks before the ten-month freeze expired — and said he was making his further participation conditional on an extension of the freeze. This took no little chutzpah. For about nine months, the freeze had apparently made no difference to him; now he was saying he couldn’t do without it.
Seemingly, since getting him to remain in the peace talks, or participate in them at all, was so difficult, the logical conclusion was that the talks, and the “peace” they were supposed to conduce to, weren’t all that important to him.
Obama, however, reached no such conclusion. On September 26 Israel’s freeze expired and construction in existing settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) — the Jewish heartland and of great security significance to Israel — continued. So, however, did frenetic U.S. efforts to get the talks restarted, consisting mainly of relentless pressure on Netanyahu to do Abbas’s bidding and extend the freeze.
On Monday night, with speculations flying as to where things were headed, Netanyahu made a speech to the Knesset that surprised most observers. He offered a deal: “If the Palestinian leadership will unequivocally say to its people that it recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I will be ready to convene my government and ask for another suspension of construction for a fixed period.”
Netanyahu went on to say that this demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was “the root of the conflict and therefore a central foundation for resolving it. For 100 years, the Palestinians have taught entire generations to believe that there is no Jewish people, that this land is their homeland alone.”
A couple of observations are in order. First, Netanyahu was offering a serious, tangible concession in return for words. For Israel to stop West Bank construction while Palestinian construction there continues apace implies that the Palestinians have a superior claim to the territory. Such an implication, however, is both unjustified and dangerous to Israel — unjustified because its claim to the West Bank is at least as strong as the Palestinians’ claim, dangerous because retaining at least considerable parts of the West Bank is indispensable to Israel’s defensibility against both terrorism and military invasion.
No doubt, if, hypothetically, Abbas were to make such a speech to his people as Netanyahu suggested, it would be a novel event and would mark a change for Abbas personally. It would be greeted in the West as having near-messianic significance. But most of Palestinian society in the West Bank, Gaza, and the surrounding countries would greet it with outrage; and, most important, such hypothetical words from Abbas would have no binding validity for the Palestinians in the future.
In any case, the Palestinian response to Netanyahu’s proposal was not long in coming. Just after his Monday-night speech, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat stated that the Palestinian Authority “forcefully rejects all these Israeli games. The racist demands of Netanyahu cannot be tied to the request to cease building in the settlements for the purpose of establishing a state.”
The demand for recognition as a Jewish state, then, was somehow “racist” and a total nonstarter.
By Tuesday Netanyahu was reportedly continuing to work on other ideas for overcoming the freeze-extension impasse. One Israeli observer has cogently argued that Netanyahu “has needed to convince the U.S. administration that he is not the factor obstructing its efforts to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track….” Once again, Washington’s tepid reaction on Tuesday to this latest proposal of his shows that — regarding the administration and many others for whom the Palestinian-state idea has an apparently indestructible power — it’s a Sisyphean task.
As Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s minister for strategic affairs, remarked on Tuesday, in reality there is
no chance of reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians in the near future. In [their] eyes… the occupation began in ‘48 [when Israel was created] and not in ‘67 [when it captured the West Bank and other territories in the Six Day War]. Not only Hamas thinks this — Abu Mazen [Abbas] does too. Their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state shows they have no interest in having Israel as a state beside theirs.
Yaalon thus became — along with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman — the second member of Netanyahu’s inner cabinet of seven ministers to speak the truth publicly of late. If Washington could grasp this truth, it could stop pressuring Israel to surrender strategic territory and instead concentrate on strengthening it against imminent threats from Iran and its allies.
Netanyahu, too, could concentrate on Israel’s real issues and not have to put so much time and energy into proving that it is not Israel that prevents peace.
About the Author
P. David Hornik is a writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel, blogging at PDavidHornik.typepad.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Articles by P. David Hornik
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/13/netanyahus-jewish-state-gambit
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stammon| 10.13.10 @ 6:48AM
Netanyahu needs to repeat this offer every day, and at the same time. This continued repetition and the Palestinian's negative retort, will eventually embarrass the Israeli haters across the globe. It will paint the lie of Israeli intolerance and Palestinian acceptance. It will also expose the anti-Semites in Europe and the USA.
Especially the present administration.
David C| 10.13.10 @ 1:58PM
Well put.
Where was the clamor and uproar to give the Palestinians their "rightful" homeland between 1948 and 1967 before Israel's 6 day military exercise? The captured territory was held by Arab states when they attacked Israel in 1967.
Obama is playing chess on the side of the Islamic world. Israel thinks several moves ahead of her enemies and has conceded a worthless pawn (why not talk and wait to strike Iran?). "Recognize us and we can start to negotiate".
America finally is awake and is desperate to regain power from this imposter, Obama.
Abraham had two sons and even after all this time they still do not… (nor will they ever) see, eye to eye.
Alan Brooks| 10.13.10 @ 10:08PM
Have to buy time in the Mideast:
when men run out of words, they reach for their swords.
The outcome? who the hell knows what is going on in that region?
crookedwren| 10.13.10 @ 8:32AM
Somehow, I don't think the present administration and the liberal anti-Semites will ever admit that it's the so-called Palestinians (when did they become a people?) that stand in the way of Peace in the Middle East. The liberal anti-Semites (most of whom refuse to admit -- even to themselves -- their own anti-Semitic stance) continue to view Israel as the primarily Judeo part of a Judeo-Christian Imperialist Power (i.e. "Little Satan" to our "Big Satan").
If they could only see the ominous and venomous worldview of those who seek not to live peacefully side-by-side with their Jewish half-brothers but instead to eliminate their existence completely -- if they could only see the ominous and venomous worldview that is operating right now throughout the West via silent jihad. Then, perhaps, we might be able to begin to move toward that "adult conversation" about the real world (the one in which we actually live) -- not the fantasy textual structure that the liberal deconstructionists have written for themselves -- mostly in the New York Times.
Bob Miller| 10.13.10 @ 10:01AM
Israel can make no concession that will be both:
1. 100% acceptable to Obama and the Arabs
2. Not damaging to Israel's security
ShortNSweet| 10.13.10 @ 10:27AM
It's clear who would compromise, who would have peace, and who would not. The world sees what it wants to see...not necessarily the truth. If the truth itself doesn't convince people nothing will.
Balfour| 10.13.10 @ 10:50AM
As I understand it there have been no talks. Netenyahu and Abbas have not been in the same room nor shacken hands. This has all been a typical Obama charade.
Ariely| 10.13.10 @ 12:11PM
THE CORE ISSUE starting 1923 up today is:
–Arabs refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Jews to a state in their 3500 old homeland.
Don’t be fooled again by the Arabs tactic to get real estates in exchange to uncommitted words,no peace and open doors for conflict continuations and terror.
1: Artificial boarders or imposed boarders are reasons of major conflict.
Examples:
The split of USSR into many countries,Canada-French want state: Belgian Flames separations. Basques in Spain. Irish and Scotts independence from UK . Wars in Africa because tribes have been separated or united by Europe. Kashmir- Cyprus- Kurds in Turkey, Balkan wars. wars in Russia.
Avoid future similar conflicts while defining boarders
-
2: ARABS GOVERENED BY ARABS. JEWS BY ISRAEL
2:1Israel will hand over to Palestinian government land inhabited by Arabs from Israel and Jews from settlements governed by Israel
2:2-Both Arabs and Jew will remain in their current homes nobody will have to move physically.
Margie| 10.13.10 @ 4:04PM
I still wish Benjamin Netanyahu was our President.
And I am sure that he is aware of the Bible's prophecies concerning Israel. He is a true warrior like all conservatives. God says that the whole world will turn against Israel, every country, before Christ returns bringing His recompense. That He is going to stand on the Mount of Olives and that there will be again restore Israel. God's promises never fail.
And just like true conservatives we continue the fight even though it looks like we're in a losing battle, knowing that in the end, God will have the victory.
Excelsior, conservative soldiers!
obadiah| 10.13.10 @ 10:39PM
from wikipedia
"United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War. "
"Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
IMO, such provisions must be satisfied if there is to be peace. Such provisions call for withdrawal of all Israeli forces to the old "green line" except to the extent mutually agreed upon by authorized representatives of the peoples.
Joel| 10.14.10 @ 12:39AM
To Obadia, in 242 the phrase "from territories" rather than "from the territories," which is the wording that the Arab and Soviet side demanded, along with the phrase "secure and recognized boundaries," means that the future borders of Israel, and the extent of Israeli withdrawal, are matters that are left open and can only be decided in negotiations. The old Green Line consisted of armistice lines established in 1949 at the end of the 1948-1949 war and have no juridical significance whatsoever.
Nechama| 10.14.10 @ 7:38PM
To obadiah, the words were carefully chosen - "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories.." - it does not say, "the terroritories" or "all territories." Israel already relinquished most of the land won in the 6 Day War when they made peace with Egypt, so Israel has in fact lived up to this agreement. It's the so-called palestinians who haven't by inciting terrorism & all forms of belligerency. Why hasn't the law passed by the League of Nations been enforced that decreed all of Palestine, including Jordan, be returned to the Jews to reconstruct their homeland? Instead more than two-third of their land was given to create a new country, Transjordan (now Jordan). And then in 1948, UN decided on partition of the land - Israel reluctantly agreed, the arabs didn't. Arabs would not agree to Israel of any size. They expected to win it all by war & attacked Israel on the day it became a state - they lost. Should have been the end of story. After 6 Day War, they lost again - should have been end of story. To the victors go the spoils. End of story. Israel has offered them a state for peace how many times? And each time they said no. END OF STORY! Israel should have annexed all the land after 6 Day War.