-
Inside the Israeli Elections
January 25, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Wrong Assumptions on Syria
February 1, 2012 | 29 comments
-
America’s Irresponsible Silence on Syria
May 11, 2011 | 28 comments
-
Inside the Palestinian Unity Deal
May 4, 2011 | 146 comments
-
With Friends Like These
September 8, 2009 | 8 comments
At Large
Israeli Elections and the Peace Process
Israel may have turned to the center last week, but not on foreign policy.
In the run up to the Israeli elections, the great fear discussed by pundits the world over was that Israelis would take a drastic turn to the political right at the polls. This, it was felt, would torpedo any chance of reviving the peace process and give Barack Obama another headache as he sought to head off Iran’s nuclear program — two issues of critical importance to the Obama administration. Instead of lurching to the right, however, the Israeli electorate steered toward the center. Yet as the election results confirm, Israelis remain deeply divided politically but it is mostly over socio-economic issues.
Unique in this election was that the campaigns steered clear of important foreign policy questions such as the future of relations with Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood; what should happen if Western diplomacy fails with Iran; and what will happen if Israel does not negotiate with the Palestinians. Two primary reasons explain this political phenomenon. The first is that Israeli attitudes have been hardening when it comes to the prospects of achieving peace, and the second is that many Israelis are coming to believe that peace talks with Palestinians and Western diplomacy with Iran are both destined to fail and for reasons unconnected to Israeli actions.
This is not to say that Israelis do not want peace — a position that news anchors and pundits have falsely promulgated around the globe while disregarding Palestinian actions. The fact is that the vast majority of Israelis have consistently supported peace through a two-state solution, with 70.6 percent either moderately or strongly supporting peace negotiations with Palestinians. However, an overwhelming 70 percent believe that Israel remaining a Jewish state is the most important factor — even if land has to be shared. This Israeli red line, which forms the basis of the Zionist endeavor, is far from where Palestinians stand. Two-thirds of Palestinians claimed, “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.” And, 84 percent claimed, “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state.” Among Israelis, this reality has created a widening gulf between the desirability for peace on one hand, and the feasibility of peace on the other.
The previous premise of peacemaking rested on the idea of “land for peace.” But that formula has proven to be fool’s gold. The lands Israel evacuated have become the source of constant rocket fire coming from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. They have become Iran’s forward operating bases. And there is no appetite to repeat what happened in Gaza in the far larger, more strategic, and religiously relevant West Bank.
Taking stock of two years of Arab upheaval, Israelis are witnessing the dramatic rise of political Islam and the full-scale retreat of secularism. It is not the sunny dawn of secular Arab democracies so hoped for in the West. Israelis rightly believe that even if there were a truly moderate Palestinian leadership, it would likely be unable to quell the rising tide of militant Islamists. After all, even Egypt — led by a seemingly stable regime that already signed a peace agreement with Israel — fell in a revolution subsequently hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a far weaker Palestinian Authority, already engaged in an on-again-off-again civil war with Hamas, would survive.
Then there is the stark reality that Mahmoud Abbas does not want to negotiate but instead wants to use the United Nations against Israel. This is a reflection of the will of his people; the Palestinians are in no mood to negotiate a two-state solution with Israel because they still believe they can have the whole proverbial pie and achieve the elimination of Israel eventually. This culture of denial and hatred has not softened in recent years. When asked more fundamental ideological questions surrounding Israel’s existence, 72 percent said it was “right” to deny Jews have a long history in Jerusalem, 61 percent endorsed naming streets after suicide bombers, and 53 percent said it was “right” to teach songs in Palestinian schools that talk about hating Jews.
And then there is the global context, where Israel has resigned itself to the reality that the United Nations has lost any semblance of moral authority. The UN, which in November 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish and Arab state, now condemns Israel for building apartments in Jerusalem while refusing to formally censure the Syrian government for ruthlessly slaughtering tens of thousands of its own citizens. In fact, the UN has passed more than 320 resolutions condemning Israel, while since 2006 the UN Human Rights Council has singled out Israel on 27 separate occasions, in resolutions that grant effective impunity to Hamas, Hezbollah, and their state sponsors. Through Israeli eyes, the hypocritical righteous indignation reserved solely for Israel is systematic and unyielding, no matter what concessions Israel offers.
While there is a constant din of voices that frequently and mistakenly grumble that there now exists a window of opportunity for peacemaking, they are chasing illusions set to fit their pre-determined narrative. The window they see through their selective lens is in fact a wall. Unless there is a substantial change in Palestinian red lines, peace and a two-state solution that will end the historic conflict will remain a long way off.
No matter the coalition that Netanyahu cobbles together in the coming weeks, it will not change the aforementioned fundamental issues that prevent progress on the path towards peace. In political reality, neither Netanyahu nor Abbas are motivated to make concessions where little public support exists. Therefore, President Obama should think hard before elevating the Palestinian-Israeli peace process to the front burner as he did at the beginning of his first term. There are more pressing concerns facing American interests in the wider Middle East, such as Iran, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now apparently Mali. The fate of the peace process will have no impact on the stability of those countries or on Iran’s incessant march towards a nuclear weapons capability. At least Barack Obama can take solace in the fact that unlike his first term, he now has the benefit of exceptionally low expectations. In other words — no progress, no problem.
Photo: UPI
Letter to the Editor View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matthew RJ Brodsky
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/29/israeli-elections-and-the-peac
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- There’s Something About Cambridge
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
Jack in Wi| 1.29.13 @ 8:31AM
10 years ago the whole Arab league offered a full peace deal with full diplomatic and trade relations if the Israeli's would get back the Green Line of 1967 and stay there. The offer was on the table for a decade and still is, probably. What do you 5th columnists propose to do with the non Jewish majority in Israel Palistine? You refuse to give them a country and refuse to integrate with them. The Green Line is what International Law demands. The world is sick to death of all your racism and hate. Either integrate with full civil and religious rights for all, or let these people have a real country.
Kingofthenet| 1.29.13 @ 12:46PM
Jack, it's not even the 1967 Borders can't allow for security, I am sure the world would have no problem, IF Israel went back to those borders THEN carved out a nice big DMZ beyond that, with watchtowers and land mines and barbed wire.That's security right there, Civilian Condos on choice West Bank land is NOT, that's a Land Grab and the world knows it.
C Smith | 1.29.13 @ 10:16AM
As Netanyahu pleaded, that Israel cannot "go back to the 1967 lines, and that "these lines are indefensible," our president burned in silent rage. Never had anyone transgressed a photo opt by "disagreeing" with the master of the (white) house and forgoing his due reverence. That is, except for this Jew. One can only imagine the wrath, were it not for the cameras. And before the Israeli Prime Minister had finished speaking, the lot had been cast!
Amazing how things never really change: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclessiastes1:9)....
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....rders.html
Job| 1.29.13 @ 1:54PM
Pharoah (as Yul Bryner)
So let it be written, so it shall be done.
[banishing Moses to the desert] Here is your king's scepter, and here is your kingdom, with the scorpion, the cobra, and the lizard for subjects.
wanna see some "code", check out this speech delivered by Obama the day before he got schooled by Netanyahu:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-.....rth-africa
Kingofthenet| 1.29.13 @ 11:49AM
What is Winning from a Israel Position entail? To get ALL the land and Millions on NEW Palestinian citizens? What is Israels end goal? And how does NEW settlements fit in with that goal?
RCV| 1.29.13 @ 4:29PM
“These people,” Jack – the Arabs who live in what historically was called Palestine – have had many opportunities over the past century to have what you call “a real country,” and have turned down every single one. Why? Because they did not want the Jewish people to have “a real country” of their own. Let’s once more review a little history that you always seem to want to ignore.
Arabs and Jews have lived in historic Palestine for centuries, most of that time under the rule of others, including the Ottomans and British in recent times. Ever since their diaspora under the Romans, Jews have continued to gravitate back to their historic homeland. By the mid 1800s, they had formed a majority in Jerusalem, Hebron and a number of other historic Jewish centers. Their relationship with their Arab neighbors was sometimes good, oftentimes not. Like Christians and other non-Muslims, they were subject to the dhimma laws (the “Charter of Omar”) which forced them to pay special taxes, wear distinctive clothing and identifying badges, etc. Sporadic pograms and anti-Jewish riots were not uncommon throughout the Arab regions of the Ottoman Empire.
Kingofthenet| 1.29.13 @ 5:24PM
Did the Arabs need to consent before Israel became a Country?
RCV| 1.30.13 @ 12:17PM
Why? The United Nations was creating two new countries out of the area formerly ruled by the Ottomans -- it and its predecessor, the League of Nations, had created several new countries out of that vast land mass, a process started at the Versailles Conference in which representatives of the various constituent peoples pleaded their cases for nationhood. It did so by allocating areas in which Jews were a majority to the new Jewish nation, and areas in which Arabs were a majority to the new Arab nation. Given the history of the two peoples -- the history of violence by the majority against the minority peoples, the past second-class citizenship burdens imposed on non-Islamic peoples -- this was a prudent decision, no?
RCV| 1.29.13 @ 4:35PM
As their numbers in Palestine increased, Jewish longing for “a real country” of their own grew as well. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of World War II, many peoples whom the Ottomans had ruled – Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Maronites, Armenians – longed and lobbied for established “real countries” of their own. The Arabs, who had aided the British in the war, were rewarded with several new nations of their own (though not the unified single Arab state that T.E. Lawrence had promised them): Iraq and Syria initially. The Maronites were given effective control of Lebanon under a power-sharing arrangement with the local Arabs there.
The League of Nations awarded the Ottoman territory of Palestine to Britain with the express mandate that it establish there “a National Home for the Jewish People.” When the Sauds consolidated their unified state in Arabia and drove the Hashemites from Mecca and Medina, Britain looked around for a state to reward those wartime Arab allies as well. They had placed one Hashemite prince on the throne of Iraq, but there was another who needed a state to rule. So the British took 2/3 of their Palestine Mandate and formed yet another Arab nation, TransJordan, and placed King Abdullah on the throne to rule Arab Palestine.
RCV| 1.29.13 @ 4:39PM
In the remaining 1/3 of Palestine, while Jews prepared for their anticipated “real country” of their own, the local Arabs – many of whom had been drawn there by the increasing economic activity of Jewish settlers who continued to purchase land and build businesses – resisted the very notion of a Jewish state. So Britain, in concession, began drawing up plans for a partition of the remaining Palestinian territory into Jewish and yet another Arab state. The Arabs resisted, and wanted it all consolidated into Arab Palestine – now called Jordan. The British simply abandoned their Balfour commitment to the Jews, and washed their hands of the whole mess, and turned the remains of its Mandate back to the United Nations.
The United Nations proposed its own partition plan for one Jewish state and one Arab state – the latter larger than the present “occupied territories” of the West Bank and Gaza. The Jews accepted the proposal; the Arabs, once again, refused. The surrounding Arabs attacked the newly formed Jewish state, and at the end of that losing war, were left with Gaza and the West Bank.
They thus had in 1948 what they now say they want. Did they form that territory into a “real country”? No. Jordan annexed the West Bank, declaring correctly that it was Arab Palestine, and the Arabs who lived in the West Bank endorsed the annexation. Egypt occupied Gaza. So much for an “independent Palestine.”
Kingofthenet| 1.29.13 @ 5:27PM
RCV, does history end there? Because it seems to me most of the pieces are back in the Zionists hands to fix this travesty of Justice and return the "Independent Palestine'?
RCV| 1.29.13 @ 6:25PM
It continued that way for another 19 years until Israel became embroiled in another war with its Arab neighbors intent on wiping it off the map, at the end of which Israel had captured the West Bank and Gaza, and Golan Heights. Now, for the first time, “those people” were no longer simply Arabs, they were “Palestinians,” a new nationality and a people “without a state”. While in retrospect, the smartest things the Israelis could have done would have been to return most of the West Bank to King Hussein of Jordan (minus Jerusalem and any other areas Israel believed were essential to guard against another Arab attack, just as they held onto the Golan Heights for that reason), most of the surrounding Arab states no longer wanted anything to do with the Palestinian Arabs, who were led by the most unstable and terroristic of leaders. That’s why Egypt refused to take Gaza back.
Given this history, and the refusal of the Arabs to accept any solution that didn’t eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, it is not hard to understand Israel’s insistence on a settlement that would guarantee real security to the Jews who have come to settle there before they turn over any land to the likes of the murdering thugs who run Hamas.
obadiah| 1.30.13 @ 12:11PM
There is only one answer: More Settlements. More Settlements is always the answer. The Palestinians would have a state, if only they understand and agree to More Settlements. More Checkpoints too. That's the way to get True Peace, according to God's Plan for the Jewish State.
RCV| 1.30.13 @ 12:19PM
The Palestinians would have had a state long, long ago, and one much larger than the one they'd get today, if they had simply abandoned their intention to wipe out any Jewish state.
RCV| 1.30.13 @ 1:04PM
Kudos to Israel for striking a convoy yesterday that was conveying a huge shipment of arms from Syria to Lebanon for Hezbollah's use. Another confirmation of the thesis of this article.
Kingofthenet| 1.30.13 @ 4:22PM
I think the Palestinians plan is to wait this out, let Israel gobble up ALL the land making a 'two state' solution impossible, then demand full rights in a one state Israel, they will then use their numbers to take over, quite clever really.
RCV| 1.30.13 @ 5:18PM
If that's their plan, good luck. They've always had "plans", rejecting what they could obtain in the present for some dream in the future.
Israel will be preserved, and preserved as a Jewish state. That's the reality, and it would be really smart for the Arab nations, as well as those Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza, to come to acknowledge that reality. If they did, they wouldn't be living in squalid refuge camps in neighboring states waiting for their "return" to a state they never lived in and never will see.