"When he visited America in May, Mr. Netanyahu picked a fight with Mr. Obama over a formula for peace proposals. That raised his popularity at home and pleased Republicans in America. But in the long run, it could cost Israel dearly.
. . . .
It isn’t too late for Mr. Netanyahu to change course. He has reaped diplomatic fruits from the regional crisis, but has refrained from taking political risks at home. His timidity and cynicism will prove costly for Israel when the Arab storm reaches its shores. Before time runs out, he must leverage Israel’s new strength to join Mr. Obama in creative diplomacy to avert a diplomatic debacle in September and pursue a stable peace with the Palestinians."
Netanyahu picked the fight with Obama? Regardless of whether you are a fan or detractor of Netanyahu, Obama's May 19, 2011 speech calling for peace between Palestinians and Israelis premised upon the "1967 lines" blindsided Netanyahu, who was on his way over to the US. Sometimes it's not a matter of what you say, but how and when you say it -- a lesson Obama has yet to learn.
Personally, I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, and this has been the basis for the peace proposals proffered in the past by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert. However, there can also be no denying that both Arafat and Abbas steadfastly refused to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state within any borders whatsoever, and there can be no peace agreement without such acknowledgement.
Netanyahu should engage in "creative diplomacy"? How does one engage in "creative diplomacy" with a party unwilling to recognize your right to exist? That would indeed demand a kind "creativity" falling within the realm of "delusional thinking."
A third Palestinian intifada in September along the lines of the Arab protests and insurrections in Israel's neighboring states? Maybe. On the other hand, this would also jeopardize significant economic growth (real GDP growth of some eight percent in 2010) and declining unemployment (17 percent in 2010) in the West Bank, where economic prospects are superior to those existing in Egypt, whose youth unemployment is considered a ticking time bomb by the IMF (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41363921/Egypt_Youth_Unemployment_Was_Time_Bomb_IMF_Head), and Syria, which also suffers from severe unemployment among youth (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130222200).
Will Abbas and Fayyad be willing to jeopardize this progress and potentially lose American aid to boot in another month's time? Or are they playing brinkmanship, intended to ingratiate themselves with a potentially restive Arab street? Stay tuned.
You have written, “Regardless of whether you are a fan or detractor of Netanyahu, Obama's May 19, 2011 speech calling for peace between Palestinians and Israelis premised upon the "1967 lines" blindsided Netanyahu, who was on his way over to the US.”
ReplyDeleteThe question is: Why would Netanyahu be blindsided by stale news? What President Obama said has been the US policy for over two decades, and it has been the policy of previous four US presidents. Even George W Bush said that without creating even a ripple, much less a wave. The Palestinians acknowledged Israel’s right to exist more than two decades ago. When they signed the Oslo agreement, in effect they acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish State” is an entirely different matter, however, because 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jews, and mostly Arabs, who are Muslim. Israel is their country too, you know. Also, none of the EU nations recognize Israel as the Jewish state; they all recognize Israel as a sovereign state only.
Yesh Prabhu, Bushkill, Pennsylvania
Dear Yesh,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
Notwithstanding Arafat's September 9, 1993 letter to Rabin, days prior to the Oslo Accords, in which Fatah renounced the use of terrorism and affirmed that articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist are "now inoperative," this did not prevent subsequent suicide bombings aimed against Israeli civilian targets, which killed hundreds at hotels, shopping centers, buses and discoteques.
The Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews, rejects negotiation with Israel, and calls for the destruction of Israel by way of jihad. In April 2011, Fatah signed a unity accord with Hamas. You still believe that the Palestinians have "in effect" acknowledged Israel's right to exist? At a minimum, perhaps you can acknowledge why many Israelis question such purported Palestinian recognition.
Moreover, a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines was offered to Arafat and Abbas by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert. Why do you think these offers were refused? Again, at a minimum, perhaps you can acknowledge why many Israelis question purported Palestinian recognition.
Regarding the fact that some 20 percent of Israelis are non-Jews, why should this prevent recognition of Israel as a Jewish homeland? Why shouldn't the Jews have their own country, whose width at its waist is only nine miles? After 1948, when some 800,000 Jews, religious and secular, living in the surrounding Arab countries, were deprived of their belongings and thrown out of their homes, was there any other country willing to receive them?
I would further observe that although Israeli laws label Israel a "Jewish and democratic state," nowhere does the law define "Jewish" as a religious as opposed to an ethnic grouping.
On the other hand, most Muslim countries recognize either Sunni or Shi'a Islam as their state religions, notwithstanding the existence of significant minorities practicing other faiths in such countries. Do you really think this would prevent any Palestinian entity from recognizing the Islamic Republic of Iran? Or is there some special problem involving the Jews? Why is it that there can be no Jews in any future Palestinian state?
And what about Europe? The Church of Greece is Greece's state religion. The Church of Norway is Norway's state religion, notwithstanding the fact that 20% of Norway's population does not practice this religion. The Church of England is the officially established religious institution of England, and the list goes on. But tiny Israel cannot be recognized as a "Jewish" homeland?
You say that "none of the EU nations recognize Israel as the Jewish state." Not true. Just last week, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe publicly declared that “there will be no solution to the conflict in the Middle East without recognition of two nation-states for two peoples. The nation-state of Israel for the Jewish people, and the nation-state of Palestine for the Palestinian people.”
Why should Netanyahu have been "blindsided" by Obama's Middle East Policy speech? Indeed, although Obama was the first US president to publicly endorse a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines, this, as previously noted, has even been the basis for peace offers formulated by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert. Netanyahu was informed of this passage in Obama's speech only hours before it was delivered, and the White House was well aware this message was intended to undercut Netanyahu's subsequent speech before the US Congress. As I mentioned in the body of my blog entry, "Sometimes it's not a matter of what you say, but how and when you say it -- a lesson Obama has yet to learn." This is particularly true when dealing with friends and allies (and also family).
Jeffrey
Dear Jeffrey,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for responding to my comment. I did not really expect any response because writers and columnists rarely respond to what I write.
I Googled the question: Does France recognize Israel as a Jewish state? Of the hundreds of links, I chose and read six articles. From what I gathered and understood, it seems that what Juppe said to Netanyahu, that Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish state, was just a “proposal” he made both to Abbas and Netanyahu to help to start a new round of talks before Abbas goes to the UN in September with his demand for UN recognition of Palestine. It is clearly not France’s policy to call Israel as the Jewish state because France does not wish to annoy Britain, Ireland, Spain, Russia, UN and EU’s Ashton, who are all opposed to the idea. To give just one example, here is what the Ma’an News Agency published on June 5, 2011, after Netanyahu met with Sarkozy.
“Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that France wants the new Palestinian government to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Sarkozy's office responded to Netanyahu's declaration by saying: "France's position is known. It supports the solution of two nation states living side-by-side in peace and security, within safe and recognized borders."
Note that Sarkozy did not mention a word about Israel as the Jewish state.
Regarding all the other points you have made, I see that we do not disagree with the facts, but only with the “interpretation” of the facts. You are looking at the facts from a conservative’s and pro-Israel point of view, and I am looking at them from a liberal’s and pro-Palestinian point of view. I am reminded of a story I had heard when I was six years old, growing up in India:
A teacher in a small, rural village asked his first grade students, “How many legs does a donkey have?” Several students said, “Four”. The teacher smiled, and was pleased. Then a boy meekly raised his hand, and said, “Three”. Startled, the teacher explained that a donkey, like all horses, cows, tigers, elephants and lions, has four legs, and showed him a picture of a donkey. “You see? A donkey has four legs. Now tell me, why did you say a donkey has three legs?” asked the teacher.
“Because our donkey at our home has three legs,” said the student.
Netanyahu reminds me of this student.
Thank you very much for responding to my comment. I have been following the Israel-Palestine conflict for over thirty years now, especially after I read what Mahatma Gandhi, the supreme apostle of peace, justice, and fairness wrote about the plight of the Palestinians. He said the Palestinians deserve justice. I concur with him completely. What the world desperately needs now is a noble man of his stature and unshakable moral convictions. Alas, there is none around.
Yesh Prabhu, Bushkill, Pennsylvania