Sometimes you cannot understand the greatness of a speech until you hear the spectrum of reactions to it. Netanyahu’s speech was heavy on style and light on new content: He made a shift from refusing to recognize the possibility of a Palestinian state toward allowing for one under very specific conditions: (i) It must be demilitarized; (ii) No refugees will be moved into Israel; (iii) it must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and (iv) Jerusalem will remain unified. Other than that, at first glance the speech provided mostly historical perspective, a few subtle retorts to Obama (as Jennifer pointed out), and an explicit announcement of his intention to stop building new settlements or expanding old ones beyond their current boundaries, but allowing for natural growth.
Yet the impact of the speech on Israel has been stunning. Most of it I’m picking up on radio and television (sorry no links), consisting of almost uniform praise; from settlers in Ofra who were pleased that he not only promised to allow them to live “normal” lives, but also praised their strength and Zionist values, all the way to Yael Tamir, a Labor-party rebel who has refused to participate in the coalition because it is too far right, but who nonetheless declared the speech to be a “very important step in the right direction” because of its recognition of a Palestinian state — a sentiment echoed by the opposition Kadima party as well.
The responses to Netanayahu’s speech reflect a consensus in Israel that is only growing stronger by the day: Nobody wants to rule over the Palestinians, nobody wants to see the West Bank become another Hamastan like Gaza, nobody wants to be told that their country exists at the expense of their suffering, and nobody thinks peace is around the corner. But everybody agrees that if the Palestinians would drop the violence and just try to live – to build an economy and a demilitarized civilian life alongside Israel, then Israelis would have a much easier time talking about statehood.
The greatness of his speech, in other words, was not in its eloquence or its boldness. It was in its unique ability to express the unified thinking of an entire nation.
This is what both the Americans and the Palestinians will now have to contend with. Bibi has made life fairly easy for Obama. By extracting a concession on the idea of a Palestinian state, the administration can declare victory and turn down the fire on the natural-growth issue. American and world attention will now be focused on what it should have been focused all along: The Palestinians. It is they, after all, who have utterly failed to meet any of the preconditions of the “road map” regarding a cessation of both preaching and practicing violence. It is they who harbor Hamas, Fatah-Tanzim, Islamic Jihad, and other armed groups to the point of having no capacity to rule or speak with a single, reliable voice. It is they who will have to radically change in order for peace to have a chance. If there’s no one to talk to, there’s nothing to talk about.
Small wonder, then, that the Palestinian reaction to the speech was so harsh. “A liar and a thief” is what their initial response called Netanyahu. Why indeed? Because he may have just burst their bubble of American coziness? Because he is openly willing to give them everything they should want, and refuses to give them everything they shouldn’t?
Abe Greenwald is smarter than Barack Obama, according to Abe Greenwald.
the difference was that bush barked a bunch of stuff at them which achieved nothing but getting ahmednejad elected. that’s bush’s big iran legacy. If history is any indication the next presdient will be more progressive.
I think commentary prefers the hard liners and that’s kind of scary to me
also
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-looting19-2009mar19,0,6978050.story
they don’t call it a “correction” for nothing folks
#1 and #2,
We now have the opportunity to see how Obama’s “warm fuzzies” compare to Bush’s combination of realism and outreach in achieving peace and democracy in the Middle East while protecting America.
So far, the “one” ain’t lookin’ so good. But what did you really expect?
materialist- it looks good to me. unless you enjoy spending your hard earned money on wars. peace is cheaper!
“the difference was that bush barked a bunch of stuff at them which achieved nothing but getting ahmednejad elected.”
When A’jad gets reelected this summer, will that then be Obama’s fault?
What peace? Iran has not been at peace with the US for 30 years. I suppose that’s Bush’s fault, too.
Idgits.
Who can forget St. Condi of the Amalekites at the first Iftar Dinner.
Instead of simply stating ‘My my, the boiled goat was dope, man!’, she had to stand up and ringingly declare:
“We in America understand the benevolence that lies at the heart of Islam.”
No doubt both the Saudi and Sdanese ambassadors were more than pleased.
I don’t remember a White House Passover or Hanukkah meal being initiated by President Dances-with-Saudis, but I may not be fully informed . . .
We could spend the rest of the week listing what the Bush administration did wrong in this area, without repeating ourselves one single time. But I can recall my mama warning me never to assume that “things can’t get worse…” I am (we are) in the process of learning once again how right she was.
Warts and all, George W. Bush is going to look like God’s special gift to America long before this is over.
6: Brevity, as ever, is the soul of wit. Or, as Mike Mansfield corrected me once, “Brevity is wit.”
“What peace? Iran has not been at peace with the US for 30 years. I suppose that’s Bush’s fault, too.”
Really – wouldn’t that Make Ronald reagan and his lacky Oliver North Traitors who sold them weapons?
Want to rethink that?
“Second, Bush never thought embracing the world’s peaceful Muslims was a substitute for threatening, or using, force against the world’s less peaceful Muslims. He knew that saying nice things was less important than doing necessary things. ”
Abe – get your head out of your asss – Obama has been MORE agressive against al qaeda (hint – they’re Muslims) – then Bush EVER was – if you count actually going after Al qaeda in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush TALKED about al qaeda, but went after Bathists and then anti-American guerillas – and finally, al qaeda wannabees who flooded int iraq for a chance at martydom or a shot at an American GI. Why don’t you tell the truth about Bush and why you favor him: he took out a hostile Saddam Hussien who paid off the families of suicide bombers IN ISRAEL – nasty but little threat to America. Saddam was NEVER a threat to America – if ten years of crippling sanctions and no-fly zones prive anything – what was he waiting for? Why can’t the Contemptuous just admit that Israel is their priority – the heck with places like NYC or DC or LA – that’s for liberal elites – Jewdom is all you care about (though NYC and LA sure have their share) – but you just don’t have the guts to admit it…
be a man, little Abey…
peace is cheaper!
It was said differently but the same over seventy years ago:
…peace in our time.
“it looks good to me. unless you enjoy spending your hard earned money on wars. peace is cheaper!”
You think the ghost of Neville Chamberlain would agree with that?
Bush made war in Iraq to PREVENT MUCH WORSE WAR. Bu the Left sees the world in one dimension, as if we choose “war” or peace”. As if we choose the actors on the world stage.
The Left, Obama, Cliton, etc., is trying out their “Sally Field” strategy of “please like us”. Khameni, Medvedev and Kim Jong Il smell lots of weakness. The sharks are circling and we’re saying “let’s everyone play nice.”
“Bush made war in Iraq to PREVENT MUCH WORSE WAR…”
Yeah – which war would THAt be? What actually changed in Saddam’s status from the 10 years under the lock and key of sanctions and nop-fly zones…
tick, tick, tick…
right, nothing changed…
“Khameni, Medvedev and Kim Jong Il smell lots of weakness. The sharks are circling and we’re saying “let’s everyone play nice.”
You’d be wise to go hide under your bed…
and turn down that yellow streak, it’s blinding…
huxley- yeah, chamberlin was wrong , therefore it’s always okay to push for war even when you are already in the middle of two of them. each situation is like a random one fomr 70 years ago.
Iran’s military is about 1/1000 of the german wermacht. and their jews don’t lke in concetration camps thye walk around and have jobs like folks. so not seeing the parellel there.
Lester (Re #15)
As you have REFUSED to face in the past:
Iran goes nuclear. Then most of the Arab countries go nuclear to protect themselves from Iranian bullying. Then you have everybody in the region pointing “hair-trigger” (and terrorist) nukes at everyone else.
The potential for disaster boggles the mind – but not YOUR mind, since you just want to stick your head in the sand (or that other “warm, dark place”) and “let it happen”.
“What actually changed in Saddam’s status from the 10 years under the lock and key of sanctions and nop-fly zones…”
Ask Clinton and Gore who both thought, as did every major intel agency around the world and the UN and our government (that about covers it),, that Saddam was back to ramping up his nuke program.
You know, the “Saddam” that was showed us that he could make chemical war on people, fund Hamas suicide bombers and the like. Post 9/11, an actor in that region was not acceptable. So, we took him out. Now, Iraq votes in multiparty elections –something that is an inspiration to others not living in freedom.
So, “Iraq” was the right move on muliti-levels: Taking out a vicious dictator who sided with the enemy (al Qaeda and radical Islam), inspiring more democracy (which Lebanon craves as well as a large segment of the Iranian population) and striking a major blow to al Qaeda who declared that Iraq was the main battlefield against the infidels.
Now, I’m aware that the Left doesn’t really care for human rights anymore –unless of course, it comes from them. But if Bush freed tens of millions of human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn’t count. And I haven’t even talked about the multi-billions Bush gave to Africa for AIDS care: more than any of our presidents combined.
America always has to do the heavy lifting and we had to do it again in this REAL war with radical Islam. As much as you would like to think the Prophet Obama’s Sally Field Foreign Policy is the best way, it’s, in fact, the weak way. And we will pay a price for it.
tom paine- that’s different than hitler and chamberlin though. an entirely differetn reason not based on any alleged iranian expansionism but on the possiblity of a middle east arms race.
that’s a fair point but MY point was ahmednejad is not going to build one nuke and then invade poland and then force all of europe to be atheist and live in the countryside or whatever fascism was about