Listen to anyone in the liberal chattering classes talk about the Middle East and there’s little doubt about who is to blame for the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians: Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the conventional wisdom spouted by most daily editorial pages, not to mention the many foreign cheerleaders for the Palestinians, the Israeli prime minister is alleged to be an intransigent foe of peace talks that has single-handed stopped progress toward peace. That this contradicts the facts about Netanyahu as well as ignores the record of the Palestinians doesn’t seem to bother anyone who spread this disinformation. So no one should be surprised if Netanyahu’s latest affirmation of his support for a two-state solution and call for talks with the Palestinians without preconditions doesn’t change anyone’s mind.
For those paying attention to what is actually going on, as opposed to Palestinian propaganda, Netanyahu gave a watershed speech back in 2009 at Bar-Ilan University in which he formally embraced the two-state concept. Since then he has constantly asked Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas to come back to the negotiating table that he fled in 2008 when Ehud Olmert offered him an independent state including nearly all of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. As Ynet reported, the prime minister said he stood by his Bar-Ilan speech:
Addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem’s Inbal Hotel, Netanyahu said he still stands by his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech where he backed the concept of two states for two peoples.
“I believe that a framework to peace (with the Palestinians) is what I outlined in my speech in Bar-Ilan University – two states for two peoples: A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.”
Netanyahu’s critics claim that his acceptance of two states hinges on conditions that are impossible for the Palestinians to accept. But in contrast to Abbas, Netanyahu is prepared to negotiate without preconditions. The Palestinians are not being asked to pledge anything in advance of talks. It is, in fact, the PA that insists that the Israelis must concede the entire substance of the negotiations on territory, settlements, borders and everything else in advance of Abbas deigning to rejoin the peace process.
Though it is true that much of Netanyahu’s constituency is uncomfortable with the idea of a Palestinian state, where Abbas, or any Palestinian leader ready to actually end the conflict and recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders were drawn, no Israeli government could possibly refuse them. But despite repeated Israeli offers of a state, the Palestinians continue to refuse to talk, let alone sign off on a permanent peace accord.
Nor is it reasonable to argue, as many of Netanyahu’s critics do, that settlement building approved by his government makes peace impossible. The construction of homes in Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs that any putative peace accord, even the one put forward by Israeli leftists at Geneva a few years ago, would place inside Israel would not stop the Palestinians from establishing their state in the parts of the country that would go to them.
That’s why the talk about President Obama needing to prod Netanyahu to make peace or return to negotiations that has been heard since the Israeli election makes no sense. Even when Netanyahu did agree to an unnecessary settlement freeze, the Palestinians still refused to negotiate.
The PA didn’t have to go to the UN to get their state. Nor do they require American or European pressure on Israel to achieve their goal of independence. They need only be willing to give up on the dream of replacing Israel with a Palestinian state instead of having one alongside it. Their failure to do so is why most Israelis have lost interest in the peace process. Nor has it escaped their notice that the independent Palestinian state in all but name that currently exists in Gaza is a launching pad for terror attacks on Israel rather than a place where development takes priority over the long war against the Jews.
Rather than placing pressure on Netanyahu to do what he has already promised, the U.S. government and those putting forward canards about Netanyahu need to learn the same lesson start paying attention to the Palestinians.
Before you even get to the question of who's sincere and who's not, there's the simple fact that there are two Palestines that don't get along. As long as Hamas controls Gaza and the PLO the West Bank, there's not much prospect of a successful negotiation. I suspect that's a relief to the Israeli government, but it's true. n nOslo seems quite dead for now, no matter how hard some folks cling to it. The crunch will come either when Israel tries to relocate the Palestinians, or the Palestinians stay put and demand civil rights and the vote.
Think status quo GOM with marginal changes and shifting alliances within a no annexation, no relocation, no citizenship for Palestinian status quo and no recognition of Israel–if the Palestinians seriously wanted a binational state that would be one thing–now that's jut a PR feint–they still dream of one Palestinian state now and one later west of the Green line.
when did the arabs ever perform according to Oslo?
Maybe Abbas is waiting for the tenth year of his four year term? n nI still think Egypt's Coptic Christians need to Occupy Sinai. Give Hamas someone else to shoot rockets at for a while. n n
Well, not really. They do examine their premises. In their heart of hearts, the major premises are that the Jews are illegitimate as a nation, and their nation, Israel, is therefore illegitimate, and the Jews must therefore bend as far as required to keep the noble wronged savages, the 'Palestinians', happy. If Israel is lost, or Jews die in the process, oh well . . . they were illegitimate in Israel and Israel was illegitimate anyways. n nUnfair and sad, but it is what it is. Can there be any other explanation other than Jew hatred? n nI'm not buying the 'ignorant of history' explanation. Tobin and others write as if all that is required is for people to examine the history and the reality, and an 'Ah Hah!' moment will come over them. The 'US Government' is not going to learn anything from Tobin or anyone else it does not already know, and that goes for Ashford, Ban Kyi Moon, and all the other phony 'brokers'.
And Israelis and their leaders know all this. n nThey simply play the game forced on them. And in the meantime, children are born, live out their lives, and have other children. I would say 'Mizkenim', but they enjoy life and live it intensely. n nAmerican Jews should be so lucky.
Except that the widespread anti Israel propaganda may infect the US, given that 2/3 of American Jews apparently give it quite a bit of credibility. And if and when that happens, Israel, like South Africa before it (and Rhodesia) may have to succumb. Not that I am comparing the plight of Palestinians to South African blacks. But the worldwide propaganda machine equating Israeli action with apartheid may eventually take its toll. Sad but true. As an end game, I personally would like to see "mutual right of return" allowing all Arabs and Jews to reside wherever they want, providing that Palestinians Arabs do not have Israeli citizenship and Israeli Jews and Arabs retain Israeli citizenship. This would satisfy Palestinian "right of return" demand while addressing Israel's legitimate demographic concerns, with the goal of a future two state confederation with Jerusalem as capital.
Israel will not succumb. Well Shilshom "succumbed" but not according to expectations if it comes to that.
I hope you are right. But, history suggests otherwise.
is anybody listening? not at the dailybeast, anyway. n nI've just been commenting over there on an article about an SNL sketch on the Hagel nomination. (apparently ignoring the rich variety of idiocy at the hearings, SNL concentrated only on the Israel thing, and went over the top with it.) n n but the comments were chilling. n namazing how many NON-anti-Semites there are. and every one of them said "it's ridiculous to call every little criticism of Israel anti-Semitic, but maybe if they hadn't stolen someone else's land they wouldn't have these problems" or a variation on that theme. "I'm not anti-Semitic, but Israel shouldn't use white phosphorus on children…I have nothing against Jews, but they control the Congress and the media and they have too much power." and the ever-popular "Why should we care about Israeli interests, we should care about American interests" as if those two things were not very closely related, and for good reason! n nsad… n
If Israel won't accept demilitarisation, then why should the state of Palestine? If Israelis can live in the West Bank then there is no reason why Palestinians should not be free to live in Israel. n nPalestinians will never accept the existence of an Israeli state while Israel occupy the West Bank and dictate circumstances in the Gaza Strip effectively blockading it from the sea and Israel. n nTo accept an Israeli state is to concede to the Israelis land that isearmarked for a future Palestinian state. Not going to happen – and Netanyahu knows it which, of course, is why he feels safe prattling on about how it's all the Palestinians fault that there's no Palestinian state. He knows there never will be while Israelis are in the West Bank and controlling life in the Gaza.
they won't accept any Israeli state. Gaza is doing just fine. n nTo accept a Jewish state in principle is to finally set aside your own public pronouncements that Israel is to disappear. n nThey refuse as state policy to accept a Jewish state on principle. n nThe whole point of demarcating borders is to specify geographical areas where the respective peoples could live. Those portions retained by Israel would be Israel not "West Bank." n nThe official Palestinian negotiating position is a) no Jew will be suffered to live in a Palestinian state; b) no refugee will be permitted to live in a Palestinians state–they are to displace the Jews forbidden to set foot in Palestine in the rump state of Israel itself.
"The whole point of demarcating borders is to specify geographical areas where the respective peoples could live." n nThat's called 'segregation'; it's a form of racism. The reason why Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state is because Israel isn't actually a Jewish state. More than 20% of its population are Arabs. n nThe US tried segregation for a long while. As it shall in Isreal, it ended in tears. n nYou say the areas occupied in the West Bank by Israelis will become Israel; by what right can Israel determine that? By force of arms? Conquest? Because, if the answer is 'yes', then so you must expect the Palestinian people to resist and make every effort to retake their lands. The battl will go on and on. However, it will be the international community in the end who will determine the outcome. Not the Israelis nor the Arabs. And the Israelis will lose.
But the Arabs demand that all Jews be removed from the West Bank, despite the fact that Jews have dwelled in Judea and Samaria since time immemorial until they were all killed or evacuated by Jordan in 1948. How can a 20% Arab minority, with full rights as citizens, count as segregation, but Judenrein Palestine does not? You have a screwball sense of fairness, but, then again, so does a large chunk of humanity.
Part One nRaphael, I did not say that the Israeli Arab minority who are Israeli citizens were being segregated, I merely pointed out that, because Israel consists of more than 20% Arabs, Israel cannot be a ‘Jewish’ state per se. The segregation issue is a different issue. In discussing segregation I was referring to the ‘demarcation borders’ that exist in the West Bank segregating Israelis in the West Bank and the Palestinians. n nIf Jews have a case for living in the West Bank because they ‘have dwelled there since time immemorial’, then so Palestinians have a case to return to their homes in what is now Israel since they too have been living there ‘since time immemorial’ alongside Jews.
Part Two nThe problem is; the concept of ‘time immemorial’ being the basis of laying claim to anything is a non-starter in this day and age. If it were, the Aboriginal people of Australia, say, who have a history of having ‘dwelled in Australia’ going back at least 40,000 years and possibly longer, would be able to demand that white people in their lands should hand back the lands and control of those lands to the Aboriginal peoples. It’s not going to happen in Australia – and it’s not going to happen in the West Bank without more tears. n
I personally would agree with you on the point you make in the second paragraph. See my post above, which was not well received by many here with whom I generally agree.
Seems pretty clear that, just like on this comment board (see above), there are groups that will never, ever accept the state of Israel and to try to make peace with those groups is an exercise in futility… just like trying to have a rational conversation with the anti-Israel posters here. You can present all the facts and persuasive arguments in the world but they just aren't going to believe anything more or less than what reinforces their beliefs. I used to try to engage until I realized I was wasting my breath and time…
Sorry Jonathan Tobin. You don't encourage and increase Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, announce new settlement construction in E1, and establish an Israeli university in Ariel deep inside the West Bank, if you are serious about two states for two peoples. Bibi was never serious.
Heh.