Thank You
A link to
"Who Really Wants Two States?"
has been emailed to your friends.
The New York Times, which always knows best, preaches in an editorial today for electing a new Israeli leader who believes in the two-state solution:
Mr. Olmert does, however, understand that a two-state solution with the Palestinians is vital for Israel's security. We hope that his successor does as well and brings a greater sense of urgency to the negotiations.
Of course, one might argue that there's nothing wrong with such a leader, but it seems as if the NYT is a bit out of touch. In recent months, there have been more Palestinian leaders than Israeli ones expressing doubt regarding this formula for peace. On the other hand, very few Israeli leaders seriously argued for abandonment of the two-state solution. True, many of them are not as enthusiastic about it as Prime Minister Olmert--and can you blame them? But the NYT misrepresents the contours of the current Israeli political camps in pursuit of its goal (helping elect an Israeli PM of the right tendencies):
Those now maneuvering to succeed Mr. Olmert also need to behave responsibly. Two of the main contenders - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni from Mr. Olmert's Kadima Party and the Labor Party leader, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, favor a two-state solution. The other two - Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, also from Kadima, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and former prime minister - do not. They need to think again.
So favoring the two-state solution is the litmus test. But who's really going to pass it?
Livni is all for it--as long as the Palestinians agree to abandon all claims even symbolically close to the right of return. She recently told an American diplomat that the number of Palestinian refugees she'll accept into Israel "is zero." And Barak is the leader of the Labor Party, which (I think) is responsible for some confusion on the part of the NYT. In theory, Labor is to the left of Kadima, Olmert and Livni's Party. But in practice, Barak has been the most skeptical member of the cabinet when it comes to negotiating with the Palestinian Authority. He also angered Olmert, the Palestinians, and some members of the Bush administration by being very slow (for good reasons) in removing roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
While Netanyahu and Mofaz use more hawkish language and position themselves to the right of Livni and Barak, the differences between them and the NYT-approved candidates are not as significant as the NYT would like you to believe. Netanyahu and Mofaz never expressed enthusiasm for a two-state solution, but made sure to explain that they will not ignore established realities, and will adjust their policies to the reigning vision--while claiming that they'll be tougher in making sure that the other side is also taking the necessary steps and keeping its commitments (Netanyahu as Prime Minister accepted Oslo in a similar way, and at the time some people believed that he was the one responsible for derailing Oslo. But Barak, his more Oslo-friendly successor, proved them wrong at Camp David).
In short: four Israeli contenders will follow the path paved by Olmert. The only thing that can change that fact is a decision by the American administration to alter its course and abandon the whole idea. But rest assured: the Presidential candidate that the NYT will support this coming November will not be the one to do such thing.
Who Really Wants Two States?
Thank You
Your email has been sent.
Footnotes
© 2008 Commentary Inc.
