Netanyahu's Palestine
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given conditional endorsement to the concept of a Palestinian state, advocated by three US Presidents, his own predecessors, and the Quartet (1). But, as always, "the devil is in the details" and the details of Bibi's conditions are deal-killers.
According to Netanyahu, the proposed state must be unarmed and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The second point is mere rhetoric, since the Palestinians would be recognizing nothing more than the truth that Israel has a Jewish majority and reflects Jewish culture. However, to say so openly would be admitting that Israeli Arabs are living in someone else's country, a very distasteful admission.
But the idea that Palestine would have no army is both essential for Israel and intolerable for the Palestinians. A truly sovereign and independent country would be able to defend itself with its own military, and could even provide military bases for other countries. If Palestine had this right, the new state could arm itself with tanks, fighter jets and rockets. Moreover, it could allow foreign countries, such as Iran, to establish bases on its territory. Of course, Israel cannot tolerate this type of threat, and it is inconceivable that any American government would even try to pressure Israel into accepting such a risk.
But why not have a de-militarized Palestine? Costa Rica gets by without an army, and seems to do OK; why not Palestine? The West Bank borders only on Israel and Jordan, neither of which are likely to attack it. Gaza borders on Egypt, but there is no way that Egypt would invade that parcel (2).
Actually, Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas might be tempted to accept a de-militarized state, which would still be a vast improvement over his present situation. Such a state would have all the trappings of sovereignty: a flag, a seat in the UN General Assembly, embassies all over the world and the right to issue its own currency and government bonds. The internal checkpoints would be gone. But, as noted in our June 5 posting, Abbas is too weak to accept a settlement without the blessing of Hamas, and Hamas will never give up its rockets. Even if Gaza were severed from Palestine, the power of Hamas and allied hardliners (e.g. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) in the West Bank alone would be too strong to permit Abbas to take Netanyahu's deal.
Netanyahu also insisted on keeping Jerusalem, and made no pledge to remove the settlements and their residents, so for the Palestinians there is not much to like about the proposed new state. Obama envoy George Mitchell will find himself in the position of a real estate broker whose buyer's maximum offer is still way below the seller's minimum acceptable price. But, unlike a real estate broker, Mitchell cannot admit the parties are too far apart and walk away. That would be admitting that Obama's effort to establish a Palestinian state had failed, and his promise to do so was empty. Failure is not an option!
And so, the game of shuttle diplomacy, endless negotiations, public pressures, recriminations and frustrations goes on with no end in sight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The US, UN, Russia and the European Union.
(2) Egypt was offered Gaza along with the Sinai, and refused to accept the territory.
According to Netanyahu, the proposed state must be unarmed and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The second point is mere rhetoric, since the Palestinians would be recognizing nothing more than the truth that Israel has a Jewish majority and reflects Jewish culture. However, to say so openly would be admitting that Israeli Arabs are living in someone else's country, a very distasteful admission.
But the idea that Palestine would have no army is both essential for Israel and intolerable for the Palestinians. A truly sovereign and independent country would be able to defend itself with its own military, and could even provide military bases for other countries. If Palestine had this right, the new state could arm itself with tanks, fighter jets and rockets. Moreover, it could allow foreign countries, such as Iran, to establish bases on its territory. Of course, Israel cannot tolerate this type of threat, and it is inconceivable that any American government would even try to pressure Israel into accepting such a risk.
But why not have a de-militarized Palestine? Costa Rica gets by without an army, and seems to do OK; why not Palestine? The West Bank borders only on Israel and Jordan, neither of which are likely to attack it. Gaza borders on Egypt, but there is no way that Egypt would invade that parcel (2).
Actually, Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas might be tempted to accept a de-militarized state, which would still be a vast improvement over his present situation. Such a state would have all the trappings of sovereignty: a flag, a seat in the UN General Assembly, embassies all over the world and the right to issue its own currency and government bonds. The internal checkpoints would be gone. But, as noted in our June 5 posting, Abbas is too weak to accept a settlement without the blessing of Hamas, and Hamas will never give up its rockets. Even if Gaza were severed from Palestine, the power of Hamas and allied hardliners (e.g. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) in the West Bank alone would be too strong to permit Abbas to take Netanyahu's deal.
Netanyahu also insisted on keeping Jerusalem, and made no pledge to remove the settlements and their residents, so for the Palestinians there is not much to like about the proposed new state. Obama envoy George Mitchell will find himself in the position of a real estate broker whose buyer's maximum offer is still way below the seller's minimum acceptable price. But, unlike a real estate broker, Mitchell cannot admit the parties are too far apart and walk away. That would be admitting that Obama's effort to establish a Palestinian state had failed, and his promise to do so was empty. Failure is not an option!
And so, the game of shuttle diplomacy, endless negotiations, public pressures, recriminations and frustrations goes on with no end in sight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The US, UN, Russia and the European Union.
(2) Egypt was offered Gaza along with the Sinai, and refused to accept the territory.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:14 AM
2 Comments:
Given Obama's antagonism toward Israel and his extremely anti-Israel policies, intentions, and sentiments; Netanyahu's election is proof of the existence of G-d.
Thank G-d for Bibi.
In addition, of course Obama is turning out exactly as we had predicted many months ago. Of course our prediction was not a guess, but simply an extrapolation of his life, friends, relatives, colleagues, and mentors.
There is no way anyone with Obama's background of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel friends, colleagues, mentors, and pastors, e.g. Wright, Khalidi, Farakahn, etc could be anything but anti-Israel.
In the real world, it is proposterous for a sovereign nation not to have the means to defend itself. In a moral world, it is unthinkable for civilized nations to sanction the founding of a state whose only reason-for-being is the destruction of another state. It is only in the Land of Make-Believe that both of these things can and will happen.
In the real world, the latter may very well happen, but not the former. Under Oslo, was/is not the Palestine Authority supposed to be demilitarized? Now that's worked really well! So it's supposed to go better within the context of a sovereign nation?
I'm afraid that Netanyahu, in advancing this suggestion, i calculating that, just because it would make sense theoretically, Obama and the "international community," will agree that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, and that will be the end of the idea of a Palestinian state.
If he does, I think he's gambling on the false assumption that Obama and the "international community" really have Israel's security as a priority (their protestations to the contrary). What will happen is either that Obama settles for 1)a promise from the Palestinians that they will not militarize; and then pushes for the immediate creation of a state; which of course will be heavily militarized; 2)simply taking the word of the Palestinians that they will be friendly toward Israel; so why would they need to be demilitarized?
In his column today, Daniel Pipes listed criteria not mentioned by Netanyahu whic need to be met prior (if ever)to any Palestinian state:
"1. A complete overhaul of messages coming from textbooks, classrooms, media, sermons, political rhetoric, and the other areas of public Palestinian discourse, eliminating the anti-Semitism, the anti-Zionism, and the incitement while condemning terrorism and other acts of "resistance" (muqawama).
2 A protracted era in which Palestinians do not engage in violence against Israelis.
3. Normal relations in such areas as trade, tourism, sports, and scholarly exchanges.
4. A good-neighborly foreign policy."
To that I would say that #2, the protracted period is the absolute requirement, and that it must apply to all of his and Natanyahu's other criteria.
Post a Comment
<< Home