Peace Punk'd by Netanyahu, Where's Ashton Kutcher?

I do like you.

I just don't like the way you look, the way you talk, the way you think -- and the way you... well, exist really.

What would you call such logic?

Self-contradicting? Counter intuitive? Nonsensical?

Few would disagree.

Yet that is the kind of logic Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, effectively offered the world on the occasion of his much hyped policy address last Sunday. (It appears as if he was just looking to throw something out there to look like he is in stride with Obama's constant knack for buzz-creating addresses).

In his own stately address, Netanyahu stated that he would accept a Palestinian state under certain conditions, and that he favored living in a state of peace rather than war with the Palestinians.

As Borat would say, "is nice. I like."

But if I may ask, how does that much constitute breaking news to anyone but the most extreme right-wing elements in Israeli society?

Was the Israeli position prior to this announcement a "one-state solution" as opposed to two? Was it "we hate peace, we love war?"

So what merits the excitable headlines?

If anything, it seems like the Israelis are constantly shifting the starting point of this debate back a notch, a process through which the obvious is played as benefaction, and entitlements re-branded as concessions.

And so slick Netanyahu tries to move the goal posts out a few yards in the dark of night while no one is looking.

Except he is in the light of day and the whole world is watching. So yeah, we kind of noticed.

The real question, the only question really, has always been: what are Netanyahu's "conditions" for "peace" with this plausible Palestinian "state?"

Well when we he got to that part, it was all pretty much downhill.

His conditions include but are not limited to: no right of return for Palestinian refugees forcibly uprooted from their ancestral homes, no compromise over Jerusalem including Arab-majority East Jerusalem, no dismantling or freezing of Israeli illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank, no sovereign control for the new Palestinian state over its own borders and ports, no Palestinian right of defense (he uses the fancy buzz word, "demilitarized"), and no democratically elected party that Israel does not approve.

So Palestinians, there's your "state." (It looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck - but no, it's not a duck.)

Now, anyone remotely familiar with the history of the conflict and the ever elusive peace process knows that these cynical stipulations are none other than the very barriers that have precisely made peace historically elusive. They are designed with only one goal in mind: to prolong the status quo.

So where's the supposed breakthrough?

That's like Chicago's weather finally addressing my legitimate demands: fine, fine, you can have your "summer" this June, but on one condition: that it will have to be cold and rainy (true story).

It seems that Netanyahu just wanted to utter the words peace and two-state as a decoy to grab headlines and avoid the undesirable appearance that Israel is belligerent in the face of US demands to move forward.

In actuality though, his address is a step backwards, little more than a public notice that his cabinet has no intention of acknowledging legitimate Palestinian and international demands, or budging on any of the long-standing roadblocks to peaceful coexistence - most glaringly ending its illegal occupation and settlements in the Palestinian territories.

It's time Netanyahu stops pandering to his country's extreme right wing factions and gets serious about peace while the window of opportunity remains open. This means dropping the double-talk and recognizing that justice is the only foundation for sustainable peace and normalized coexistence.

The peoples of the region deserve it.

(Ashton Kutcher was unavailable for comment.)

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

Great article. Great analysis.

[BubbaC33]

Not a great or accurate article.

[arle]

Not that you can actually back your statement up with, you know, facts or citations or anything substantial like that.

[toomuchtolose]

to myopinion2

I like your attitude. You don't need anyone else's validation. That excellent. Really. Now can the U.S. finally stop giving money to Israel and stop providing weaponry? It's time for Israel to stand alone. The U.S. doesn't need Israel, and it's becoming more and more apparent that Americans want to sever that very expensive, not very productive relationship. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the U.S. were to withdraw its support of Israel and come to the aid of Palestine instead. Works for me.

[Sentientbeing09]

seconded

[myopinion2]

Both Abbas and Olmert have confirmed that Israel offered over 93% of the West Bank plus a 5% land swap compensation, and the PA turned it down. See ttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184852687&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Netanyahu poses a new obstacle, but the PA could already have had an independent state. So why is everyone blaming only Israel and making demands only on Israel. And if the reply is 'what about the alleged refugee issue, then there will never be peace, because Israel cannot and will not agree to millions of Palestinians moving to Israel. If the Palestinians cannot or will not give up that claim, then all efforts for peace are futile. But at least let's all be honest and stop identifying the settlements as the obstacle to peace. It's not. It's the Palestinian's claim for an alleged right to settle in Israel.

[CubsFan77]

myopinion2,

Was Olmert offering this supposed "93%" of the West Bank during the '06 bombing of Gaza/Lebanon or the '08-'09 bombing? Or was it during the period in between in which he continued Settlement growth (i.e. land grabs), the continued Cantonization of the W.Bank with the apartheid wall developing Bantunistans? Or during the collective punishment of daily harassment, stifling of the free flow of aid and other general contravention of UN resolutions and dictates? This is the same canard that Israelis and their supporters try to pull when they have nothing to stand-on, like the argument that Barak gave everything to Arafat at Camp David, plain ridiculous and disingenuous.

As far as the right of return for Palestinians, then it is a humanitarian issue and was always understood to be part of final status talks until the recent Bush presidency. They will not give it up in any negotiations and what Israelis should ask themselves is, why the double standards? Why is the ability to return limited to Jews? Is that Democracy? Why is one claim worth more than another especially when we know the Palestinians lived in what is now Israel and the new Russian Jews (such as Lieberman) have no physical evidence of ever living there?

The fact is that it is obvious that Netanyahu can't even bring himself to equivocally and without conditions that render a Palestinian state ineffective say the words "Palestinian State."

[DarkSlope]

Dude, I find you on every post reiterating the same lame stance. Stop publishing half truths. Why don't you also post that Israel's stance was that it must maintain military control over the new Palestinian state, that Palestine could not have a military to defend itself, and that the Palestinians would be forced to abandon millions of its refugees. On every Israeli post you are out there singing the same song and only stating part of the story. Stop the propaganda. If you want to tell a story, give us all of the facts.

[alexa07]

"It's time Netanyahu stops pandering to his country's extreme right wing factions and gets serious about peace while the window of opportunity remains open. This means dropping the double-talk and recognizing that justice is the only foundation for sustainable peace and normalized coexistence."

If a viable, fully sovereign state for the Palestinians is NOT in the works for the Obama adm. because they won't put sufficient pressure to bear on the Israeli govt, then the old plan of a secular state for one & all in the region, including every Palestinian, needs to be put on the table. In the 21st century, we can't have a govt. that respects, fosters the security, economics & welfare of those within its society who belong to one religion only, while deriding everyone else lives there too.

[Ahmed Rehab - Huffpost Blogger]

Interesting perspective Alexa, one that is becoming more and more discussed out there. Ali Abunimah makes a powerful argument for a one-state solution in is book, "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse."

The US, which counts Israel as an ally and which Israel counts as an ally, is itself a pluralistic democracy founded on ideals, NOT on religious or ethnic identity. You would think this would have some bearing on Israel.

South Africa, the other major conflict-laiden country of the 20th century was able to move forward as one country, blacks and whites together, relying on a single law that applies equally to everyone (and of course an end to apartheid).

So, I do see the merit of this argument. But is it realistic, i.e. attainable? It is not without its landmines. I do believe that the Israelis more than anyone else including the Palestinians would be opposed to it.

It is interesting though how they can claim to be a modern democracy and be talked about that way by many ("the only democracy in the Middle East" etc) when Israeli citizenship, the very foundation of democracy, is predicated upon what religion you follow, or your ancestors followed.

Odd indeed.

[myopinion2]

Actually, not an interesting perspective at all. America is not the sole legitimate model for a state, and Israel is not the USA. Israel was founded as, is, and will be, a Jewish state. It has no reason to be except as the reconstitution of the Judaic traditional homeland. (Personally, I don't need anyone to recognize it as such. Neither Israel or I are in need of anyone else's validation.) If there is not a 2-state resolution, there will not be a resolution. Therefore, it is essential to realize the 2-state resolution.

[alexa07]

Hi Ahmed,
Thanks for responding to my comments. Yes, I have read Ali Abunimah's eloquent "One Country: A Bold Proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse" as well as excellent articles on his website. A few yrs. ago he appeared on a television panel along with several Jewish Americans & one Israeli. They all advocated for the one state solution, rather than the Swiss cheese approach of a non-viable Palestinian "state." The young Israeli woman was perhaps the best advocate of how the two people would be integrated, either with compensation or allowing anyone into the religious enclaves. She turned into an advocate after she said her grandfather & his friends finally (but very reluctantly) told the story of how they came to live in the 1940s where their families still live today. The ruins of stone where she used to play & had been told were from very old history, turned out to be not so old at all. Ahmed, I don't really know if President Obama will be able to achieve a just two-state solution, but the South African solution may be all that is left & it may turn out to be the best one of all. The world has had enough of more than 60 yrs. of messes in Palestine.

[Indigo121]

What's odd is that you seem to think its wrong for Jews to have one single tiny country to themselves, with Arabs and Muslims having 50.
That Jews decide immigration laws based on letting their own people come in and live in security free of persecution is odd to you?

You are biased to the bone. Jews are not allowed to live in Palestine, for instance. Isn't that equally "racist"?

[BubbaC33]

When you depict Isarael and South Africa, two nations with nothing in common, s the two most conflict laiden nations in the 20th century you disqualify your posting from serious consideration. Your statement is clearly wrong and you ought to know it.