No Linkage Between Iran and Palestinians
Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is a dangerous linkage.
I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.
But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the United States. The dangers come not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:
[Rifsanjani] boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world.
Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel by rockets and suicide bombers. In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way -- defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.
After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the United States were opposed.
Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution -- that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.
Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.
Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, which are not related to Israel's security, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements. Most Israelis strongly believe that these issues must not be linked.
Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Recall again that Israel offered such a peace in 2000-2001, only to be rebuffed. It may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"...I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past..." Oh, really? Do enlighten us, please!
Oh, I see this is going to be long rant of oy, Israel good, oy, Palestinians bad...So, I'm gonna cut it short by saying: Israel is committing genocide and apartheid. Full stop! Period. Nothing you or any other Israel apologist can say is going to make that ok or is going to make Israel's wrongdoing seem righteous, just or fair.
Nothing but hasbara hasbara hasbara from Aipac-ers like you.
Obama has a plan.
Much smarter than yours, Mr. Dershowitz.
With all due respect.
We pray that Obama has what it takes to put an end to this parasitic relationship
It's just a matter of time until it's recognized that a One State Solution is the only possiblity. One democratic state for all.
A one state solution is a euphemism for the destruction of the state of Israel. It will never be acceptable to Israel. It will never be acceptable to the United States. It should never be acceptable to any fair minded, intelligent purpose. You might as well say you are in favor of the "final solution."
I suppose one state for all in South Africa was a euphemism for the destruction of South Africa? One state in Israel is an idea which is taking hold. The tide of public opinion in the USA will support it because it is right.
Democratic state? With Arabs in majority????
Can you name ONE in existence today. Before spinning these tales try reading a few political science texts.
The Israel-hater says :"Turkey."
Too bad those are Turks, not Arabs. Just like how they say "Israel took over Palestine" when in reality, Palestine was part of the British Empire, the locals fought on the wrong and losing side of the war, and there was never a people which called themselves Palestinians. They were merely Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians who lived in small tribes in an underpopulated area Jews built up.
Lebanon.... They are more of a Democracy than Israel as a Jewish state is today.
If the USA wasn't supporting dictatorial regimes in the Middle East maybe there WOULD be more democracy!
yes, indeed. I like a one state solution. and that is called Jordan annexes the West Bank, or most of it, and Egypt takes back Gaza. One democratic state, and its called ISRAEL.
Jordan and Egypt have already recognized that they has no legitimate claim to any of Palestine. So your nonsensical plan would not work
Dream on...
I don't think there is a true, merited link. I was always suspicious of Obama with regards to Israel, whether he regards important alliances from the Cold War, like Israel being the only mideast democracy and on our side against Soviet armed Arabs, or whether he wants to be the far left's messiah. Maybe I can see some leverage as Arab countries help fight Iran in exchange for helping Israel, but still, Israel comes first. He needs to kick Jones, a viruent Israel hater out. However, Bibi must not drag his feet.
A democracy does not have institutionalized racism and discrminiation against non-Jews. An apartheid state cannot be a democracy. Israel is not a democracy.
What you fail to realize that Obama is not part of the "far left". Those are the progressives, the ones that believe in the rights of all people. Obama is a "New Liberal", a member of the neo-liberal faction. He ignores the progressives. Iran is not America's enemy.
""Maybe I can see some leverage as Arab countries help fight Iran in exchange for helping Israel, but still, Israel comes first. He needs to kick Jones, a viruent Israel hater out. However, Bibi must not drag his feet. ""
This is the problem, America needs to come first and Jones knows that. America should not be sacrificing our troops as cheap flesh for Israeli hegemonic aspirations. Iran is simply the next country on the list they'd like to knock backward 200 years technologically, and they've railing for a war with them for at least 10 years. Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya.... do you see a pattern?
And it's a crime that Israel is allowed to embroil itself in Americas foreign policy.
" but still, Israel comes first."
No, human rights and the United States come first. .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
