A very wise Republican friend of mine, star pollster Frank Luntz, has made it a science to convince politicians of the supposedly self-evident proposition that words count.
New Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is known in Israel and throughout the world as a man of the right. He is often referred to as a "hard-liner" when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians. The early impression in American and European media has been that Mr. Netanyahu, as one Jerusalem-based think tank fellow put it, "has refused to commit himself to a two-state solution."
This is because whenever Mr. Netanyahu is asked whether he favors a two-state solution, his answer often sounds like, simply put, "No, but." But he could articulate exactly the same substantive position by saying, "Yes, but."
Words matter, as Mr. Luntz always reminds us. And which of these two words Mr. Netanyahu chooses matters. A lot.
Let's look at substance first.
The "but" word, whether it comes after a "no" or "yes," actually understandably involves the same four preconditions to a two-state solution: An extended period of peace and a civil society by the Palestinian entity; freedom of the skies; demilitarization; and a ban on hostile alliances.
To understand the reasons for each of them, let's substitute the name America for Israel, and Mexico for Palestine.
Would America agree to recognize Mexico as a sovereign state if Mexico were publicly committed to the destruction of the United States, with moonlighting military forces or terrorists free to use Mexico as a base for invading America or shooting rockets at American cities?
Would America agree if Mexico had control over its border crossings that were regularly used to permit al Qaeda or other international terrorists to enter and operate in its territory and attack the U.S. and invade Texas?
What if Mexico could shoot down planes flying from San Diego to Miami if they came too close to Mexican airspace?
And what if Mexico could make an alliance with al Qaeda or other anti-U.S. terrorists like Hezbollah and perhaps even cooperate in the planning of another 9/11-style attack on our economy and civilians?
Would Americans accept any of those scenarios? Of course not. So too for Israel.
Most Americans and even most Europeans, where criticism towards Israel has recently been greater after the Gaza incursion, understand that no nation could permit the establishment of a state next to it whose central policy is to bring about its destruction. That is why no two-state solution involving a Hamas-governed Gaza is possible. Here is a direct quote from Hamas' charter:
The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The Hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"
So long as Hamas remains in power in Gaza, and committed to terrorism and the destruction of Israel, there can be no peace with Hamas.
But as to the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Netanyahu has a great historic opportunity to accomplish what his more "dovish" predecessor, the Kadima Party government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and now leader Tzipi Livni, have tried but were unable to achieve.
Mr. Netanyahu has already made it clear that his priority will be to assist the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank (as opposed to the Hamas-led junta in Gaza) to achieve economic growth, prosperity, jobs, education, and housing for the Palestinian people.
As Yossi Klein Halevi, a leading Jerusalem strategic think tank fellow, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Obama will find a ready partner in Jerusalem [under a Netanyahu government] for improving economic conditions in the West Bank. That process would present the Palestinians with a stark choice between their two territories: the beginnings of prosperity in a peaceful West Bank, or devastation in a jihadist Gaza."
Actually, Mr. Netanyahu set forth similar ideas in a Chicago Tribune article last December, entitled "Don't Give Up On Peace," which reads as if it could have been written by former British Prime Minister (and special envoy) Tony Blair.
Just as the arch-anticommunist Richard Nixon could afford politically to break barriers and go to Communist China without worrying about accusations of being "soft on Communism," so too would Mr. Netanyahu's credibility and base on the security-conscious Israeli right give him greater flexibility to commit to a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank -- but only after an evolutionary period that fulfilled the four caveats discussed above, assuring Israelis of security for their country and their children for years to come.
By choosing to answer the two-state solution question, "Yes, but," Mr. Netanyahu can win additional support from U.S. liberals, women and blacks, who recent polls show were most dismayed by the Gaza intervention. By answering "No, but," Mr. Netanyahu also risks appearing to disagree not only with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and special envoy George Mitchell, but also with the last two U.S. presidents, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton.
Mr. Netanyahu should be confident enough of his conservative security credentials to become the Nixon-to-China historic leader of Israel. He would be following in the footsteps of other conservative Israeli leaders: Menachem Begin, a former Irgun leader who as prime minister made a 1978 peace with Egypt that lasts through today; Ariel Sharon, considered the father of the settlement movement but who as prime minister embraced the two-state solution and forcibly dismantled settlements in both the West Bank and Gaza; and the late Yitzhak Rabin, himself a warrior turned peacemaker.
Mr. Netanyahu might even have the unique ability to reach out boldly (but quietly) to Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt that we know share his conviction that Iran must not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.
Thus, it can be Mr. Netanyahu's historic legacy to achieve what could accurately be described as the ultimate feat of modern diplomatic history: to bring peace between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, people who share the same ancient Semitic heritage, and, according to the Torah and Koran, share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great, etc., grand-father, Abraham.
If he does that, then Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu can be assured of God's ultimate blessing -- for "blessed be the peacemakers -- they shall inherit the earth."
Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of President Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America."
This article appeared in Mr. Davis's regular weekly column, "Purple Nation," on Monday, April 13, 2009. The article has also appeared on The Hill's Pundits Blog and Fox Forum.
Lawrence of Arabia.
Orde Charles Wingate
Sadat -Begin peace accord. Only few years after Yom Kippur War.
Israel allowing Arafat to return.
Sharon evicting Jews from Gaza.
Tacit approval of Arab leaders of Israel actions against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Current unspoken alliance between Sunni Arabs and Israel against Iran and its proxies.
Those who confidently predict Netanyahu's actions have Van Gogh ear for the currents of the Middle Eastern affairs.
The Theater of Absurd continues.
I don't know why Netanyahu considers Iran an existential threat to Israel anyway. Israel has 300 nuclear weapons while Iran has exactly zip. A 300-to-0 advantage isn't big enough for him? Even if Iran gets a weapon in the next couple of years Israel's advantage will still be 300-to-1. I don't know what he's so worried about unless he thinks most Israelis have their bags packed already and a single bomb blast in Tel Aviv will empty out the country.
However, I think there is still a big step to be taken, which is to publicly state that he is in favor of the two state solution, "with conditions". There is hope.
Great article.
It says what it says. Does it not?
It's a charter. If it's not clear on it's face, that alone is reason to be suspicious.
Did Begin give up chunks of land bigger than Israel proper itself for peace?
Did Sharon pull ALL of the settlements (and all of the Jews living there) in the Sinai and then, later, out of Gaza or was that just a fantasy?
Seems like what you call a fantasy, others would call history.
As Chris Hedges notes from his experience: Israel has changed. And the racist virus spread by Kahane, whose thugs were charged with the murders and beatings of dozens of unarmed Palestinians and whose members held rallies in Jerusalem where they chanted “Death to Arabs!” has returned to Israel in the figure of Israel’s powerful new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman openly calls for an araberrein Israel—an Israel free of Arabs.
Liebermann does not call for an Israel free of Arabs.
If you need lies to support your conclusions, perhaps you need to rethink them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
Goldstein was born in Brooklyn, New York to an Orthodox Jewish family. He attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush religious day school and Yeshiva University.[1] He received his medical training at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He belonged to the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a militant Jewish organization founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane.
On February 25, 1994, that year's Purim day, Goldstein entered a room in the Cave of the Patriarchs serving as a mosque, wearing "his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty" (Shamgar report). He then opened fire, killing 29 Arab Muslims and wounding 150 (A Time Magazine article from March 7th, 1994 reported that Israeli officials counted 39 killed and Palestinians reported 52 killed [6]).
Furthermore, even if he were to use the slick PR nonsense that Davis suggests, and says, "Yes, but..." and tacks on the four b.s. conditions (while imposing none on the Israelis, even one as just and right as "stop stealing even more of Palestine than you've already stolen), then everyone will see it is more nonsense and conclude that Netanyahu has no desire for peace, which is the truth.
Is any self-respecting person in this world willing to ascede to demands such as: there is "[a]n extended period of peace and a civil society by the Palestinian entity i.e., there must be an a; freedom of the skies; demilitarization; and a ban on hostile alliances." In other words, place yourself abjectly under my iron boot; I get to do anything I want to you and you aren't permitted the means to defend yourself.
Such conditions are tyrannical. Why would anyone in his right mind trust an Israeli government? It's like putting your head in a shark's mouth.