Give Bibi a Chance
As a longtime supporter of the Israeli peace movement, I believe that it would behoove everyone to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu some breathing space.
Even before Netanyahu's new government was sworn in, skeptics and pundits warned that he would both isolate Israel internationally and refuse to engage in good-faith negotiations with the Palestinians or Israel's other neighbors.
The "real aim of Israel's recently elected government is against peace," Syrian President Bashar al-Assad declared at an Arab League summit in Qatar. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters: "The Palestinians must tell the world that Netanyahu does not believe in peace, so how can we cooperate with him?"
And a New York Times editorial worried: "Netanyahu has understandably raised alarms with the expectation that his foreign minister will be an ultranationalist leader with what are widely considered to be anti-Arab views."
Much of the discussion has focused on Netanyahu's unwillingness to explicitly endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state, something both he and his Likud Party have long opposed. But, not so long ago, so too did his predecessors as prime minister, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert -- as well as Tzipi Livni, his leading opponent.
And Netanyahu's record as prime minister in 1996-1999 suggests he may be substantially more pragmatic and moderate than his often rejectionist rhetoric when out of power suggests.
Clichés by definition are rooted in reality. Richard Nixon going to China; Menachem Begin giving Sinai back to Egypt -- milestones are sometimes reached by the most unlikely protagonists. Perhaps Netanyahu -- flanked on his right by hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and on his left by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, head of the once dominant Labor Party -- will emulate Begin (and, for that matter, Yitzhak Rabin).
Or, of course, perhaps not.
Still, it was hardly a foregone conclusion that Rabin -- who, as Defense Minister during the first Intifada of 1988-89 ordered Israeli soldiers to "break the bones" of Palestinian demonstrators -- would shake Yasser Arafat's hand on the White House lawn in 1993.
And few could have foreseen in 2000 that Sharon would not only unilaterally disengage from Gaza but would leave the Likud together with Olmert and Livni to form the centrist, diplomacy-inclined Kadima Party.
And there is Netanyahu's record:
* In January 1997, having previously vehemently denounced both Rabin's accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization and any dealings whatsoever with Arafat, he nonetheless met the PLO chairman to enter into an agreement that provided for Israel's withdrawal from the biblical West Bank city of Hebron.
* In October 1998, Netanyahu lunched with Arafat in Gaza before meeting with him at the Wye River Plantation in Maryland to negotiate a significant US-sponsored interim Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. He then shook hands with Arafat at the signing ceremony at the White House.
During those negotiations, Netanyahu associated himself with the fundamental proposition, long rejected by the Likud, that Israel must be prepared to make significant territorial compromise.
Acceptance of a peace process by dovish Israelis and Palestinians is largely irrelevant. For any such process to be successful, it must have the support of precisely those Israeli and Palestinian mainstream individuals and groups most likely to distrust its very feasibility.
Consider, too, the government Netanyahu has formed. If he had simply wanted to dismantle the Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the past 15 years, he could have established a narrow coalition that catered to the ideologues of the hard-line right. Instead, he chose to form a more centrist government that includes the peace-oriented Labor Party. And his coalition agreement with Labor explicitly provides that his government would respect all of Israel's international agreements.
No, Netanyahu won't become the Peace Now poster child anytime soon. His very legitimate antagonism toward any type of terrorists makes him an unlikely interlocutor with any Palestinian entity that includes Hamas.
Yet there are his remarks, the day before taking office, about Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists almost three years ago. Netanyahu said he would "do everything in my power to ensure" Shalit's "speedy return, healthy and whole, to his family's bosom." Presumably, this must include negotiating, directly or indirectly, with Hamas.
Once a principle is modified, not to say violated, for whatever reason, other exceptions become conceivable, even possible.
Less than a week before taking office, Netanyahu told an economic conference in Jerusalem: "The Palestinians must understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, security, and for economic development of the Palestinian economy." If past is prologue, he may well be true to his word. He needs to be given the opportunity to prove himself.
Menachem Z. Rosensaft is adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School. In December 1988, he was one of five American Jews who met with Yasser Arafat and other senior PLO leaders in Stockholm.
This article was first published in the New York Post
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
When it is all said and done, the fact is that the Palestinian People are paying for the SINS of the Europeans who tormented, tortured, and killed Jewish people for about 1800 years. After the Holocuast there was SUDDEN and UNCHARACTERISTIC shame for what had just taken place.
So the Europeans, along with the United States decided to make up for their abuse and benign neglect (US) by carving out a territory for Israel through the UN. The Europeans got off so easy. The Palestinians got S**** on, and the Israelis got a nation that can never really enjoy peace without paranoia. Great job all around!
give Bibi a chance.
His pragmatic center right views will be the ying to the yang of obamas center left views. Together they will find a balance. Meanwhile there can be no peace until there is a unified Palestinian government ready to make one. There has never been more international support for a people to have there own state then the Palestinians have for their own. If the rockets really stopped, and the Palestinians united and put together a viable and capable government they would have their own state very soon, simply because there is too much international pressure for them not to.
Netanyahu represents Palestinian genocide. Giving "Bibi" a chance equates to abandoning the Palestinian people to IDF death squads, and continued IAF bombing of schools, hospitals, aid centers, water sources, power generators, etc. Netanyahu & Lieberman are pursuing their agenda of stealing Palestinian lands through violence and political chicanery, coupled with their ultimate dream of anti-Muslim nuclear war.
The international community should institute a total trade embargo / blockade against Israel and a recall of all ambassadors until Israel ceases to be a rogue nation sponsoring violence and terrorism against its neighbors, and replaces the Netanyahu-Lieberman cabal with credible leadership. Time for a regime change where it's needed most.
I agree with Mr. Rosencraft here. Netanyahu has built a solid broad coalition while trying to soften its platform by including the Labor Party. Netanyahu is in favor of a two state solution. However, he will not make the same mistake that former prime ministers did. There is no way of establishing peace with the PLO now simply because the PLO has no power over Gaza. As long as there is no sovereign entity with who to talk, Israel cannot compromise. Even if the PLO is full of good intentions, Hamas would do everything in its power to foil any attempt of peace. First, there must be a stable partner to talk to and who is able to implement commitments made on the table. As long as there isn't one, all Israel can do is strengthen this partner through economic prosperity, which will bring popularity and political gains. Israel is picking the PLO up to talk to them afterwards. Hamas is no option, just read its charter and anyone will see that a political commitment to two states is virtually impossible.
Lieberman is extreme, I won't deny. However, he is in favor of a two state solution, with a "land for land" formula. That makes him an unpredictable player in the government in favor a two state solution.
Bibi will play for more gridlock and time to create more facts on the ground.
The two state solution is dead in the water.
Someday the one state solution which is full equality for all.
That is not an option because it is inconceivable to both people. Each of them wants a national state in its literal sense, a State with an ethnic majority and a clear identity. A one state solution would go against everything both sides have fought for, except Hamas and some Arab countries who would like to see Israel vanish.
Nobody is going anywhere, so they will have to compromise.
Why do you talk such tripe? How could Israel vanish, it is a piece of dirt and I don't think there has been a tsunami there lately.
Other than that, the country is Palestine with jews squatting on it.
It is not inconcievable at all. It is the only future for Israel. I'm a palestinian and I don't want an ethnic majority of anything. I want justice for my people and I would have no problem living with an Israeli citizenship if it meant that I have the EXACT same rights as a jew in Israel. Whatever form of quasi autonomy that a palestinian state would have will not last, because its territory and economy will still be control of Israel in many ways. The introduction of an entirely new population in Palestine has wiped out the possiblity of restoring a natural balance so a two-state solution will NEVER address injustice that our society has suffered. Resitance to a jewish state will continue because it was created by the dismantelling palestinian society. Israel can only integrate into a region of arabs by having the palestinians intigrate into its society. This is inevetible, because we are not the Native Americans that have largely dissapeared from the Americas. As Eshkol said prior to the 1967 war "War will achieve nothing, the arabs are here to stay."
Oh yeah?
From yesterday's FInancial TImes:
"Taking the stage this month at the handover ceremony in Jerusalem, [Lieberman] delivered a scathing critique of the previous government’s efforts to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians to create an independent state.
Although the two-state solution dominates diplomacy to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, now more than 60 years old, Mr Lieberman asked: “Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying, ‘I am prepared to concede’, and using the word ‘peace’ will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure and more and more wars.” Officials and diplomats were shocked. “We all felt that we are in for one hell of a ride,” says one official present. Mr Lieberman “was effectively saying: ‘I am exactly the guy you thought I was.’ ”
If we recall recent history, who was it that established peace with Egypt and Jordan? It wasn't Labor it was a right wing Likud extremist turned peacemaker. Often, it takes a well documented extremist to take an unpopular position. Consider what would happen if Labor were to establish peace with the Palestinians by trading land for peace? Israel has its right wing lunatic fringe only they aren't so fringe and they have shown no hesitation in killing one of their own (I am thinking of the poor PM Y. Rabin). Will Netanyahu bring peace? Hard to say...but he can hardly do much worse then Olmert.
SO then to take your logic, we should be assisting Hamas instead of Fatah because Fatah is too moderate? and only the extremists can make peace?
Remember your argument works both ways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This guy reminds me so much of Richard Nixon.
Now we have a "New Bibi", just like when Nixon ran in 1968, it was the "new Nixon".
But as Hubert humphrey pointed out, it was just a touch up paint job-- nothing REALLY changed, as we found out SPECTACULARLY with Watergate.
I suspect the same is true with Bibi.
I know one thing-- he's no Yitzhak Rabin.
To borrow from an infamous former president I say 'Trust you twice I won't get fooled again.'
This must be defend Israel Day or something. Interestingly, I see nothing yet from Palestinians that Netanyahu has oppressed or anything from Iranians that Netanyahu has threatened. Give Bibi a chance? How many more does he get? And does this mean that W. and the failed Republican party get another chance? I view this post in exactly the same way I view the cable news giving John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Lars Larson, Grover Norquist, et al, a platform after they and their entire philosophy has failed and ruined the country. Give him a chance? Why? So he can screw it all up again?
Take off your blinders. Israel lost the moral high ground over a decade ago.
Uh...how many more chances for Abbas or the Hamas leaders?? Abbas was second in charge of the PLO behind Arafat for 40 years straight! How many chances for HIM??
I haven't heard anybody advocating for giving Abbas or any other PLO or Hamas leaders "more chances", but Mr. Rosensaft is clearly advocating for Netanyahu getting more chances to slaughter Palestinians. Therefore your entire criticism is unfounded and baseless.
The USA forced Israel on the world in 1947, it is time the USA forced peace in the region by forcing a 2 state solution NOW.
FORCE is the only word that the USA and Israel understand.
...and that's what the arab terrorists understand
I agree but we were not talking about Arab Terrorists!
Israel was not forced on the world by the US, it was chartered by the UN on land formerly run by the British empire. Before the Brits, it was run by the Ottoman Empire, never by Palestinian Arabs. You need to read a little history before you write your next hysterical posting.
Britain had no right to "give" Palestine to anyone as it was not theirs to give.
Why don't you read the UN resolution - it was non-binding and not legal. And the Palestinians who owned 94% of the land just had it stolen from them by jewish terrorist gangs.
Do you think the rest of the world is so ignorant we believe your tripe.
Regardless of your narrative - make no mistake - If European Jews deserved a homeland in Israel then Palestinians also deserve a homeland where they reside. Especially after being forcibly removed from many areas in Israel. There is no getting around these facts. Stop trying to use smoke and mirrors - to create the illusion that Palestinians are not an inherent part of the Israeli territories.
Essentially the World has been arguing about giving Israel an OFFICIAL EXEMPTION from human rights and justice. This is no better than what the Republic of South Africa was demanding from the world.
No nation should be considered above the standards of any other in terms of international laws.
Israel can be secure and the Palestinians can have a homeland. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We should give Bibi a chance to make mistakes, so that once the mistakes are made, they become "facts on the ground" and people are encouraged to "look forwards, not backwards".
In other words, nothing is done to prevent it, nothing is done to punish it, and nothing is done to prevent a repeat. All the while, those in power continue to be in power, all the while telling us that everything is fine...
Give Netanyahoo a chance? No dice!
"Perhaps Netanyahu -- flanked on his right by hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and on his left by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, head of the once dominant Labor Party -- will emulate Begin (and, for that matter, Yitzhak Rabin)."
Haaaaahhhhaaaa. That's funny stuff.
The Israelis voted against their own interests with this guy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
