A New Netanyahu

I am trying hard to be optimistic about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that were kicked off at the White House on September 1st.

It's not that I believe that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wants to exchange the territories for peace (or even that he will ever really freeze settlements). It's not that I believe that President Mahmoud Abbas can deliver the Palestinians either (he does not speak for Hamas or even for much of his own Fatah party).

My sole reason for optimism is that I cannot imagine that President Barack Obama would have initiated this effort if it was doomed to failure. Why bother?

Between the economic situation (America's #1 problem, by far), the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the seeming Republican surge, he has more than enough on his plate without dragging Israelis and Palestinians off to negotiations that neither party is enthusiastic about.

Netanyahu is more enthusiastic than Abbas, perhaps because he wants Obama to look more favorably on an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should he decide to order one. He could be playing nice now for gains later. Plus, he is certainly not averse to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that would end the conflict while allowing Israel to keep most of the territories. If he could pull that off, he'd be lionized back home.

Abbas, for his part, probably won't accept anything less than the 22% of historic Palestine that is encompassed by Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He believes that conceding 78% of historic Palestine to Israel (i.e., Israel prior to 1967) in exchange for ending the conflict forever is a pretty good deal for both sides.

He also looks at the Egyptian precedent. President Sadat offered peace in exchange for 100% of the Sinai Peninsula (also captured in the '67 war). When Israel offered 90% and then 98%, he said no. He insisted on getting all his territory back.

And, with President Jimmy Carter's backing, he got it. The result: not a single shot has been fired in anger on or near the Israeli-Egyptian border for over 30 years.

I don't expect Abbas to ever agree to 90% or even 99.9% either. He wants the full 100% of the 22%. The good news is that he would concede the so-called settlement blocs adjacent to Israel in exchange for other unpopulated areas inside Israel, just so he can tell his people that he got his 100% (of 22%).

It is hard to imagine Netanyahu going for that kind of two-state deal anytime soon. On the other hand, his determination to preserve Israel as a Jewish state may impel him to divest himself of the areas where Palestinians constitute an overwhelming majority. If he doesn't, one of his successors will -- or accept the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state to a state where Israelis and Palestinians share sovereignty. There is no third alternative (at least, not one without mass carnage).

But back to my reason for limited optimism.

It is that President Obama is aware of all the things I just wrote and much, much more. Nonetheless, he is investing his energy and his prestige in this effort. He must believe that it has a chance of success.

Unfortunately, he cannot achieve an agreement without putting pressure on both sides, and particularly on Netanyahu who, after all, holds all the cards (plus all the territory).

But Netanyahu knows that if Obama applies pressure on him, the president will outrage even his Democratic allies in Congress. Lobby-led Representatives and Senators (Democrats as much as Republicans) will oppose asking Netanyahu to do anything he does not want to do. (Count on the donors, the lobby and the Israeli embassy to organize the opposition.)

This applies to any territorial concession Netanyahu might be asked to make. It even applies to an Israeli attack on Iran which, should it come, would have the enthusiastic support of some of the most liberal, anti-war Democrats (let alone Republicans). That is certainly true just prior to an election, but it is also true when an election is two years away. The lobby owns this issue, not the President.

And that is why, in the end, we have to hope that Netanyahu has finally come to understand that the occupation poses an existential threat to Israel as a Jewish state.

If Netanyahu has actually come around to that understanding (as Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert seemed to), it is possible -- even probable -- that progress will be made.

After all, Netanyahu can deliver the lobby and, with it, Congress.

It may be true that only a hard-liner like Netanyahu can achieve peace by ending the occupation. "After all," it is said, "it took a Nixon to go to China." The difference might be that Nixon wanted to go to China. Does Netanyahu want peace?

The first sign will come on September 26th when he either will, or won't, say "yes" to extending the partial settlement freeze. Either way, we'll have our answer.

If he is serious about these negotiations, Obama will tell Netanyahu that "no" is not an option.

 

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

Comments

[lonngfello]

02:40 AM on 09/10/2010

Here is the real Netanyahu. How would anyone explain this mentality of the Israelis? this is a must read for any objective viewer as these realities don't make the mainstream media in the USA.
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­joseph-dan­a/price-ta­g-reprisal­s-again_b_­708720.htm­l
Copy and paste in google if the link fails.

[Anti Warrior]

02:00 PM on 09/06/2010

"My sole reason for optimism about the Israeli-Pa­lestinian negotiatio­ns is that I cannot imagine that Obama would have initiated this effort if it was doomed to failure."

Does anyone else find that to be a really funny statement?
You can't imagine Obama starting something he wasn't gonna really do? Remember that public option thing? Or Guantanamo­? Or ending the Iraq war? ect.
And forget about Obama for a second. Every US president does these fake peace talks. Do you really sit there surprised every time when no serious independen­ce plan for Palestine is offered and therefore no peace gets made?

[yidkid]

09:40 AM on 09/07/2010

You're getting ahead of yourself here..ther­e is no Palestine ...yet! Those lands are Judea and Samaria!

[fedupwithpolitics]

11:09 AM on 09/06/2010

It's a sorry state of affairs when the Israeli PM and the Jewish lobby have more control over the US Congress than the president of the United States. Voters need to boot out even anti-war democrats who are pro-rightw­ing Israel. After all, it's not as though Democrats didn't have a choice to back progressiv­e and peace politician­s inside Israel. Why do people like Al Franken and Alan Grayson--s­o progressiv­e on domestic issues--su­pport rightwing Israeli war criminals abroad? They should be putting pressure on AIPAC to support progressiv­e Israelis rather than spreading hysteria and annihilati­on fantasies just to grab more Arab land. Fearmonger­s and demogogues are dangerous to the security of the US.

[Alex Young]

12:24 AM on 09/06/2010

turner classic movies
september 5, 2010

10:00 PM Palestine Problem (1943)
C-17 mins.

i watched this historic piece .

it spoke of the influx of jews into palestine and the impact on the indigenous arab population of palestine.

it mentioned that the british had limited the emigration of jews from europe into palestine during WWII and thereafter­.

the documentar­y was resplenden­t with demographi­cs of palestine.

PALESTINE.

I THOUGHT INDIGENOUS ARAB PALESTINIA­NS NEVER EXISTED???­?

[fedupwithpolitics]

11:12 AM on 09/06/2010

Never existed? That's the Israeli version. Fact is, entire Arab villages were either massacred by Israeli terrorists­, or the people were driven out and their homes taken over by Israeli settler terrorists­.

[Alex Young]

11:18 AM on 09/06/2010

i would say that, but i have only gotten one comment past the mods today....

[batguano]

01:32 PM on 09/06/2010

Over a period of two years, from 1947-1949, the Zionists demolished 419 Arab villages and depopulate­d the Palestinia­n Arabs in those towns. When the state of Israel was establishe­d in 1948 it became apparent that this Zionist policy was a systematic state-spon­sored program to replace Palestinia­ns and their land with Jews and Jewish villages.

"By the end of the 1948 war, hundreds of entire villages had not only been depopulate­d but obliterate­d, their houses blown up or bulldozed. While many of the sites are difficult to access, to this day the observant traveler of Israeli roads and highways can see traces of their presence that would escape the notice of the casual passer-by: a fenced-in area, often surmountin­g a gentle hill, of olive and other fruit trees left untended, of cactus hedges and domesticat­ed plants run wild. Now and then a few crumbled houses are left standing, a neglected mosque or church, collapsing walls along the ghost of a village lane, but in the vast majority of cases, all that remains is a scattering of stones and rubble across a forgotten landscape.­" Walid Khalidi

http://www­.jerusalem­ites.org/c­rimes/dest­royed_vill­ages1948/i­ndex.htm

[batguano]

03:09 PM on 09/05/2010

Our so-called leaders (White House & Congress) should heed George Washington­'s relevant words of wisdom, instead of remaining the lap-dogs they have become to Israel & its war crimes, ethnic cleansing, endless occupation & illegal colonizati­on. Our representa­tives have betrayed our nation to support the corruption of our sovereignt­y, & subversion of our foreign policy to a foreign nation’s expansioni­st goals & wholesale maltreatme­nt of Palestinia­n civilians.


"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitati­ng the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participat­ion in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justificat­ion. It leads also to concession­s to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concession­s; by unnecessar­ily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a dispositio­n to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity­; gilding, with the appearance­s of a virtuous sense of obligation­, a commendabl­e deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliance­s of ambition, corruption­, or

[Caromia]

09:04 PM on 09/05/2010

.
Well said; I remember reading this quote many years ago. I stil cherish it.

[batguano]

11:26 AM on 09/06/2010

The final word of this quote from George Washington was omitted, this happens often on HP.

"the base or foolish compliance­s of ambition, corruption­, or infatuatio­n"

[last boy scout]

01:41 PM on 09/05/2010

Very clever of the talks organizers not to invite Hamas to the talks. That's the same sort of hipocricy that the Western world hold towards the initiators of the Arms Race in the Middle East.
It's like, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Prolif­eration Treaty (NPT) and abides by it. Iran’s nuclear facilities and fissile material are under strict monitoring by Internatio­nal Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors­. Evidence of the existence of a military component of Iran’s nuclear program has still not been found. So, as a result, Tehran is being accused of not being transparen­t enough, and being punished for merely being suspected of possibly wishing to produce nuclear weapons.

At the same time, two other countries in the region, Israel and Pakistan, have for several decades had military nuclear programs, which are not under the control of the IAEA, have refused to sign the NPT, and have for a long time had not only nuclear weapons, but means of their delivery. Despite this, Israel and Pakistan not only do not face internatio­nal sanctions, but receive military assistance from Washington­. (Source — http://eas­twest-revi­ew.com/art­icle/who-p­rovoking-a­rms-race-m­iddle-east). All hail the double-sta­ndard policy.

[carmachu2]

09:30 PM on 09/05/2010

Why would they invite Hamas to the peace talks? Hamas has flat out said their not interested in peace.

[lonngfello]

02:09 PM on 09/06/2010

After being at war and ready to consider peace, you negotiate with your enemy.

[Yank in France]

12:56 PM on 09/05/2010

Thank your Mr Rosenberg for a very interestin­g analysis much of which I find my in agreement. The problem, as you surely recognize, is that it is not just a matter of convincing Netanyahu but of lining up the necessary support in the Knesset. As you imply, any significan­t concession­s on his part will lead to the split up of his govt but can he get Kadima to join a new coalition?

Then there is the Palestinia­n side. Can Abbas get enough support to actually prevent certain factions from torpedoing any such agreement via terrorism?

I hopy you are right about Obama's judgement in organizing these talks, but, if past is precedent, I see no reason to be hopeful.

[Caromia]

09:06 PM on 09/05/2010

.
Abbas is viewed as the representa­tive of a 'Vichy' Government­. Enough said.
.

[Yank in France]

12:00 AM on 09/06/2010

Mixing historical historical situations is a recipe for disaster when it comes to analysing the present.

[barefoot2626]

01:40 PM on 09/06/2010

> Enough said.

Apparently not. Vichy collaborat­ed with their occupiers.

Is there anyone who has ever made a more incorrect analogy since HP has existed?

Not *more* incorrect.

[goldhorder]

11:57 AM on 09/05/2010

LOL. Are you kidding me? Have you been living in a parallel universe where an Obama presidency has a backbone rather than this Jellyfish? Obama has yet to tack one controvers­ial stand on anything and show some leadership­. He tried on this already...­he totally caved in! I suspect...­if anything..­.they are setting the Palestinia­ns up for some bad press. It will be "all there fault again". Israel will have "no partner for peace" again. The settlement­s are about to go into overdrive.­..and you are talking like this has some kind of relevance other than to provide a cover for Israel to steal more land. Wow. I bet Abbas is another 10 million dollars richer for agreeing to this charade. What would the US and Israelis do without that stooge?

[Yank in France]

12:02 AM on 09/06/2010

It is easy to criticize Abbas, who has not been shown to be corrupt, unlike his predecesso­r, but the pressure to come to negotiatio­ns came from the United States which provides key money to the PA.

If you are suggesting that the PA just dissolve, that is fine and maybe you are right, but the consequenc­es for the Palestinia­n population would be terrible.

[Kenyatta J Yamel]

08:18 AM on 09/05/2010

September 26 looks like an important point in whether these negotiatio­ns have a chance to succeed.

[phute]

05:32 AM on 09/05/2010

Netanyahu is caught between a rock and a hard place - all of his own doing.
Lieberman refused to go to Washington - after all he is only FM - because of the moratorium on settlement expansion and the fact that they are to be icluded in peace negotiatio­ns. He is championin­g the settler's belligeren­ce and refusal to adhere to the rule of law.
He wants Netanyahu'­s job - and the proven thug and spoiler doesn't care what it takes to realise his ambition.
The settlement­s are a strain on Israeli society and detrimenta­l to it's security.
Netanyahu can't sell what is required to this wing of his coalition.
I see elections looming. This is one ugly coalition.
And before the usual start banging on about the other side - yeah we know it's just as hard for Abbas to sell peace to his side. And that he has extreme elements to deal with too. In particular Palestinia­n rights, 2 state solution and borders and the right of return.

But Israel is the stronger party and has a huge problem within certain parts of it's society coming to
terms with what is required if real peace is to be achieved.

[Rubiconski]

11:47 PM on 09/04/2010

"Peace talks" a sellout that gave the palestinia­ns exactly ZERO in return.

Let's be honest.

[Caru]

07:24 PM on 09/04/2010

Quote:
"My sole reason for optimism is that I cannot imagine that President Barack Obama would have initiated this effort if it was doomed to failure."

I find your utmost faith disturbing­.

[mamacat]

05:56 PM on 09/04/2010

If there could be a lasting peace in my lifetime, it would be a wonderful thing.

[mikefina]

05:33 PM on 09/04/2010

>>"My sole reason for optimism is that I cannot imagine that President Barack Obama would have initiated this effort if it was doomed to failure. Why bother?"

Indeed. If faith in Obama is your NorthStar, indeed, why bother?

Afterall, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Sure--the ONLY reason to try is because it is fated to succeed.

Please sir, go away.

[mamacat]

05:56 PM on 09/04/2010

Bush II encouraged war between Israel and its neighbors, not peace.

[mikefina]

07:13 PM on 09/04/2010

No, he didn't.

Anything else?

[batguano]

05:31 PM on 09/04/2010

It is treasonous that a foreign entity and their supposed interests are put before those of the country one represents­, as with our co-opted Congress members and their shameful kowtowing to Israel and the Lobby. The pro-Israel lobby has corrupted our representa­tives to the interests of Israel, and we overlook, and even support, the most depraved, racist and illegal acts by a state military against mainly civilian targets in numerous Israeli actions against Palestinia­ns and Lebanese.

That Netanyahu has come to hold all the cards in this probable charade, and Prez Obama has bent to kiss his ring after being humiliated is a most craven act by a world leader. Both Obama and especially our treasonous Congress have made us a lap-dog to Israel, their expansioni­st agenda, and war without end, instead of standing up for principles of human rights and a comprehens­ive, just peace.

[nomoredead]

09:33 AM on 09/05/2010

Keep telling the truth !

[beninabox1]

10:59 AM on 09/06/2010

ooooh, the Israeli Lobby! Hide under the covers.