What Netanyahu Wants Obama to Know
by Norman J. Kurz
Sworn in Tuesday as Israel's new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's honeymoon is over already. He was welcomed by the Washington Post, for example, with the message that tension in the U.S.-Israel relationship would be a good thing.
Writing a week earlier, Saeb Erakat, a negotiator on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership, gave new meaning to the word "chutzpah" when he opined that "Israel has undermined the very credibility of the peace process." This is an odd charge for a putative peace partner to make when he knows Israel cannot be expected to agree to its own dismantlement by Hamas terrorists, the same gang whose modus operandi is to throw Erakat's Fatah colleagues off of rooftops when they get out of line.
Indeed, Netanyahu's assumption of power has produced a great wringing of hands around the globe, but relatively little serious discussion about what is necessary to achieve actual progress between Israelis and Palestinians. Rather than lecture Netanyahu and Israel that time is running out on the two state solution, a formula an unrequited Israel accepted more than 60 years ago, critics ought to consider the steps Israel can and cannot take given the lessons it has learned in recent years.
Among the most important lessons Israel absorbed the hard way is the price it must pay for unilaterally evacuating territory. Thirty years ago last week Israel returned all of Sinai in the context of a peace agreement with Egypt, an imperfect pact that nonetheless gave both sides much of what they needed.
But in the absence of a strong partner with whom to deal in Gaza, Israel unilaterally evacuated the territory in 2005 after a long and debilitating occupation. All Israelis understood the benefits of not having troops bogged down in the treacherous alleyways of Gaza's urban slums, but some, like Netanyahu, argued against unilateral action for fear Hamas would take advantage of the vacuum, given the weakness of the Palestinian Authority.
Today, if there is consensus about anything in Israel's fractious politics, it is the certainty that Israel should not abandon settlements in the West Bank without a negotiated agreement with a credible partner possessing the power to follow through on its obligations. This is deeply felt even among the majority of Israelis that polls continue to show favor the "land for peace" formula requiring Israel to abandon most settlements.
And how could it be otherwise? After Israel pulled out entirely from Gaza, leaving Israeli built commercial infrastructure intact only to see it ransacked in another display of mindless hostility and self-destructiveness, Palestinians chose terrorism over economic development and nation building. After enduring thousands of rounds of Iranian supplied Hamas rockets deliberately fired from Gaza into population centers throughout southern Israel putting a million Israelis under siege, no amount of U.S. or international pressure on Netanyahu could convince him or most Israelis that it's a good idea to simply retreat from the West Bank.
Which inevitably brings us to the leadership crisis within the Palestinian community: none of Israel's critics, so full of advice and threats for the new Israeli government, actually believe Israel has a negotiating partner worthy of the name. President Mahmoud Abbas, and especially Prime Minister Salim Fayyad, are considered reasonable men, not only in Washington, but in Jerusalem as well. Of course, no one in either capital believes either man can deliver the milk, much less the Palestinian people, for a historic and lasting negotiated agreement. And few outside Tehran believe Hamas can ever be an alternative, unless it changes so fundamentally that it no longer is Hamas.
Does this remove all burdens from Netanyahu and Israel? Certainly not. There are many things Israel can and should do to advance prospects for peace, from continuing to explore if Syria is serious about reaching a settlement or is playing its typical byzantine games, to working to improve the lives of West Bank Palestinians, to standing up against its own extremists.
Israelis realized years ago that demographic pressures require giving up West Bank settlements and territories to secure the Jewish state's national security interests. No less than Ariel Sharon came to understand this imperative, leading to his decision in 2005 to leave Gaza and, in an underappreciated but highly symbolic act, four West Bank settlements, the proverbial camel's nose under the tent intended to show he was prepared to go much further to achieve real security.
But Gaza and Hamas have proven that in the age of terrorism and unbending Islamic extremism, it is not enough for one side to want an end to a conflict, to try to walk away from hostilities. Pressure on Israel to give up tangible assets without someone reliable on the other side to receive it is naive. President Obama said it best when he reminded us that meaningful engagement requires not only the extending of one's hand, but the other side's unclenching of its fist.
Israel's strategic choice must always be to work closely with the United States in shared pursuit of peace and security. Netanyahu, who understands American politics well, knows he needs to build a good working relationship with a new U.S. president intent on changing America's image abroad. He will be challenged to show good faith with U.S. efforts in the region, and he would be foolish to butt heads early on.
But it should not take the Obama administration long to determine that hammering Israel on settlements may placate others in the region and around the globe, but that it is fruitless to expect Israelis once more to act unilaterally by repeating in the West Bank what clearly has not worked in Gaza. As long as Palestinian society and politics are held hostage by Hamas and like-minded extremists, Netanyahu is off the hook. Thus, whatever initiative the new American president decides to undertake must recognize Israel's need for a Palestinian partner of substance and strength, the missing ingredient for generations.
Norm Kurz is President of The Kurz Company, a communications consulting firm, and former communications director to Vice President Joe Biden.
Netanyahu was, as well remember too well, one of the chief inciters against the late Prime Minister Rabin, has always objecyed to any Peace negotiations, and has never changed his policies.
Reagrding the settlements, the article is intentionally misleading, the question is not whether Israel will evacute setllements unilaterally, but whether it will stop stealing Palestinian land and rapidly exapnding illegal settlements. All indications are showing that Netanyahu intends to intensify settlement activity, in order to prevent any future peace agreements in the region
Netanyahu's Foreign Minister and close ally of the PM , Avigdor Liberman has just stated that the "fundamental error" and the beginning of the decline of Israel's state in the world started in 1977, namely, with the peace agreement with Egypt. He has ofiicially ruled out any "Peace for Land" "concessions, rejected the Annapolis accords and stated that Israel's policy regarding peace was "get ready for war!" PM Netanyahu did not condemn the delarations of the Foreign Policy chief. The opposite is true: the PM's aides have unofficially endorsed Liberman's speech, and said it reflects israel's official Policy.
Many people in Israel hope that President Obama will not let our PM get away with his obstructionist policies.
Correct me if I am wrong.
If you actually studied what Lieberman's position is you may know what he means. The Jewish settlements in West Bank will be evacuated and Israeli Arabs will take those settlements in a "land swap" deal.
The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington
However it overlooks the obvious ploy long implemented by the Israeli right wing ;
'The Palestinian's are incapable of maintaining an agreement to maintain their area, but Israel won't allow international mediation of any border that would define Palestine.'
And your comment about Gaza, 'Palestinians chose terrorism over economic development' leaves me quite pessimistic about the prospects for peace. The Israelis cynically ensured that there would be no economic development through their own use of targeted killings (aka 'terrorism') and an economic and humanitarian embargo that continues to this day.
I guess this is to be expected, since you're advising Biden, a self declared 'Zionist.' What a farce.
Most of the targeted killings were militants who just fired a rockets into Israel.
Israel has always allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza and has not stopped.
Hamas works for Iran and Iran doesn't care how many Palestinians die for their fight against Israel.
Clearly Israel is having trouble coming to terms with how the world is finally fed up with their atrocities.
Bombing a densely populated civilian ghetto/prison for days with the latest high tech weaponry killing hundreds of children and injuring thousands more is the sort of thing that just can't be defended.
How could Israel even think for one minute that people would support this kind of barbarism?
If the Israeli hatred for Palestinians is stronger than their own sense of right and wrong, then Israel deserves the scorn it gets. Consequences.
You and people like you are so quick to lecture Israel on what they do for the sake of defending themselves. If Palestinians want a state, take the state that has been offered twice in the last 8 years or atleast negotiate on it. Palestinian leadership works for other Arab governments.
John