Peter Berkowitz's essay in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard provides good insight into what I think is the strategic irresponsibility of those in Israel's leadership who think that they can hold steady on a course that justifies failure on an a Palestine-Israel deal using Hamas and Iran as excuses.
As things look today, the Likud Party and its chief, Benjamin Netanyahu, look like they are about to be given a stronger hand in the coming elections. And Netanyahu is pro-settlement, and in my view the continued expansion of settlements is the most toxic activity that is undermining the negotiations process and actually, in the long term, will assure a deterioration in America's support for Israel.
Berkowitz points out:
The major difference between the candidates went unaddressed at Herzliya. It concerns the future of Israeli settlements, the towns and cities built and populated by Israel in the territories it gained control over in 1967 in the Six Day War. While he almost certainly would not build new settlements, Netanyahu remains unlikely, without pressure from the United States, to freeze the natural growth of existing settlements. In contrast, both Livni and Barak would probably impose a freeze on all new building beyond the Green Line. Livni and Barak recognize, however, along with Netanyahu, that the settlements are far from the fundamental obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.
Indeed, the journalists, political analysts, and current and former national security officials to whom I spoke were in striking agreement that Livni and Barak as well as Netanyahu all see that the fundamental obstacle to progress in resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is Iran. Indeed, the case for Iran's centrality is convincing.
I respect Peter Berkowitz but disagree with his take on things -- and find the perspective of many he is interacting with strikingly narrow when it comes to a serious strategy that will secure Israeli democracy and security in the coming years.
I share Zbigniew Brzezinski's view that both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide have proven themselves completely unable to solve an arrangement on their own. A Palestinian state is still possible -- and Israel democracy without apartheid within its borders is also still possible.
However, it is time to move negotiations out of the weeds and re-engage various stakeholders on all sides of the equation - including the U.S., Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and the United Nations.
Israel's bravado over Gaza and the massively disproportionate deployment of force in which so many innocents were killed or injured -- and lives seriously disrupted on so many levels -- is the type of potentially transformative act that can either radicalize a great many more Arabs against the current equations of power in the region or more optimistically, could transform the perspective of the White House to finally realize that Israel's zero-sum game approach in the region is something that needs to be curtailed and changed.
Folks in the U.S. are hoping for centrists, reasonable, rational negotiators to emerge. Some on Obama's National Security Council team think that if they only can now...finally...make Abbas and Fatah the winners in the eyes of Palestinians by showering on them goodies to deliver to their constituents, all will be well. This is well meaning "earnestness." But it is flawed sentimentalism. Taking this approach with Abbas is "too much, too late." I think that despite recent drama, Tzipi Livni falls into this "earnestness" hope -- though she has a class of detractors larger than Maureen Dowd has.
But "earnestness" in trying to move the Rubik's Cube of the region into alignment is flawed. Israel and Palestine together don't work. They can't come to a responsible deal on their own.
It doesn't matter if Livni is Prime Minister, or Ehud Barak -- who I think is the most monstrous of recent Israeli political players for his role in tightening the noose around Palestinian mobility and movement after the Annapolis process started. And yes, I said monstrous - to borrow a term from Samantha Power. And it doesn't matter if Netanyahu is PM.
Likewise, Mahmoud Abbas is essentially irrelevant at this point -- and all leaders in Palestine are with the exception of those who might be able to think strategically in a Gandhi-esque way and match the flamboyant absolutism and inhumanity of Israel's occuptation behaviors with non-violent civil disobedience on a communications scale that Gandhi achieved. Mustafa Barghouti comes to mind. . .possibly.
In fact, the more irresponsible both sides are about their situation, the more achievable a "new equilibrium arrangement" may be -- because the US and other regional stakeholders simply can't afford for the recklessness, immaturity, and sheer stupidity of leadership on all sides of the conflict to continue.
Given that. Give us Netanyahu. Please.
His re-ascension will help Americans realize that the false choice approach the Bush administration had been taking in Israel-Palestine affairs was flawed -- and that Obama's team must change the game or face a serious rebuke from Middle East watchers in the US and around the world.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
|
Israel Bans Arab Parties From Coming Election
JERUSALEM — Israel on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who...
|
|
Israeli Election: Netanyahu Says Iran Nukes Trumps Global Economy
DAVOS, Switzerland — Israeli election front-runner Benjamin Netanyahu told a session of the World Economic Forum on Thursday that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons...
|
|
Israel Rules Out Hamas Contacts, Threatens Force
HERZLIYA, Israel — Israel's foreign minister threatened Monday to keep hitting Hamas as long as it attacks Israel, ruling out negotiations with the Islamic rulers...
|
|
Avigdor Lieberman, Hard Man Of The Right, Is Israel's Kingmaker In Waiting
Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right politician campaigning on a platform that Israeli Arabs should pledge loyalty to the state or lose their right to vote, has...
|
|
Israel's Election Day: Not a Change We Can Believe In
All three of Israel's candidates for Prime Minister belong to an era that should be receding behind us, not popping up in our ballot boxes again and again.
|
|
Israel Election: What Does It Mean to You?
Israelis head to the polls on February 10th to vote in a new government. As the crisis in Gaza demonstrates, Israeli politics affect the world....
|
|
Israeli Elections: Do They Really Matter?
In the end, regardless of who wins, Obama's domestic priorities, bad peace process options, and Israel's inherent caution are unlikely to generate any wild surprises.
|
|
Israel Is About to Make a Misjudgement as Disastrous as Gaza
In a few days, it looks likely to re-elect Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister once again. This is a man calling for the violent re-occupation of Gaza to "liquidate" its elected government.
|
|
Israel's Election: Not Our Problem
Dovish types prepared to go into mourning over the coming right-wing victory should bear history in mind when the election results come in next week. Things aren't always what they seem.
|
|
Israeli Elections: Terror as Top Concern
With less than a week to go before elections in Israel, the three main rivals are locked in fierce debate not about whether the devastating war in Gaza went too far, but whether it went far enough.
|
|
Hopeful, But Not Optimistic
It is difficult to be optimistic. But I can be hopeful that, with the appointment of George Mitchell, the region is getting what may very well be its last best chance at securing peace.
|
|
|
It's Prime Minister Netanyahu
Tuesday, the right wing coalition won a clear majority. It is, I believe, inevitable that President Peres will give Netanyahu the first shot at forming a government and that Bibi will succeed.
|
|
|
Netanyahu: Better for America, Better For Israel
It will be easier for President Obama to deal with Netanyahu than with the almost equally hawkish Tzipi Livni because Livni seems dedicated to ending the conflict.
|
|
What Hamas Has Wrought
The crucial point about Hamas that is always overlooked is that at every point in their interaction with Israel and peace-seeking Palestinians, they have chosen the path of armed aggression.
|
|
Palestinians Unsure Which Israeli Leader Will Keep Gaza and the West Bank United
While the results of the coming Israeli elections are important, the most important new element in the formula is the new administration in Washington.
|
"Forgetting the interests of their own countries the Hamas Movement and Hezbollah have gone to the extent of representing the interests of Iran and Syrian in their countries... without worrying about the consequences of their action. The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community."
It is rare that such a brutally honest opinion appears in Middle; Eastern press. These seems to be a strong current of discontent with Hamas and their irresponsible actions among moderate Arabs.
Israel is fine and will be fine, as long as it takes care of its enemies and defend its population.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414344863961949.html
Murdocks News corp making billions in losses is related to this...more and more rants by so called 'experts' who are AEI confidantes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen
Just unbelievable how WSJ which triumphs itself to be a respected publication gives writing space to these loonies...maybe it stopped being respected after Faux news started advocating article to it...
Its exposed mountains, bald hills, barren valleys, and sparse vegetation.
Its is a cursed, devastated land.
Jerusalem is pitiful and gloomy, full of lepers, crippled, and lovers of the eternal bakshish.
Samuel Clemens (mark Twain, who visited in 1867)
If he could go back to Israel today and see what a beautiful land the Israelis made of that desolation.
all the while fighting all kinds of enemies surrounding it.
So deterrence by overwhelming force, which worked for Israel in the past--no longer is effective (see Lebanon 2006)
Essentially the Palestinains are saying, "Enough!"
And please explain why they should have to give up their homes? Would you be willing to give up yours? And Who gives you the right to decide?
on this topic ---SEE TPM
“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Even during the Oslo Accords, Israel refused to agree to remove all of its illegal settlements from the West Bank. And as for Gaza? Hamas stopped firing rockets during the cease fire. Not only that, but they worked to enforce the cease fire by confronting rogue militants who continued to launch rockets -- and as a result, at the height of the cease fire, the average rate of rocket fire into Israel dropped to barely three a month.
And yet, Israel never lifted the blockade as it agreed. Not only that, on November 4th they broke the cease fire out right, staged an incursion into Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. And do you honestly think we've all forgotten the atrocious bombing campaign that has decimated Gaza of its mosques, police stations, government buildings and hospitals? How Israel even went so far as to deliberately attack the UN?
Martin Luther King was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about Israel. Ask some other modern day civil rights leaders, like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, what they think of Israel and how its policies compare to the apartheid they and their people suffered under.
He obviously made that statement in teh late 50's or 1960's
So much has changed since then.
I think he would have different things to say were he alive today. I won't put words in his mouth, but I also don't think it appropriate to pull a 40 year old (at least!) quote wildly out of context.
"The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
'We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,' Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events 'swung American public opinion in our favor.'"
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/
As for Bibi, well, as I said else where he reminds me of Richard nixon-- or, for those of you too young to remember him, Dick Cheney.
All three understood how powerful fear is as a motivator in politics, and all three exploited fear for their own gain.
they also all employed the politics of division, not unity
And they are not exactly known for being honest.
I'm a little hazy on this, but who was it that assassinated Prime minister Rabin? It wasn't the Palestinians. It was an Israeli settler.
And then Israel went and gave the assassin EXACTLY what he wanted--they elected BibI Netanyahu, who undermined an agreement he was completely opposed to
Meanwhile the settlements grew, life on the ground got WORSE for the average Palestinain,
And then in 2000, Ariel Sharon proves the second Intifada by going up onto the Temple Mount--an extremely provocative act (for what --it's not like he was particularly religious) And then Israelis elect HIM to be PM!
What are we supposed to think?
Israel is free to act as it likes, but as an American, I have a view in where our tax dollars are going--so if Israel wishes to behave like this (now we have Avigdor Lieberman's "loyalty oath" -- an attempt to strip Israeli Arabs of THEIR citizenship) then Israel should do it on its own dime.
And believe me, we're as tough on our government -- you may have noticed that the Republicans were just tossed out of office for their malfeasnce.
i can only speak for mysel, but I don't blame ALL Jews (or even all Israelis -- look at B'tselem) for the actions of its government or some groups.
What, indeed, are we supposed to think?
Israel has consistently sought peace. As a liberal, I'm appalled by Lieberman but also disenchanted with the Left that got us into a flawed "peace process" at Oslo with a "partner" that was only seeking to dismember a strong Israel through "diplomacy." I, like most Israelis, WANT to live in peace with an Arab world that wants to live in peace with our very tiny country.
This is the demographic problem that Jewish Israelis would dread-- they wouid be a minority in their own country.
Actually, there are some Israelis who now think the biggest mistake of the 67 War was capturing the West Bank-- thus becoming occupiers of a large Palestinaina population. They argue that it should have been left in Jordanian hands (the Jordanian participation in that war was little more than symbolic--a few shots wer fired in Jerusalem, because King Hussein was pressured to participate in a war in which he wanted no part of-- but Egypt and Syria were Israel's main strategic enemies)
That presumes that political control by a certain ethnicity is a desirable thing. Why for these folks and not for, for example, Afrikaners? Why shouldn't the Jews be expected to share political power with the Palestinians?
Kudos to the posters on this subject - very insightful!
Israel, I am just not that into you !!