Israel »

Haaretz: Is Netanyahu fighting just Hamas or the two-state solution as well?

July 16, 2014 | post a comment | Peter Beinart

What is Israel fighting for?

Most Jews think the answer is clear: Israel is fighting to keep its people safe from rockets. Most Palestinians think the answer is clear too: Israel is fighting to maintain its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. (According to the United States government, Israel still occupies Gaza despite withdrawing its settlers because it controls access to Gaza from air, sea, and—along with Egypt—land. If the United States controlled whether boats could dock, and planes could land, in Canada, we’d be occupying it even if no Americans lived there.)

A tremendous amount rides on how one views Israeli intentions. If Israel is only seeking to protect its people, then Hamas’ rocket fire really is – as Israeli spokespeople insist – the equivalent of Canada shelling the United States. Even if you acknowledge that the Canada-U.S. analogy is flawed because Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza while America doesn’t occupy Quebec, it’s still possible to justify Israel’s behavior if you believe Israel wants that occupation to end. If, on the other hand, you believe that Israel desires permanent dominion over territories whose non-Jewish residents lack basic rights, then Israel’s behavior doesn’t look all that defensive. That doesn’t justify launching rockets into Israel. Hamas’ attempted murder of civilians is wrong, period, irrespective of Israel’s intentions. It is even more egregious because Hamas rejected a cease-fire, which Israel embraced. But as appalling as Hamas’ behavior has been, it’s hard to endorse Israel’s response if it is aimed not just at safeguarding its own people but at controlling another people as well.

Which is why Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments last Friday were so important. “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement,” he declared, “in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.” With those words, explained Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, a Netanyahu sympathizer, the Prime Minister was “insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Publicly, at least, this is an earthquake. Until last Friday, Netanyahu was on record as supporting a Palestinian state. For five years, in fact, American Jewish leaders have insisted that he sincerely desires one. So what has changed on the ground to make Netanyahu change his mind? Nothing. Netanyahu now says he cannot relinquish control of the West Bank because Hamas could use it as a base from which to shell Israel, as it is now doing from Gaza. But that danger didn’t arise last week. Hamas has been shelling Israel, and refusing to recognize its right to exist, for a long time. The argument for the two state solution—which most top former Israeli security officials endorse – has always been that once Palestinians gained the rights and dignity that came with a state, their government would have a strong incentive to keep Hamas and other militants from imperiling that state by using it as a launching pad for attacks on Israel, as the governments of Egypt and Jordan have done in the decades since they signed peace deals. One can dispute this logic. But it is no less persuasive this week than it was last week. And last week, Netanyahu publicly supported a Palestinian state.

In reality, what has changed are not Netanyahu’s views but his willingness to publicly acknowledge them. Bibi is a man, after all, who in A Durable Peace, his major book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reissued in 2000, repeatedly compares a Palestinian state to the Nazi takeover of the Sudetenland. When elected prime minister in early 2009, he still publicly opposed a Palestinian state. And even when he supposedly embraced Palestinian statehood that June in a speech at Bar Ilan University, his own father told Israel television it was a ruse: “He doesn’t support [a Palestinian state]. He would support it under terms they [the Palestinians] would never accept.”

Netanyahu has made no effort to get his Likud Party to endorse Palestinian statehood nor did he try to prevent it from running a parliamentary slate in 2013 dominated by avowed two state opponents. He’s doubled funding for settlements.  And according to the best reporting on John Kerry’s now-aborted peace effort, Netanyahu adamantly refused to discuss the boundaries of a Palestinian state while insisting, according to U.S. negotiators, that Israel’s “control of the West Bank would continue forever.” All of which is to say that Netanyahu’s statement last Friday, as Horovitz correctly observes, did not represent “a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.”

Why is Netanyahu coming clean now? Because he can do so without risking a confrontation with the Obama administration, which has given up trying to broker a two state deal. For all those on the American Jewish right who claimed that Netanyahu would grow more willing to compromise once America ceased its diplomatic meddling and simply offered its unconditional support, the results are now in. Without American meddling, Netanyahu feels free to broadcast his rejection of the two-state solution to the world.

He’s also free to do so because he knows that the American Jewish establishment will not publicly challenge him. It’s extraordinary, when you think about it. Had Mahmoud Abbas declared that because of this week’s Gaza War he no longer supports the two state solution, American Jewish groups would have screamed with fury. But when Netanyahu does the same thing, they say nothing. As of Monday afternoon, in fact, not a single major American Jewish group had even commented on Netanyahu’s about-face.

What this silence proves is that for major American Jewish organizations, publicly supporting the two-state solution has little to do with actually achieving it. For the American Jewish mainstream, the real purpose of claiming to support Palestinian statehood is two-fold. First, it maintains the fiction that Israel’s almost half-century long control of the West Bank and Gaza is temporary, which allows American Jewish leaders to praise Israeli democracy without grappling with the fact that Israel controls millions of people who cannot vote for the state that dominates their lives. Second, it serves as a cudgel to wield against Palestinians. After all, were American Jewish groups to admit that neither they, nor Netanyahu, really support the two state solution, they would find it harder to brand Palestinian activists as anti-Semitic because they oppose the two-state solution too.

I’m not a pacifist. Although the images of Gaza’s dead sicken me, I could support this war if I believed it was aimed merely at safeguarding the right of Israelis to live free of terror. That’s why I found it easier to justify Ehud Olmert’s Gaza War in 2008. Because back then Israel had a prime minister who genuinely wanted to end its unjust, undemocratic dominion over millions of Palestinians. Today, by contrast, Israel’s prime minister wants to make that control permanent. And that means Israel’s missiles are instruments not only of self-defense, but also of conquest.

Netanyahu has now said as much himself. Even if our leaders won’t, American Jews must be prepared to listen.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.605514?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Why Anthony Weiner Shouldn’t Quit

June 12, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

The congressman’s public flogging doesn’t fit the crime, and is emblematic of our kick-’em-when-they’re-down culture. Peter Beinart on why we need a new rulebook for political sex scandals.

Excuse me for asking, but why exactly should Anthony…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Why Are We Still in Aghanistan?

June 10, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

With the initial objective of vanquishing al Qaeda largely achieved, and the latest goal of luring the Taliban into a power-sharing deal out of reach, the main reason the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan is inertia-not logic, says Peter Beinart.
On…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Lousy Economy Won’t Sink Obama

June 5, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

Unemployment has edged up again two months in a row, and economic conditions are bad for most Americans, but the president’s strong personal approval ratings and a roster of weak potential GOP opponents mean he will win a second term, writes Peter…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Palin Grabs Her Moment

May 30, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

There is no better moment for the ex-governor, who would snare most of the social-conservative votes that might have gone to Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour-and in 2016 would be old news and face a stronger primary field, writes Peter Beinart.
Sarah…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

The Palestinian Right to Dream

May 25, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

As Congress applauded Netanyahu’s tough speech, a young Ramallah man talked about creating a Palestinian Tahrir Square, using nonviolence-and the hope that American Jews would back such a civil rights approach. Political reality suggests otherwise,…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Netanyahu’s Bizarre Response to Obama’s Palestinian Proposal

May 23, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

President Obama’s parameters for a new round of Mideast peace talks were designed to head off U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state based strictly on 1967 borders-which would be catastrophic for Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s immediate rejection of the…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Putting America on Democracy’s Side

May 19, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

In his Mideast speech, President Obama rejected Bush’s blind allegiance to Israel and put himself squarely on the side of human rights.
Can we now, after the president’s Thursday Mideast speech, finally stop calling Barack Obama a “realist?” Please….

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Israel’s Palestinian Arab Spring

May 15, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

The converging of thousands of Palestinians on Israel’s borders is a sign that they have lost faith in American promises-and that if Israel and the U.S. don’t work toward a Palestinian state near 1967 lines, others will seize the initiative in shaping…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Articles »

Israel’s Democracy Hypocrisy

May 9, 2011 | Comments Off | Peter Beinart

The flap over whether CUNY should award playwright Tony Kushner an honorary degree underscores the growing debate over whether people who want Israel to be a secular democracy rather than a Jewish state can be tolerated in public life, writes Peter…

SHARE THISfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr