OPINION / Netanyahu turned Palestinian statehood into bargaining chip

[Fozzledick]

By Amitai Etzioni

WASHINGTON - If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had walked out of the White House on May 18 and announced that he accepted President Barack Obama's demands to freeze all settlement construction, he would merely have forced the president to demand some other significant concession from Israel. Obama was urged not only by Arab leaders, but also by many so-called progressive Jewish ones to show "even-handedness," to stop the U.S. tilt in favor of Israel in order to become a credible broker for peace in the Middle East.

Aaron David Miller, a Jewish-American diplomat and oft-quoted expert on the Middle East, captured this position well in a Newsweek essay entitled "Obama must get tough with Israel to achieve peace." By not crying uncle the first time Israel's arm was twisted, Netanyahu allowed Obama to show that he is not all talk on the eve of his Cairo speech.

Moreover, while several liberal Jewish members of Congress read the riot act to Netanyahu, including Carl Levin, Howard Berman and Henry Waxman, the Washington Post's official editorial called for finding a compromise between the Israeli and American positions - one that could hardly have been considered if Netanyahu had accepted a full freeze from the get-go.

The Post, hardly an Israeli cheerleader, stated in its June 7 editorial that "by insisting on (a total construction ban), the administration risks bogging itself down in a major dispute with its ally, while giving Arab governments and Palestinians a ready excuse not to make their own concessions." Moreover, it said, "the practical need for a total settlement freeze is debatable" and "a good compromise is achievable."

Arguably even more important if true give-and-take is to occur, Netanyahu succeeded overnight in taking back a very major concession that previous Israeli governments had made and turning it into a significant bargaining chip. For years - surely ever since Ehud Barak made his famous magnanimous peace offer - Israeli support for a two-state solution was more or less taken for granted. In a surprisingly short period, Netanyahu has put Israel into a position in which if it agrees to two states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will be able to say that they and Obama have wrested a major concession from Israel's "right-wing government."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092326.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Netanyahu has made continued settlement more likely and peace less likely.

Peace will not be possible unless the vast majority - quite possibly all - of the settlements are removed.

Netanyahu has skillfully and successfully moved the goalposts, as this article states, making continued settlement more likely and peace less likely - as was his goal.

Netanyahu, and all but the far left of the Israeli political spectrum, are actively anti-peace.

[shira]

2. well then peace isn't possible according to you if reports are accurate about George Mitchell...

...offering Netanyahu and Israel a way out of this settlement-freeze-issue via negotiated land swaps (as proposed by the Clinton Parameters). Once it's known that the major settlements will be part of Israel, then "natural growth" will be a non-issue.

http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=27362&lang=en

so count the Obama administration in as those against peace due to not being as far left as the Gideon Levy's of Israel.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. As you say, I don't think peace is at all likely, at least for the forseeable future.

By sane standards Gideon Levy is a moderate; it is unfortunate that by most Israeli standards that places him far beyond the pale. Virtually no-one in Israel is seriously interested in peace, and nearly everyone thinks that they are and blames the Palestinians. The myth of the "generous offer" is so universal I see very little prospect for improvement.

I have not heard the reports you refer to, and don't regard you as a reliable source, but I think it vanishingly unlikely that Obama will have the political capital to force Israel to make the necessary concessions, even if he wishes to.

My prediction is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians will get worse, not better, over the coming years.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "impossible", but "very, very unlikely".

[shira]

6. i agree.....peace isn't likely in the forseeable future

Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran simply will not accept a peace agreement and will work against it as terrorists did during the Oslo process in the 90's.

"By sane standards Gideon Levy is a moderate; it is unfortunate that by most Israeli standards that places him far beyond the pale. Virtually no-one in Israel is seriously interested in peace, and nearly everyone thinks that they are and blames the Palestinians. The myth of the "generous offer" is so universal I see very little prospect for improvement."

There is nothing sane about Gideon Levy. He's an irrational and hostile propagandist who pretends Israel has not made any significant moves towards peace since the Oslo process began.

While you see others (90-95% of all Israelis/Jews) to the "right" of Levy as anti-peace, that's not the case at all. These people, if anything, are anti-suicidal. Most bought (perhaps reluctantly) into the Oslo process but witnessed the hard way (more terror) that freezing settlements since the mid 90's, loosening the occupation by giving the PA more control of their situation from the mid 90's to 2002, Camp David/Taba, Gaza 2005, etc. - all significant Israeli concessions by any rational standard - only resulted in more terror and hostility. Those (you believe) to the "right" of Levy only saw that the peace-process has worked one way and that the more Israel did in the interest of peace, the more terror they got. Whether you believe Israel's actions were significant moves towards peace is irrelevant. Most Israelis saw it exactly that way and found they were rewarded with more war and terror as a result. Ergo, the destruction of Israel's leftist peace-camp.

And there was no "myth" of a generous offer. Arafat admitted afterwards that he should have accepted the Taba offer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

"I have not heard the reports you refer to, and don't regard you as a reliable source, but I think it vanishingly unlikely that Obama will have the political capital to force Israel to make the necessary concessions, even if he wishes to."

Here's Haaretz since you don't consider me a reliable source. :eyes:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091798.html
"During his talks with Abbas, U.S. special envoy George Mitchell was reported to have introduced the possibility of a territorial exchange in the West Bank as part of the peace process. An aide to Abbas later denied that the two had discussed the idea of a land exchange - of offering the Palestinians Ma'aleh Adumim and the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, as reported by the BBC. "

If you're waiting for Israeli concessions, again, every time Israel makes concessions they get more terror. This has been the case since Oslo began. Maybe Gideon Levy is too dense to realize this, but most Israelis are not. Being against concessions that leave Israel more defenseless is not anti-peace, it's anti-suicidal. Most Israelis "to the right of Levy" want peace (they want this all to end) but aren't stupid enough to risk another bloodbath like the beginning of Intifada 2, or worse.

My prediction is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians will get worse, not better, over the coming years.

Israel's treatment of Palestinians was better from the mid 90's to the 2nd Intifada, wasn't it? No separation barrier, few checkpoints, PA more in control, settlement freeze, etc. The 2nd Intifada changed all that, and Hamas takeover of Gaza (more terror) made it worse. It's not like Israel woke up one day and decided to make life more miserable for Palestinians (as the "sane" Gideon Levy would have us believe). :eyes:

[Fozzledick]

4. The whole "settlement freeze" issue is looking more and more like a theatrical production

designed to let both sides save face by making "concessions" from their maximalist public postures to the realistic compromises they know are necessary for a real solution.

First Israel "backs down" from Netanyahu's hard-line posturing after a dramatic public confrontation with Obama to what's been their real position all along, two states with a negotiated land swap, giving the Arab states political cover to respond with a softening of their own positions in response to Israel "making the first move".

Of course this will still frustrate the hard-line rejectionists who insist on no peace unless the other side suffers a humiliating defeat (or total destruction), but they've been the real obstacle to peace all along.

The one question in my mind is did Obama and Netanyahu explicitly plan this soft-cop/hard-cop routine from the beginning, or did they just naturally fall into their complimentary roles with a wink and a nod in response to their understanding of the dynamics of the situation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. At least one side will have to suffer a humiliating defeat.

To not consitute a humiliating defeat for the Palestinians, Israel's final borders would have to be considerably smaller than the minimum that would not constitute a humiliating defeat for Israel.

So the division is between those who want both sides to suffer humiliating defeats and those who want only one to.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. It's only Nutty who's doing the maximalist public posturing...

It's definately not Obama who's made it clear more than once now that supporting Israel's security does not mean supporting the settlements. And unlike Nutty, the Arab states support a two-state solution, which is why the Arab peace initiative exists...

[shira]

9. ANALYSIS: Why isn't Netanyahu backing 2-state solution?

Netanyahu says he doesn't want to rule over the Palestinians, and has no interest in Nablus, Tul Karm or Jenin; they should govern their own lives, as long as they don't threaten Israeli security, he says. Netanyahu seeks to deny the Palestinians four rights of any sovereign state: control of its airspace; control of its electromagnetic spectrum; the right to maintain an army and to sign military alliances; and, most importantly, control of the border crossings where arms and terrorists could pass. Netanyahu believes Israel must retain all of these.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067553.html

This is not a "maximalist" position.

[azurnoir]

7. The veracity of that article is questionable

the claimed source for this piece of information is the BBC and here is the complete quote

BBC reports that George Mitchell proposed Mahmoud Abbas a land-swap which would allow Israel to retain large parts of the occupied West Bank in exchange for territories inside the Green Line, which are densely populated by Palestinian Israeli citizens. The PA, whose official request is a withdrawal of Israeli troops behind the Green Line, has declined to comment the proposal. The land swap is also being put forward by the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of the right-wing Zionist Yisrael Beiteinu, who wants the huge settlements of Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Beitar Illit, Ariel and possibly also Karnei-Ginot Shomron to be recognized as belonging to Israel, in exchange for the so-called Arab Triangle in Israel, located between Netanya and Kfar Saba, whose residents would then loose their Israeli citizenship rights.

http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=27362&lang=en