IS TURKISH-ISRAELI RECONCILIATION IMMINENT?

Professor Alon Ben-Meir
July 5, 2011
http://www.alonben-meir.com 

The fact that Israeli and Turkish officials have begun to renew dialogue at a time of significant uncertainty and turmoil in the broader Middle East is, of course, no coincidence. Israel and Turkey are rare anchors of stability in an increasingly volatile region. With the Arab Spring, Jerusalem and Ankara's shared strategic interests are becoming ever clearer, particularly with the ongoing unrest in neighboring Syria. These interests are serving to catapult both sides over the obstacles that have hindered their reconciliation since the incident aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010. With renewed understanding of the benefits of their close cooperation and partnership, Israel-Turkey reconciliation today, should reason prevail, is imminent.

There has been a recent flurry of public signals between Israeli and Turkish officials. First, apparently under pressure from Turkish government officials, the IHH, the organizer of last year's Gaza-bound flotilla, announced that the Mavi Marmara ship would not be participating in an upcoming flotilla. Shortly thereafter, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan a congratulatory note for his re-election victory on June 12 stating, "My government will be happy to work with the new Turkish government on finding a resolution to all outstanding issues between our countries, in the hope of reestablishing our cooperation and renewing the spirit of friendship which has characterized the relations between our peoples for many generation." Reports then surfaced that Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon has held private discussions with Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu regarding a government-to-government reconciliation document. Most recently, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who infamously humiliated Turkey's ambassador to Israel in front of reporters by placing him on a lower couch, told a group of Turkish reporters visiting Jerusalem that "I believe what we have lost over the past few years is trust. Now we need to let go of this mutual blame game as to why this trust was lost."

Despite recent public reports of dialogue between the two sides, private channels have been consistently pursuing this dialogue ever since the flotilla incident. What has prevented a resolution of the Israeli-Turkey dispute until now has been Turkey's insistence on an Israeli apology and compensation to the families of those killed aboard the Mavi Marmara. Back-channel efforts have produced numerous drafts of nuanced statements of Israeli acknowledgement, but an outright apology has been refused by Israelis, whose internal investigation revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces operated in self-defense. In particular, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has opposed an apology on the grounds that it implies that the IDF made mistakes, where they did not; whereas Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, known for his lack of sympathy toward Turkey, has opposed the notion of an apology on principle alone.

Although there is a stalemate in the efforts to reach suitable language for a reconciliation document, each side maintains considerably strong ties. Although Turkey's ambassador has yet to return to Tel Aviv, and Israeli tourists have all but entirely stopped travelling to Turkish coastal towns, Israel kept Ambassador Gabi Levy in Ankara, and business ties have even grown, unimpeded by the political and public spat. In fact, bilateral trade increased by 25 percent between 2009 and 2010, and rose by 40 percent in the first quarter of 2011. With a foundation of strong historic relations, continued private communications, and economic growth, what is needed to break the political impasse is a clear reflection of urgency to place their shared interests above their nationalist political postures.

That is exactly what has happened as a result of the Arab Spring. Turkey understands that if it wants to play a leadership role in the Middle East, in particular in the wake of the Arab uprisings and still influence Israel's policy, then it has no choice but to deal with Israel as a key player to resolving several regional conflicts, including those along Turkey's borders. It also realizes that its outreach to the dictatorial regimes of the Mideast has not entirely been successful. There are growing concerns among Turks that bilateral ties that have been forged and strengthened with the nations of the Arab world are not actually based on any solid foundation. Uncertainty is particularly gripping Syria, whose ties with Turkey have grown exponentially stronger in recent years. If the Assad regime collapses, which is likely, the repercussions for Turkey will be significant, as the influx of Syrian refugees across the open border with turkey already demonstrates. Turkey today is in need of a stabilizing force, which Israel has to offer. Until now, Turkey has been unable to move forward in re-establishing ties in part because of the continued populist rhetoric of Turkey's election season. With Erodgan's re-election emboldening the AK Party's leadership, Erdogan has increased leverage to re-establish ties with Israel from a position of even greater strength than before, and in doing so, stake Turkey's claim to regional leadership.

For Israel, the benefits of renewed ties are also clear. Turkey can assist Israel on a plethora of issues concerning its national security, from the Palestinian attempts to gain recognition at the United Nations, to Hamas' political platform and the makeup of the Palestinian unity government, to the unrest in Syria, to the nuclear ambitions of Iran. In all of these areas, Turkey can play a vital role and it is eager to do so. Reports that President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan have increased their dialogue suggest that the United States also understands the benefits of providing Turkey with the leadership tools it needs to exert influence throughout the region in a way that can advance Turkish and Israeli shared interests.

With Turkey-Israel reconciliation in the works, what could the renewed relations look like? First, Turkey's relations with Israel will strengthen its role as a regional mediator, particularly between the Palestinian factions. Hamas' Khaled Mashaal and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recent visit to Turkey during Ankara's efforts to assist party reconciliation is telling. Even more so was Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon's moderated rhetoric with regard to Turkey's outreach to Hamas, telling reporters that "We have no right to tell (Turkey) not to make contact with different (Palestinian) factions," and that if Turkey is successful in moderating Hamas, "we would kiss the hands of every Turk." In fact, Turkey's role as a stable, influential voice in the Muslim world places it in a prime position to engage Hamas, and to reemerge as an influential conflict mediator.

Second, Turkey and Israel have a choice: reach a formula under which Israel expresses "deep regret" for the flotilla episode and offers to compensate the bereaved families of those who were killed aboard the ship, or the two sides could agree on a qualified Israeli apology for the ‘inadvertent' death of nine Turks without placing the blame directly on Israel. In either scenario, it behooves each side to downplay the findings of the upcoming United Nations report on the flotilla incident in order to keep whatever its findings may be from serving to re-inflame the nationalist rhetoric that has served to divide the two sides. Regardless of who is blamed, a re-focus on the incident will only detract, rather than advance the interests of both nations. Finally, to complete the thaw of the icy relations, Turkey's President Gull, perhaps as a response to Netanyahu's letter of congratulations, could extend an invitation to President Shimon Peres to visit to Ankara. Such a visit would bring the unfortunate episode full circle-from the post-Gaza war public argument between Erdogan and Peres at the conference in Davos, to a meeting in Ankara, in which the two men could renew the historic ties between their nations.

The tensions between Israel and Turkey could be imminently washed away by a perfect storm that has emphasizes Israel's and Turkey's shared interests with regard to developments in Syria, the Palestinian territories, Iran and throughout the broader region. While the nationalist pride of the people of both nations has been considerably damaged by the tension of the past year and a half, both countries have, strong leaders who are now positioned to galvanize their people in support of a re-establishment of relations that serves to advance shared interests.

As the Arab world takes to the streets in search of democracy, the two established democratic nations of the region now have a unique opportunity to work together to serve as pillars of stability, and to return to the work of advancing security and peace in a region gripped by chaos.

*A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post on July 1st, 2011 and is available online here: http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=227279

Israel’s foolish friends

Our Senators and Congressmen bark to show support for the ones who throw bones at them. Deep down they want peace for Israel and Palestine, but the lobby who funds them makes it difficult and they care less as long as the master has bones for them. It is a shame that these dudes do not see the mistakes they are making. Peace stops all the flows of monies for them to cash., it is time for the Israeli public to speak up and do what needs to be done. 
Mike Ghouse

# # #

 

ATTACKING OBAMA | Globe Editorial

POLITICIANS OF both parties did Israel no favors this week when they chastised President Obama for spelling out his principles for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Whether it was Republican Mitt Romney claiming the president had “thrown Israel under the bus’’ or Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democratic leader, saying that “no one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,’’ Obama’s critics were disregarding the threats Israel will face without a two-state peace agreement.

Obama called for negotiations based on 1967 borders, with land swaps acceptable to both sides. There are honest differences about just how to divide the land and provide security. But in defending his approach in a speech to the group AIPAC, Obama conveyed an important warning: that “the extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow.’’ If current Israeli leaders and their American supporters ignore this warning, they do so at Israel’s peril.

Demographic trends will soon create a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. When that happens, Israel will face a choice between giving those Palestinians the vote or becoming an undemocratic apartheid state. Instead of explaining how he would cope with this dilemma if Israel keeps occupying the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his Tuesday address to a joint session of Congress presented a list of conditions the Palestinians must meet before negotiations can start — conditions that he knows the Palestinians will reject.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Advances in missile technology will inevitably leave Israel less secure. And the political changes rippling through the Mideast threaten to leave Israel ever more isolated. Until recently, Israel could count on Turkey and Egypt as allies. Turkey was alienated when its citizens were killed in the 2010 Israeli raid on a Turkish flotilla headed for Gaza; and the fall of Hosni Mubarak is almost certain to reduce Egypt’s cooperation with Israel.

It wasn’t just rhetoric when Obama told AIPAC, “We can’t afford to wait another decade, or two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.’’ The most generous thing to say about Romney, Reid, and others who accuse Obama of betraying Israel is that they are oblivious to the actual challenges confronting Israel.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

Bibi and the Yo-Yos

Uri Avnery

Former Knesset Member

28/05/11

IT WAS all rather disgusting.

There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu.

It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin’s Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death.

What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to?

The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.

The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. When I was a 9 year old boy in Germany, I dared to leave my right arm hanging by my side when all my schoolmates raised theirs in the Nazi salute and sang Hitler’s anthem. Is there no one in Washington DC who has that simple courage? Is it really Washington IOT – Israel Occupied Territory – as the anti-Semites assert? [Many who abjure anti-Semitism assert it too, at least figuratively.]

Many years ago I visited the Senate hall and was introduced to the leading Senators of the time. I was profoundly shocked. After being brought up in deep respect for the Senate of the United States, the country of Jefferson and Lincoln, I was faced with a bunch of pompous asses, many of them nincompoops who had not the slightest idea what they were talking about. I was told that it was their assistants who really understood matters.

SO WHAT did the great man say to this august body?

It was a finely crafted speech, using all the standard tricks of the trade – the dramatic pause, the raised finger, the little witticisms, the sentences repeated for effect. Not a great orator, by any means, no Winston Churchill, but good enough for this audience and this occasion.

But the message could be summed up in one word: No.

After their disastrous debacle in 1967, the leaders of the Arab world met in Khartoum and adopted the famous Three No’s: NO recognition of Israel, No negotiation with Israel, NO peace with Israel. It was just what the Israeli leadership wanted. They could go happily about their business of entrenching the occupation and building settlements.  [Note: Saying "NO recognition" is not the same as saying "NO Israel," i.e., threatening to wipe out the state.  So one interpretation of the Khartoum declaration is that Israel's continued presence was accepted as a reality.]

Now Netanyahu is having his Khartoum. NO return to the 1967 borders. NO Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees. NO military withdrawal from the Jordan River - meaning that the future Palestinian state would be completely surrounded by the Israeli armed forces. NO negotiation with a Palestinian government “supported” by Hamas, even if there are no Hamas members in the government itself. And so on – NO. NO. NO.

The aim is clearly to make sure that no Palestinian leader could even dream of entering negotiations, even in the unlikely event that he were ready to meet yet another condition: to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” – which includes the dozens of Jewish Senators and Congressmen who were the first to jump up and down, up and down, like so many marionettes.  [This is an important point: Israel demands recognition as the Jewish state.]

Netanyahu, along with his associates and political bedfellows, is determined to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by all and any means. That did not start with the present government – it is an aim deeply embedded in Zionist ideology and practice. The founders of the movement set the course, David Ben-Gurion acted to implement it in 1948, in collusion with King Abdallah of Jordan. Netanyahu is just adding his bit.  [And it mattered not when Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1988.]

“No Palestinian state” means: no peace, not now, not ever. Everything else is, as the Americans say, baloney. All the pious phrases about happiness for our children, prosperity for the Palestinians, peace with the entire Arab world, a bright future for all, are just that – pure baloney. At least some in the audience must have noticed that, even with all that jumping.

NETANYAHU SPAT in Obama's eye. The Republicans in the audience must have enjoyed that. Perhaps some Democrats too.

It can be assumed that Obama did not. So what will he do now?

There is a Jewish joke about a hungry pauper who entered an inn and demanded food. Otherwise, he threatened, he would do what his father did. The frightened innkeeper fed him, and in the end asked timidly: “But what did your father do?” Swallowing the last morsel, the man answered: “He went to sleep hungry.”

There is a good chance that Obama will do the same. He will pretend that the spittle on his cheek is rainwater. His promise to prevent a UN General Assembly recognition of the State of Palestine deprived him of his main leverage over Netanyahu.

Somebody in Washington seems to be floating the idea of Obama coming to Jerusalem and addressing the Knesset. It would be direct retaliation – Obama talking with the Israeli public over the head of the Prime Minister, as Netanyahu has just addressed the American public over the head of the President.

It would be an exciting event. As a former Member of the Knesset, I would be invited. But I would not advise it. I proposed it a year ago. Today I would not.

The obvious precedent is Anwar Sadat’s historic speech in the Knesset. But there is really no comparison. Egypt and Israel were still officially at war. Going to the capital of the enemy was without precedent, the more so only four years after a bloody battle. It was an act that shook Israel, eliminating in one stroke a whole set of mental patterns and opening the mind for new ones. Not one of us will ever forget the moment when the door of the airplane swung open and there he was, handsome and serene, the leader of the enemy.

Later, when I interviewed Sadat at his home, I told him: “I live on the main street of Tel Aviv. When you came out of that plane, I looked out of the window. Nothing moved in the street, except one cat – and it was probably looking for a television set.”

A visit by Obama will be quite different. He will, of course, be received politely – without the obsessive jumping and clapping – though probably heckled by Knesset Members of the extreme Right. But that will be all.

Sadat’s visit was a deed in itself. Not so a visit by Obama. He will not shake Israeli public opinion, unless he comes with a concrete plan of action – a detailed peace plan, with a detailed timetable, backed by a clear determination to see it through, whatever the political cost.

Another nice speech, however beautifully phrased, just will not do. After this week’s deluge of speeches, we have had enough. Speeches can be important if they accompany actions, but they are no substitute for action. Churchill’s speeches helped to shape history – but only because they reflected historic deeds. Without the Battle of Britain, without Normandy, without El Alamein, those speeches would have sounded ridiculous.

Now, with all the roads blocked, there remains only one path open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine.

Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way.

Gaza in Plain Language

I welcome the Israeli Version to be posted here as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxdaHM7rgag&feature=player_embedded

Several images have been covered over, about one minute into the video, because they were cited as being 'disturbing', after the original video was uploaded, on February 6, 2010. The images of burnt children are certainly disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as the lack of censure for those who were responsible for burning them.

The article "Gaza in Plain Language", by Joe Mowrey, first published by Dissident Voice
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaz...

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaza-freedom-march-marches-in-cairo-against-blockade/

The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse

I hope the People of Israel realize that these dudes are really not their friends, the right wing Republicans have lost their morality, they are pandeing because the lobby is throwing money at these men and women, you stop that, they will stop wagging their tails. Look for sustainable peace, listen to Obama's peace plan which has been the plan in works for a while by several administrations and take the leap of faith. The revenge system has not worked, let the peace method work. Gather the morality and say no to the right wing among American Christians and Jews, who are the reason Israel does not have the security after sixty years.

Mike Ghouse


New York Times Editorial

May 26, 2011

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Only a few minutes after President Obama finished his carefully balanced speech on the Middle East last week, Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers began twisting his words to suggest that he was calling for an epochal abandonment of Israel.

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” said Mitt Romney. Tim Pawlenty wrongly said Mr. Obama had called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, which he called “a disaster waiting to happen.” Rick Santorum said Mr. Obama “just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.”

Others went even further. Representative Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, a former presidential candidate, said Mr. Obama had “betrayed Israel.” The worst line came from Representative Allen West of Florida, who somehow believes Mr. Obama wants to keep Jews away from the Western Wall and wants to see “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”

Some Democrats were also piling on, evidently afraid Republicans will paint them as anti-Israel. It was not helpful when Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that no one outside of the talks should urge the terms of negotiation, clearly repudiating the president’s attempts to do just that. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, and other Democrats have made similar statements.

Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade. Most Republicans know full well that Mr. Obama is not calling on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. He said those borders, which define the West Bank and Gaza, would be the starting point for talks about land swaps.

Do the president’s critics even agree on the need for a Palestinian state next to Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel says he does? It is not clear that several of the Republicans would go as far as the prime minister, who at least noted that Mr. Obama does not want to return to the 1967 lines. But even those who do should admit that two-state proposals have always been along the lines sketched out by the president.

In 2007, for example, Mr. Romney told The Jerusalem Post that his administration would “actively work toward a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” What could the outline of that solution be if not the one Mr. Obama mentioned? Mr. Romney doesn’t address that question in his speeches. It is one thing to make noise on the campaign trail. It is quite another to lead a quest for peace.

Netanyahu's stance jeopardizes Israel's security

May 26, 2011

Professor Alon Ben-Meir

http://www.alonben-meir.com/

 

The supposed controversy over President Obama's speech on the Middle East, manufactured by Prime Minster Netanyahu and enabled by the media, is disgraceful and insincere. President Obama said nothing new about borders, just the facts: no border will ever be acceptable to the Palestinians that does not carve out a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, the two territories based on the "1967 lines," and no border will ever be acceptable to Israel that does not include the three major settlement blocs. Negotiating the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps meets both demands, which is why it has been the foundation of border negotiations in every peacemaking effort including UN Resolutions 242 and 338, to which Israel is signatory. However, by misrepresenting the President's remarks, Netanyahu irresponsibly chose to pick a fight with the one man who can safeguard Israel from near total international isolation, while ignoring the very significant steps the president took in Israel's favor.

 

Days before President Obama's speech, Netanyahu spoke to the Knesset and identified Israel's core demands: maintaining the settlement blocs, a united Jerusalem, opposing Palestinian refugees' return to Israel, and receiving recognition as a Jewish state. President Obama has now backed them all-but Netanyahu is choosing not to listen. Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's speech, stating that the 1967 lines are "indefensible" simply ignored Obama's call for mutually agreed land swaps, which inherently means an adjusted 1967 border, as President Obama's explained in his remarks to AIPAC. The notion of "indefensible" borders also ignores pure common sense. The width between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is a mere 44 miles-if an adjusted 1967 border is "indefensible," what is defensible? How many handfuls of acres or kilometers more are needed to maintain the balance of Israel's national security? The inconvenient truth is that expanding territory by a few more acres is not what will maintain Israel's national security. Israel's security can only be guaranteed by four elements: 1) a lasting peace agreement, 2) credible deterrence, 3) enforceable international guarantees and finally 4) a strong U.S.-Israel relationship that provides Israel with a security umbrella. This will safeguard Israel from international opprobrium by supporting its right to self-defense and working alongside it to address regional threats such as that from Iran.

 

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, along with much of the media, and the president's critics and challengers chose to ignore the significant steps Obama took to place the onus on the Palestinians. In fact, Obama's iteration of the 1967 border discussion was geared directly for this purpose. First, it provides the Palestinians - and the Europeans - with a new consideration ahead of the planned United Nations General Assembly vote in September. That President Obama gave an exclusive interview after the speech to the BBC - addressing a European audience - and soon after embarked on a five-day trip to Europe, only underscores his commitment to ensuring that "efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure," and that "actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state." Second, the focus on borders was intended to remove the issue of a settlement freeze from continuing to serve as the primary obstacle to negotiations. It appears he has succeeded, with Palestinians now requesting Netanyahu's response to Obama's formulation on borders as a prerequisite to renewed negotiations, rather than a full freeze. Third, the president addressed Palestinian national aspirations in the context of the Arab Spring to maintain credibility for the United States in the region. But more importantly, he did so without wavering from the United States' commitment to Israel's security "as a Jewish state." In fact, his reiteration of "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people," were both endorsements of a two-state solution and a rejection of the Palestinian right of return to Israel. Fourth, not only did President Obama state that the Palestinians "walked away from talks," but with regard to the recent Fatah-Hamas unity government, he challenged the Palestinians to produce a "credible answer" to the question, "How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?"

 

It is one thing to establish maximalist positions knowing that negotiations will ultimately moderate these stances to achieve one's actual goals. It is entirely another matter to articulate a position that is totally and completely unacceptable to the other side, as Netanyahu has done when he addressed a joint session of Congress, and that does not allow any opportunity for negotiation. After all, both parties know very well what the contours of any peace agreement will look like.

 

On borders, as Obama stated, a negotiated border will be based on the 1967 border with land swaps to include the major settlement blocs. On Jerusalem, the city must remain "united" but the Palestinians must also have some presence in the Arab neighborhoods to form a capital in East Jerusalem for a Palestinian state. On security, Israel must have ironclad security guarantees with an international peacekeeping force (perhaps with some Israeli and Palestinian participation) to be stationed along the Jordan River. The force should be assembled from specific countries that have a vested interest in maintaining peace, including Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, EU nations like Britain, France and Germany, all under the command of the United States. Finally, both sides must face these hard truths: that Israel's recognition as a Jewish state requires a Jewish majority that can only be sustained through a two-state solution, and, in turn, a solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees must be a return to Palestine, not to Israel. No moderate Israeli or Palestinian could accept anything less. None of this is new, none of it should be controversial, and none of it can be achieved without the active participation, encouragement and facilitation of the United States-whether the international community, the Palestinians, or Israel likes it or not.

 

Still, if this solution is ever to be achieved, Israel and the Palestinians must address those who would rather perpetuate the conflict than end it. For Israel, this means not enabling settlers and other right-wing radicals to hijack the Zionist cause in ways that are weakening the United States-Israel alliance and placing Israel's future in jeopardy. It also means that instead of shielding his eyes from the truth, and pointing to obstacles to justify his inaction, Netanyahu must be pro-active in presenting real leadership and a realistic, practical path that can bring Israel toward greater peace and security, and away from its growing isolation. For the Palestinians it is a clear recognition that violence will only lead to destruction. Hamas must be disabused of the notion that Israel can be destroyed. The use of such rhetoric, and violence, will not just place Hamas at risk, it will completely annihilate it. Israel will not hesitate to respond to such threats by decapitating its leadership and inflicting a severe blow on its infrastructure, even at the expense of international condemnation. But Israel should also welcome any sign of moderation on the part of Hamas, especially if the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah holds.

 

Top Egyptian officials have privately conveyed this message to Hamas leaders-if they ignore the advice, they will do so at their own peril, and at the demise of the Palestinian national cause as well as the significant progress that has been made to achieve the goal of Palestinian independence. As one Palestinian recently told me, he is concerned about the unknown changes that will emanate from the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas: "Right now the Palestinians in the West Bank feel as though we are living in Switzerland-except we don't sleep," he said. "Now, we have so much to lose." The same is true of Israelis-the situation can change overnight, and time is running out. In his remarks on Sunday to AIPAC, President Obama was blunt: "If there is a controversy, then it's not based in substance. What I did on Thursday (in the speech on the Middle East) was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I've done so because we can't afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast ... The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel's security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve."

 

Reflecting on these remarks, Israelis must ask themselves: Are we better off today than we were more than two years ago when the Netanyahu government came to power? The question, of course, is rhetorical-but the answer is a clear, unequivocal "no." As such, Israeli leaders should be asking themselves a subsequent question: What are we prepared to do about it? If Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress is his answer, the Israelis should expect further isolation while jeopardizing rather than enhancing their national security.

 

*A version of this article appears in the Jerusalem Post, May 26, 2011 and is available online:http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=222338

Where Netanyahu fails himself and Israel

By Fareed Zakaria, Published: May 25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-netanyahu-fails-himself-and-israel/2011/05/25/AGwSfUBH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

 

Conventional wisdom is fast congealing in Washington that President Obama was wrong to demarcate a shift in American policy toward Israel last week. In fact, it was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who broke with the past — in one of a series of diversions and obstacles Netanyahu has come up with anytime he is pressed. He wins in the short run, but ultimately, he is turning himself into a version of Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, “Mr. Nyet,” a man who will be bypassed by history.

 

Here is what Netanyahu’s immediate predecessor, Ehud Olmert, said in a widely reported speech to the Israeli Knesset in 2008: “We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then.” Olmert, a man with a reputation as a hard-liner, said that meant Israel would keep about 6 percent of the West Bank — the major settlements — and give up land elsewhere. This was also the position of Ehud Barak, Israel’s prime minister during the late 1990s.

 

The Bush administration did not have a different position, as statements from the president and Condoleezza Rice make clear. Here is George W. Bush in 2008: “I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.” (The 1949 armistice lines is another way of saying the 1967 borders.)

 

Or consider this statement from last November: “[T]he United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” That’s not Obama, Bush or Rice, but a statement jointly issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu on Nov. 11, 2010.

 

Today, Netanyahu says that any discussion of the 1967 borders is treason and that new borders must reflect “dramatic changes” since then. So in three years, an Israeli prime minister’s position has gone from “minor corrections” to “dramatic changes.” Netanyahu’s quarrel, it appears, is with himself. Yet we are to think it is Obama who has shifted policy?

 

Why did Netanyahu turn what was at best a minor difference into a major confrontation? Does it help Israel’s security or otherwise strengthen it to stoke tensions with its strongest ally and largest benefactor? Does such behavior further the resolution of Israel’s problems? No, but it helps Netanyahu stir support at home and maintain his fragile coalition. And while Bibi might sound like Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel’s future.

 

The newsworthy, and real, shift in U.S. policy was Obama publicly condemning the Palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state from the U.N. General Assembly in September. He also questioned the accord between Fatah and Hamas. Obama endorsed the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state, a demand Israel has made in recent years. Instead of thanking Obama for this, Netanyahu created a public confrontation to garner applause at home.

 

Netanyahu’s references to the “indefensible” borders of 1967 reveal him to be mired in a world that has gone away. The chief threat to Israel today is not from a Palestinian army. Israel has the region’s strongest economy and military, complete with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The chief threats to Israel are from new technologies — rockets, biological weapons — and demography. Its physical existence is less in doubt than its democratic existence as it continues to rule millions of Palestinians in serf-like conditions — entitled to neither a vote nor a country.

 

The path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been clear for 20 years. Israel would cede most of the land it conquered in the 1967 war to a Palestinian state, keeping the major settlement blocks. In return, it would get a series of measures designed to protect its security. That’s why the process is called land for peace. The problem is that Netanyahu has never believed in land for peace. His strategy has been to put up obstacles, create confusion and wait it out. But one day there will be peace, along the lines that people have talked about for 20 years. And Netanyahu will be remembered only as a person before the person who made peace, a comma in history.

 

comments@fareedzakaria.com

 

© The Washington Post Company