Probably the most significant take-away from the past few days of U.S.-Israeli dialog is to shed light on the true intentions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding peace with the Palestinians. Although Netanyahu finally allowed the phrase “Palestinian state” to pass his lips for the first time almost two years ago, this past week in Washington provided further confirmation of what had been apparent all along: that whatever conception Netanyahu may have of such a “state,” it is not a formula having any chance of becoming the basis for—to use Netanyahu's own words from his joint appearance with President Obama on Friday—“a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure,” or probably even what most of the rest of the world would consider a state. Netanyahu is smart enough to realize this, which is to say he is content to let the status quo endure indefinitely. Israel will maintain that status quo through brute force—military force within the territories, and political force in Washington.
The drop-the-veil moment during this past week was the importunate lobbying by Netanyahu's government before President Obama delivered his Middle East speech on Thursday at the State Department (and doesn't that say something right there—where else would one see a foreign government get in the last lobbying licks on a president's speech, even at the expense of delaying the speech?) to omit any mention of the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiating land swaps and an eventual territorial settlement. The president mentioned that anyway, and in the joint appearance on Friday Netanyahu said nothing about land swaps, instead denouncing the 1967 borders as not being a suitable basis for anything. As Mr. Obama correctly noted in his address to AIPAC on Sunday, there was nothing new in his mention of 1967-borders-with-swaps. It has long been recognized as the only formula that has any hope of being the basis for a successful negotiation. It has been the basis for several official proposals, including one by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. It also has been at the center of several unofficial proposals, including ones from people whose concern for Israel cannot be doubted (such as a plan offered by David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy).
So for Netanyahu, not only is the land allotted to the Jewish state in the UN partition plan of the 1940s not enough, and not only is the larger territory that became the State of Israel with what we call the 1967 borders not enough. Even with land swaps that would extend Israel farther into the West Bank and include the large majority of the settlements Israel has constructed on land seized in the 1967 war, that would still not be enough for him. How much would be enough? One can speculate on what crumbs of land would be left to the Palestinians, but speculation is not required to have an idea based on Netanyahu's own statements of what such a “state” would entail: Israeli control of the airspace, no military of its own, and, as the prime minister mentioned on Friday, a “long-term” Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. It sounds like a bantustan that would make Bophuthatswana look like a paragon of sovereignty. But trying to envision the details of such an entity is pointless because it is a non-starter very likely intended to be rejected.
Charters, manifestos, and declarations often are superseded by political reality and do not reflect true intentions or policies. But in this instance, Netanyahu's actions tend to confirm the openly stated position of the other leaders of his own Likud Party. As Henry Siegman has pointed out in these spaces, that position is to oppose creation of a Palestinian state in any part of the West Bank.
Dishonesty in his professed desire for a peace settlement and a Palestinian state was only one part of the deception Netanyahu has displayed this past week. Another part concerned his reasons for coveting all that land. This part of the duplicity derives from the nature of U.S. interests involving Israel. The United States has an interest in assuring the security of Israel. In his AIPAC speech, President Obama properly referred to this aspect of U.S.-Israeli relations as “ironclad.” But the United States has no positive interest in either party to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acquiring title to land not because it is needed for security but instead for historical or religious reasons, or simply to acquire living space. The only U.S. interest is the negative one of being associated in the minds of much of the rest of the world with the Israeli occupation. So Netanyahu couched his denunciation of the 1967 boundary in security terms, saying (again ignoring what President Obama said about land swaps) that the boundary was “indefensible.”
Comments
While roaming the world weeping for Palestine, inappropriate handwringing over "The Little Satan Posse"
and false arguments may pass as serious thinking in certain circles,
there are three major probs with Dr P's bit that render it null and
void.
Cold War army magically appearing in East Palestine:
Little Satan's enemies tend to enjoy and deploy rocketry chicanery in
innocent civilian rich turf. Hiz'B'Allah and HAMAS in the Strip are
perhaps the best indicators of why doing the 67 is dangerously tarded
and quite risible in any serious discussion.
Squatter's Rights?
LOL - You mean like how Soviet time Russia used the same manuever to
conquer and control turf that had been German since Roman times? Or
Perhaps the Ottomans in Cyprus? Little Satan gained real estate fair and
square the old school way - with victorious desperate counter attacks.
Arab League blew it with the 3 No's of Khartoum and it bears a heavy
pennance - new realities indeed, nicht wahr?.
Playing Politics
And whose fault was that? 44's bushwack of Little Satan with the
familiar Palestinian meme was simply unreal. And entirely self
inflicted as a sister democracy's elected PM gave one of the most
impassioned and instructive displays in statecraft moderne'. Americans watched almost painfully, as 44's arrogance and naivete were fully exposed as he sat in awkward silence.
No diss meant yet the conclusion is
quite flawed, not very convincing or well tho't out - for whatever
reasons - most Americans would believe American interests lie with
tolerant, egalitarian societies with a penchant for periodic,
transparent elections, a military under civie control, a nat'l treasury
under public scrutiny, an independent judiciary under elected gov
oversight and a free, open press.
Dr P can certainly do way more better than this
I dont know what this other person is blathering about. As usual, this was some iron-clad, excellent analysis from Paul. Well said.
An excellent article - insightful, factual and erudite. The current dispensation in Israel under Netanyahu is evidently not interested in peace. Having annexed 80% of historic Palestine prior to 1967 by dispossessing its inhabitants from their ancestral homes, the zionist entity under his leadership now refuses to cede the balance 20% that is the WestBank and Gaza Strip it conquered in the 1967 war. Ironically, the world's only superpower can only kow-tow to the dictates of this fanatically racist government in Israel, and even cheerfully bankroll the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, imprisoned in their own land. No amount of convoluted argument can rationalize the injustice meted to a whole nation for crimes committed by Nazis in distant Europe. I feel sorry for the Americans who have lost their sovereignty to the Frankenstein monster they created and are condemned to blindly support it at their own peril. You just have to consider the insult Netanyahu continues to heap on Obama on US soil - amid standing ovation of an adulating American Congress!
It seems that the Israeli's and Palistinians will not come to terms without incnetives. Maybe we should withdraw economic support until they actuall start meaningful dialogue.
Maybe the US should withdraw economic support from the entire MidEast. My opinion is that the Israeli's and Arabs will then have the opportunity to live in peace or die in war. Let them proceed! As for the Obama vs Netanyah, they both were very unstatesman like. But at least Netanyahu appears to be defending his country, Obama not so much.
Maybe the US should withdraw from the entire Middle East. Period.
The only thing exposed is Pillar's appalling prejudice. Let's point it out: "drop-the-veil moment" - there was no veil to drop. Israel's and Netanyahu's position has been quite clear all along - based on painful experience. "So for Netanyahu, not only is the land allotted to the Jewish state in
the UN partition plan of the 1940s not enough, and not only is the
larger territory that became the State of Israel with what we call the
1967 borders not enough. Even with land swaps that would extend Israel
farther into the West Bank and include the large majority of the
settlements Israel has constructed on land seized in the 1967 war, that
would still not be enough for him." Greedy isn't he. With already about 0.16% of Arab land he wants to grab a couple more square mi. of desert for some unfathomable reason due to security. With already 6.5 mil Jews what have they have to be scared of? The Jews are never satisfied. "Seized in the 1967 war". Oh was that the war in which the Arabs tried to push Israel into the Med? What borders are we talking about? Between what 2 states? Or do you mean "armistice lines"? "sounds like a bantustan that would make Bophuthatswana look like a paragon of sovereignty". Oh yes, the good old apartheid smear. Funny, I don't remember good old Bop threatening to drive South Africa into the sea or raining rockets into her cities or blowing up SA citizens in their cafes and public transport. But these are irrelevant details to our pundit Pillar. Do I need to go on? It only gets more abusive and biased. My sympathy for Israel increases by the day when I see the kind of person apparently sitting in the USA intelligence community and Georgetown University environment. To think that USA policy may one day be shaped by the products of such an education.
Some of the comments attached to this article expose the tribal nature of far right Zionism. Where are the arguments that withstand any thought or knowledge? What is most disturbing is that Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations. How deep is the commitment of the Senators to democracy when they do this? All Americans of any religion and one should worry some about this. ( reasonandgoddemands dot blogspot dot com )
(
Why would Zionists want to discuss any peace agreement with the Palestinians when they have overwhelming military supremacy, seemingly ultimate power, and apparently bright future? Because the future is completely opposite and Zionists know it.
1. All military powers in history with no exception ultimately came crashing down. Someone stronger always comes, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see (just look around you) this coming and not ending well for the current military power in Palestine. Forward-seeing Jewish people under the Zionist regime already started packing up and leaving for Australia, South America, and the U.S. before this occurs.
2. It is obvious that the Zionist regime survives mainly because of its external allies who so far provided it with money, weapons, political support, access to markets, etc. After countless U.N. human rights violations, killing of its allies’ citizens (search on youtube for American “Rachel Corrie” video of Zionist bulldozer crushing her to death), forging of its allies’ passports in acts of murder, etc. its former allies are increasingly turning against the Zionist regime. Who would want to be remembered in history as an accomplice in international murders and especially of their own citizens.
3. Not only that the list of remaining supporters is growing thinner, but an international coalition is formed and growing larger of countries that are cutting all economic and diplomatic relations with the Zionist regime.
4. No country ever survived a complete isolation from its neighbors. No person of the area currently under Zionist occupation can obtain any type of visa from any of the surrounding countries for any reason – a complete land lock.
5. Well attended speeches take place almost weekly at colleges and universities across the U.S. and the world condemning the Zionist regime, their remaining supporters, and companies that do any business there. These speeches are often lead by moral Jewish people, church leaders, business people, etc., in addition to traditional peace activists.
6. The West where most of the traditional supporters of the Zionist regime are located is loosing global influence. China, the Middle East, South East Asia, Russia, South America, etc. are emerging as new pockets of economic and political power where the Zionist regime has angered most of the population.
7. Not only that the West is declining, but Zionists are loosing political control in the declining West. Diversity is bringing minority groups into politics, groups that are actively opposing the Zionist regime.
In conclusion, the Zionist regime is negotiating now because its future is changing for much worse. It knows that it temporarily exists now only through the force of its arms and this will be short-lived. It knows that it is at its peak and a downturn has come. It is a mistake to negotiate with the Zionist regime at the present time. But, if you have to negotiate, do not accept anything less than a single region in question (single state) where all who live there are equal. Any other “solution” would just reward the Zionist regime at the time of its demise. If the Zionist regime wants true piece, let’s not make it dependent on Zionist political and land acquisition goals, but on democratic vote for all who live there and making everyone equal (something we Americans cherish so passionately).
The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine. Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation. In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
If it is ever reached, the current and any other artificial “peace agreement” will be illegitimate before it is ever signed because (1) all people living in Palestine regardless of religion, race, origin, etc. (hereinafter “All People of Palestine”) were never given a choice on how they want their land to be governed, and (2) all contracts signed under duress are null and void.The biggest problem in Palestine is that the Zionist regime never offered a choice to All People of Palestine on how they want to govern their land because the Zionist regime cannot exist as a democratic entity. If there was ever any democratic process in Palestine, Zionists would have been outvoted and the Zionist regime would have never existed. That is why the Zionist regime is the occupier because it does not offer choice (i.e. democracy), but instead imposes its regime (i.e. occupies). Imagine if Russians would simply occupy a town in the U.S. where they are in significant numbers and attempt to create a Russian state there without giving the rest of the Americans living there a choice. Imagine then if they would try to institute a “peace agreement” that would attempt to legitimize their occupation. The “peace agreement” would logically and legally be illegitimate because the Americans were not given a choice. Under all countries’ laws, any contract is null and void if it is signed under duress. The current Palestine “peace agreement” process reminds me of The Godfather movie where the mafia boss (i.e. the Zionist regime) made a guy “an offer he could not refuse” by placing a gun (i.e. Zionist conventional and nuclear arsenal) to his head and making him sign the contract. Like the mafia boss’ offer, any “peace agreement” other than the choice for All People of Palestine is a crime, and the contract is legally null and void. The bottom line is that All People of Palestine never wanted to divide their land into artificial two states the way the occupation and this “peace agreement” attempt to divide it. From the beginning of the Zionist regime to its unavoidable end, All People of Palestine and the region never wanted the Zionist regime and they do not want it even more after all the atrocities the Zionist regime committed. I just cannot believe how the Zionist regime can be so ignorant to think that this or any other “peace agreement” that does not allow people to choose how they want to be governed will last and ensure its people’s survival. The Zionist regime fails to realize that no matter if it succeeds in muscling this “peace agreement” by unspeakable historic coercion tens of millions of moral people around the world will oppose it until it is corrected, and until justice and free choice prevail. Also, ever increasing number of Jewish people are realizing that Zionism is becoming a destructive force for them and are leading the global resistance to it.P.S. feel free to copy this comment, email it to other bloggers, and repost it on other blogs, newspaper websites, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites, and include it in any correspondence/lobbying with senators, state representatives and any other public officials so the public learns the truth…
All who oppose the Zionist regime please STOP calling it “Israel” Every time you do it you reward the occupation of Palestine. Name “Israel” implies a state on the occupied territory. Call the occupiers what they really are: the Zionist regime. This way, every time you refer to it, you will imply its temporary nature (the nature of all occupying regimes). Encourage your fellow comment posters to use the name Zionist regime as well. We must also be categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing in their names, and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud. I wish that they finally find piece wherever they choose to live (including Palestine) through a peaceful democratic process as opposed to the Nazi-style occupation the current Zionist regime is using.
As an Israeli i would like to post my view of things, since i read lots of disturbing comments.Jews allways lived in Israel from 4000 years ago,yes their where times they where a minority, but that does not mean they did not live there.secound their was never a palestinian state, the conuntry was occupied meny times by different inveders. the people who lived in Israel where arabs, jews and others.to say Israel belongs to the palestinians is a lie, the history of the country clearly shows jews where in Israel before the arab invesion in the 7th century, and that they where allways there.zionizm is the return of the jews to thete historical land, the jewish people have a right for self determination just like the palestinians do.the palestinians rejcted the u.n vote in 1947 calling for a jewish state beside a palestinian state, a where lored by promises from arab nations that they will destroy Israel, so they fled hoping to return later.haj mufti the main palestinian leader, admired adolf hitler, met him and even build an army made of bosnian muslims, that served hitler.the 1967 war in which Israel occupied gaza and the west bank was a defensive war after Israel was attacked by 3 arab nations.the palestinians have a right for a country living side by side with Israel, peace will come when the palestinians stop spreding lies and stop teaching there children to hate Israel and by the way jews too, and recognise the right of the jewish people too.