|
|
|
Jewish World Review August 21, 2009 / 1 Elul 5769 Et tu, Netanyahu? By Caroline B. Glick
Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Attias let the cat out of the bag.
Attias said that the government has been barring Jews from building in the
areas since it took office four months ago in the hopes that by preemptively
capitulating to US demands, the US will treat Israel better.
And that's not all. Today Netanyahu is reportedly working in earnest to
reach a deal with the Obama administration that would formalize the
government's effective construction ban through 2010. Netanyahu is set to
finalize such a deal at his meeting with Obama's Middle East envoy George
Mitchell in London next Wednesday.
Unfortunately, far from treating Israel better as a result of Netanyahu's
willingness to capitulate on the fundamental right of Jews to live and build
homes in the land of Israel, the Obama administration is planning to pocket
Israel's concession and then up the ante. Administration officials have
stated that their next move will be to set a date for a new international
Middle East peace conference that Obama will chair. There, Israel will be
isolated and relentlessly attacked as the US, the Arabs, the Europeans, the
UN and the Russians all gang up on our representatives and demand that
Israel accept the so-called "Arab peace plan."
That deceptively named plan, which Obama has all but adopted as his own,
involves Israel committing national suicide in exchange for nothing. The
Arab plan -- formerly the "Saudi Plan," and before that, the Tom Friedman
"stick it to Israel 'peace' plan" -- calls for Israel to retreat to the
indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel hundreds of thousands of Jews
from their homes in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. It also
involves Israel agreeing to cease being a Jewish state by accepting millions
of foreign, hostile Arabs as citizens within its truncated borders.
The day an Israeli government accepts the plan - which again will form the
basis of the Obama "peace" conference" -- is the day that the State of
Israel signs its own death warrant.
Then there is the other Obama plan in the works. Obama also intends to host
an international summit on nuclear security for March 2010. Arab states are
already pushing for Israel's nuclear program to be placed on the agenda.
Together with Obama administration officials' calls for Israel to join the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- which would compel Israel to relinquish
its purported nuclear arsenal -- and their stated interest in having Israel
sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty -- which would arguably force
Israel to allow international inspections of its nuclear facility in Dimona
-- Obama's planned nuclear conclave will place Israel in an untenable
position.
Recognizing the Obama administration's inherent and unprecedented hostility
to Israel, Netanyahu sought to deflect its pressure by giving his speech at
Bar Ilan University in June. There he gave his conditional acceptance of
Obama's most cherished foreign policy goal -- the establishment of a
Palestinian state in Israel's heartland.
Netanyahu's conditions -- that the Arabs generally and the Palestinians
specifically recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; that they
relinquish their demand that Israel accept millions of hostile Arabs as
citizens under the so-called "right of return;" that the Palestinian state
be a "demilitarized" state, and that Arab states normalize their relations
with Israel were supposed to put a monkey wrench in Obama's policy of
pressuring Israel.
Since it is obvious that the Arabs do not accept these eminently reasonable
conditions, Netanyahu presumed that Obama would be forced to stand down.
What Netanyahu failed to take into consideration was the notion that Obama
and the Arabs would not act in good faith -- that they would pretend to
accept at least some of his demands in order to force him to accept all of
their demands, and so keep US pressure relentlessly focused on Israel.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened.
Ahead of Obama's meeting Tuesday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Al
Quds al Arabi, reported that Obama has accepted Netanyahu's call for a
demilitarized Palestinian state. Although Netanyahu is touting Obama's new
position as evidence of his own diplomatic prowess, the fact is that Obama's
new position is both disingenuous and meaningless.
Obama's supposed support for a demilitarized Palestinian state is mendacious
on two counts. First, Palestinian society is already one of the most
militarized societies in the world. According to the World Bank, 43 percent
of wages paid by the Palestinian Authority go to Palestinian militias. Since
Obama has never called for any fundamental reordering of Palestinian society
or for a reform of the PA's budgetary priorities, it is obvious that he
doesn't have a problem with a militarized Palestinian state.
The second reason his statements in support for a demilitarized Palestinian
state are not credible is because one of the central pillars of the Obama
administration's Palestinian policy is its involvement in training of the
Fatah-led Palestinian army. US Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is overseeing the
training of this army in Jordan and pressuring Israel to expand its
deployment in Judea and Samaria.
The US claims that the forces it is training will be responsible for
counter-terror operations and regular police work, and therefore, it is
wrong to say that Dayton is raising a Palestinian army. But even if this is
true today, there is no reason not to assume that these forces will form the
backbone of a future Palestinian army. After all, the Palestinian militias
trained by the CIA in the 1990s were trained in counter-terror tactics. This
then enabled them to serve as the commanders of the Palestinian terror
apparatus from 2000 until 2004 when Israel finally defeated them. It is the
uncertainty about these forces that renders Obama's statement meaningless.
And that gets to the heart of the problem with Netanyahu's conditional
support for Palestinian statehood. Far from deflecting pressure on Israel to
make further concessions, it trapped Israel into a position that serves none
of its vital interests.
For Israel to secure its long-term vital national interests vis-à-vis the
Palestinians, it doesn't need for the US and the Palestinians to declare
they agree to a demilitarized state or for a Palestinian leader to announce
that he recognizes Israel's right to exist or even agrees that Israel
doesn't have to commit national suicide by accepting millions of Arab
immigrants. For Israel to secure its national interests, Palestinian society
needs to be fundamentally reorganized.
As we saw at the Fatah conclave in Bethlehem last week, even if Fatah leader
Mahmoud Abbas were to accept Netanyahu's conditions, he wouldn't be speaking
for anyone but himself. Fatah's conclave -like Hamas's terror state in Gaza
- gave Israel every reason to believe that the Palestinians will continue
their war against Israel after pocketing their state in Judea, Samaria and
Jerusalem. There is no Palestinian leader with any following that accepts
Israel. Consequently, negotiating the establishment of a Palestinian state
before Palestinian society is fundamentally changed is a recipe for
disaster.
Furthermore, even if Netanyahu is right to seek an agreement with Mitchell
next week, he showed poor negotiating skill by preemptively freezing Jewish
construction. Domestically, Netanyahu has lost credibility now that the
public knows that he misled it. And by preemptively capitulating, Netanyahu
showed Obama that he is not a serious opponent. Why should Obama take
Netanyahu's positions seriously if Netanyahu abandons before them before
Obama even begins to seriously challenge him?
Beyond the damage Netanyahu's actions have inflicted on his domestic and
international credibility is the damage they have caused to Netanyahu's
ability to refocus US attention and resolve where it belongs.
As Netanyahu has repeatedly stated, the Palestinian issue is a side issue.
The greatest impediment to Middle East peace and the greatest threat to
international security today is Iran's nuclear weapons program. A nuclear
armed Iran will all but guarantee that the region will at best be plagued by
continuous war, and at worst be destroyed in a nuclear conflagration.
Netanyahu had hoped that his conditional support for Palestinian statehood,
and his current willingness to bar Jews from building homes in Judea and
Samaria would neutralize US pressure on Israel and facilitate his efforts to
convince Obama to recognize and deal rationally with the issue of Iran's
nuclear weapons program. But as Ambassador Michael Oren made clear on
Sunday, the opposite has occurred.
In an interview with CNN, Oren said that Israel is "far from even
contemplating" a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations." He
also said, "The government of Israel has supported President Obama in his
approach to Iran, initially the engagement, the outreach to Iran."
From this it appears that Israel has not only made no headway in convincing
the administration to take Iran seriously. It appears that Jerusalem has
joined the administration in accepting a nuclear armed Iran.
It is possible that Oren purposely misrepresented Israel's position. But
this too would be a disturbing turn of events. Israel gains nothing from
lying. Oren's statement neutralizes domestic pressure on the administration
to get serious about Iran. And if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear
installations in the coming months, Oren's statement will undoubtedly be
used by Israel's detractors to attack the government.
Some critics of Netanyahu from the Right like Ariel Mayor Ron Nachman claim
that it may well be time to begin bringing down Netanyahu's government. They
are wrong. We have been down this road before. In 1992 the Right brought
down Yitzhak Shamir's government and brought the Rabin-Peres government to
power and Yassir Arafat to the gates of Jerusalem. In 1999 the Right brought
down the first Netanyahu government and gave Israel Camp David and the
Palestinian terror war.
There is another way. It is being forged by the likes of Vice Premier Moshe
Ya'alon on the one hand and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on the
other.
Ya'alon argues that not capitulating to American pressure is a viable policy
option forIsrael. There is no reason to reach an agreement with Mitchell on
the administration's bigoted demand that Jews not build in Judea, Samaria
and Jerusalem. If the US wants to have a fight with Israel, a fight against
American anti-Jewish discrimination is not a bad one for Israel to have.
Ya'alon's argument was borne out by Huckabee's visit this week to Jerusalem,
Judea and Samaria. Huckabee's trip showed that the administration is not
operating in a policy vacuum. There is plenty of strong American support for
an Israeli government that would stand up to the administration on the
Palestinian issue and Iran alike.
Netanyahu's policies have taken a wrong turn. But Netanyahu is not Tzipi
Livni or Ehud Olmert. He is neither an ideologue nor an opportunist. He
understands why what he is doing is wrong. He just needs to be convinced
that he has another option.
Interested in a private Judaic studies instructor — for free? Let us know by clicking here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
