The Economist on Palestinian Statehood

"In truth, Israel will be safer when a proper Palestinian state has been consolidated. That is a point that too few Israelis and their American supporters appreciate. This newspaper has argued steadfastly for the right of Israel to exist. We abhor the creeping delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel. But we also believe that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. These two beliefs are entirely compatible. By his intransigence, Mr Netanyahu has played into the hands of those who would destroy Israel. In blocking any Palestinian aspirations at the UN, America is helping extremists on both sides."

Guess who else thinks Netanyahu is being ridiculous?

Former Israeli Prime Minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak. From Haaretz.

The Failure of Netanyahu

A good analysis from TPM:
----------------------------------
For years the top generals in the IDF have agreed that Israel can handle withdrawing to the 1967 borders in military terms. But PM Netanyahu says that's impossible because those borders are not defensible. It's an amazing level of denial, intransigence and self-destructiveness on display today -- something the pre-statehood and early statehood Zionist leadership was seldom so vulnerable to.

I agree with Gadi Taub who said recently that while peace is the ideal the highest priority for both peoples right now is partition. Netanyahu's position makes that impossible. The 1967 lines are the only practical and politically conceivable basis for such a division -- with mutually agreed upon swaps of territory along those lines. Netanyahu's plan is simply to withdraw from areas of dense population within the West Bank. In fact, I think that overstates the case. I don't think Netanyahu has a plan beyond holding his coalition together and himself in the prime ministership. The rejectionists' 'plan' is simply to hold on for as long as possible and play for time.

The man is a fool at so many levels. But there's no denying that he speaks for a very large chunk of the Israeli electorate.
---------------------------------
Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions.

When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.

I used to hold Binyamin Netanyahu in such high regard, but he has proved himself to be incredibly short sighted. I wrote another post about his missed opportunities just a few months ago. Very disappointing.

Does Obama hate Israel?

Here are some quotes from Obama's speech that pertain to Israel.
------------------------------------------
"Antagonism towards Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression [in repressive Middle Eastern nations]."

This is implicitly a defense of Israel. There is no doubt that in general the people in the Middle East don't like Israel. The question is why. Pro-Israeli people believe that is because Israel has been used relentlessly as a scapegoat by autocratic dictators to focus their peoples' anger elsewhere. Anti-Israeli people believe it is Israeli policies that create the resentment among its neighbors. Obviously there is an element of truth to both, but extremists tend to believe one or the other. I believe it is primarily the former, and apparently so does Obama, which is implicitly a pro-Israeli stance.

"Standing up for Israel's security...we will continue to do these things."

That doesn't sound very anti-Semitic to me.

"Efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."

Opponents of Israel are pursuing a strategy that results in the destruction of Israel not by military means, but by political and economic means. This is what Obama means by "delegitimize". The strategy in a nutshell is to isolate Israel in the same way that South Africa was isolated because of apartheid. Obama is aware of this strategy, which means he no doubt thinks like I do: that Israel shouldn't play right into the hands of the people who are using it. This means striking a balance between deterrence and use of force, and it means not deliberately provoking Muslims for no reason (IE expanding settlements).

"Symbolic actions in September won't create an independent state."

In September, the PA is going to submit to the UN assembly a vote that would create a Palestinian state. I'm not sure how the rules of the UN work so I'm not sure if they can legally do this or not. I'm not sure if the US can even veto this. We couldn't stop the PRC from taking the ROC's seat in the security council in the 1970's so we may not be able to stop this. It would be a major blow to Israel if it happens. It is a part of the delegitimization strategy that anti-Israeli activists have been pursuing.

"Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of violence and rejection...Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying Israel's right to exist."

Obama reaffirms that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and honor previous agreements. This is all very standard stuff.

"Our committment to Israel's security is unshakable, and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."

In other words, the US has and will veto UN resolutions that condemn Israel for this or that while allowing other nations to perpetrate far worse crimes with no mention.

"Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

IE the US will continue to support the Israeli military.

"[Palestine should be a] sovereign, non-militarized state."

One of the sticky parts of establishing a Palestinian state is whether or not it gets to develop a military. Obviously the Israelis might be uncomfortable with that. Obama here is coming down squarely on Israel's side of the issue.

-------------------------------------------

There is lots of room for criticism over how Obama approached the Israeli-Palestinian question. The speech was decidedly unambitious and did not budge the status quo even a single iota. Everything in the speech was very standard, widely accepted stuff. Everyone* agrees that peace will come with a two-state solution. Everyone* agrees that the 1967 boundaries are the basis for the future borders. Everyone* agrees that Israel isn't going to take down their West Bank settlements, and so land-swaps are necessary. On the issues that people aren't sure about, such as over the status of Jerusalem or right-of-return for Palestinians, Obama just punted.

What there isn't any room for is criticism that Obama is anti-Israeli. And yet, the only thing I see plastered all over the front page of Fox News is precisely that. This is being echoed all over the conservative blogosphere. And you know what? I get it. I get why the Republicans are jumping all over this big lie. Their attempt at following through to the promises they made in the 2010 elections have been absolutely pathetic. They have been outfoxed by Obama and the Democrats at every turn. Boehner's 38 billion in "cuts" actually ended up increasing the deficit by 3 billion. Paul Ryan has been thrown under the bus by half of his party. The GOP will vote for the debt ceiling increase, but they will only get token cuts for it IF Obama is feeling generous. The GOP presidential candidates are all awful, save one or two who probably can't win a primary.

So like I said, I get it. We're going to hear over the next few weeks how Obama is a vicious anti-Semite, which fits in perfectly with accusation that Obama is also a secret anti-colonialist Muslim America-hater. Netanyahu is of course going to play along, just as a spoiled child will manipulate their divorced parents, and will cement himself in history as one of the most short-sighted Israeli leaders ever. But yea, anything to distract from the train wreck that has been the GOP agenda; I can't say I blame them for wanting something else to talk about. Whether or not there is any truth to what they are saying is irrelevant.

*When I say "everyone", what I mean is "reasonable people who we might listen to". There are lots of people who don't agree on a two-state solution, 1967 boundaries as a basis for that, and land swaps. These people are unreasonable, and should all be ignored. This includes, but is not limited to: Hamas and Islamic extremists, the international far-left extremists, ultra-right wing orthodox Jewish settlers in Israel, ultra-right wing evangelical Christians in the US. To name a few. None of these groups think there should be a compromise, just endless war until their side wins and the other side is dead.

Israel's Historic Missed Opportunity

It certainly seemed that the Israelis were in an exceptionally strong position over the last two years compared with the historic average. Israel had waged two wars against its near enemies, Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008. Politics aside, these conflicts were undeniably decisive military victories for Israel. In the meantime, we've seen the international community rally further against Iran, and Syria has been quiet as well after being caught red handed building a nuclear reactor and subsequently bombed by Israel. So strong was the Israeli position that we have seen come to light an assortment of embarrassing leaks about the extent to which the PA was willing to make concessions to Israel to advance the peace process.

Of course, one of the great drivers of wars in the Middle East is religious extremism. To Americans, the biggest culprits here are groups like Hamas, who refuse to renounce violence or recognize Israel. Unfortunately, there are Israeli religious extremists, too. The Israeli government has refused to confront the settler movement, who continue to build in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank. If the Israelis want to continue to advance settlements, that is one decision. The consequence of that decision is that the peace process is stopped in its tracks and the international community almost universally condemns Israel for the provocations, with the exception of America.

This is all very frustrating to me. I had enormous amount of respect for Binyamin Netanyahu when he took power. Then Obama was elected, an American president who clearly demonstrated a superior understanding of the conflicts in the region and also one who had unprecedented support from Arabs and Muslims in general, by virtue of not being George Bush, having opposed the Iraq war, having a Muslim father, and having lived in a Muslim country as a boy. In this context, I was extremely optimistic about the prospects for peace. I figured the Israelis would be ready to make a move, because the the best time to compromise is when one is in a strong position, and the Israelis clearly were.

Alas, instead of compromising, Israel squandered its time. Binyamin Netanyahu, for all of his military courage, didn't have the political courage to stand up to these irrational religious extremists in the settler movement. When Obama took office, his first move in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was to call for restraint from both sides, and specifically asked the Israelis to simply halt new settlement construction. Netanyahu humiliated Obama by refusing until Obama bribed him sufficiently, and even then only yielded a temporary freeze which expired soon thereafter. The peace process was stopped dead in its tracks because a bunch of religious extremists believe that Allah or Yahweh promised them the same land. From our end, Republicans have been encouraging this bad behavior on the Israelis' part not because it was in the best interest of Israel, but so they could contribute to Obama's failure.

In fact, just the other week, Mike Huckabee gave a speech commemorating the completion of a new settlement built illegally in the West Bank. Expanding these settlements into the West Bank does not contribute to Israel's security, it gravely undermines it. Yet to Christian evangelicals in the United States and to the Israeli settler movement, these settlements are justified and necessary from a Biblical perspective. At this point we might pause and ask ourselves if the Old Testament is a good guide for American foreign policy in the Middle East. If anyone actually needs an answer to this question, I would refer them to Deuteronomy 20:17 for God's recommendation for dealing with the Palestinian question.

Last week an earthquake struck the Middle East with the epicenter in Cairo. The greatest Arab ally of Israel, and one of the few with a peace treaty, is going to be overthrown. What will come in Mubarak's place? If the new Egyptian government is at all democratic, it will certainly be a government that is far less friendly than Mubarak towards Israel: a recent poll showed that 3% of Egyptians have a positive attitude towards Israel while 91% have a negative attitude. Egyptian animosity towards Israelis will only worsen when Egyptians find out that Netanyahu's government had been frantically lobbying the Obama administration to stand by Mubarak when the crisis hit. Incidentally, I was reading about how some American Jews are struck by the irony of the Jewish Israeli government working to stifle the freedom of oppressed peoples in the lands of Egypt.

What happens from here on out? I do not believe we will see a return to the days of Nasser, where Egypt is actively warmongering and planning to attack Israel. I suspect Egypt will go the way of Turkey lately; relations with Israel will cool, perhaps to the point of animosity, but mutual alliances with the United States should provide enough glue to prevent a severing of relations or outright military confrontation. Still, it is very difficult to imagine that the Egyptians over the long term will continue to enforce the blockade of Hamas in Gaza, which causes great hardship for the 1.5 million Palestinians in the strip. There is no doubt that Hamas and Hezbollah will be emboldened that by far the most populous and important Arab country may become less friendly to Israel.

Nietzsche once said that true courage is having the strength for an attack on one's convictions. Any hard-headed fool can stubbornly cling to his beliefs, no matter how enormous the evidence to the contrary. George W. Bush ignored for almost 3 years the disastrous reality of Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the War in Iraq, and thousands of American soldiers died because of it. George W. Bush is a coward precisely because he did not have the strength for an attack on his convictions. Binyamin Netanyahu is similarly guilty and has let his people down. In retrospect, we will all come to realize the enormous opportunity to make peace over the last two years that the Israelis had. The Netanyahu government wasted this opportunity because it didn't have the political courage to stand up to their religious extremists in the settler movement. Again and again in history, we see that the easy thing for politicians to do is to beat on the drum of nationalism and to prove their mettle by refusing to compromise. It is much harder to offend some of your own in the name of compromise and advancing their interests.

When it comes to Israel and war, there are two questions: one is whether Israel has the right to keep pounding its enemies, and the other is whether it should keep doing so. The first question: Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. No doubt, it feels good to see Israel teach a terrorist group like Hamas a lesson, especially after Hamas provoked the Israeli response. The second question is harder to answer. Israel beat Hamas, but hundreds of innocents died in the process. The international community almost universally condemned Israel. Relations with Turkey in particular melted down to almost nothing. The most important thing to remember is that pounding Hamas did not actually accomplish anything for Israel. Hamas is still in Gaza, it is as radical as ever, and it is still arming. Israel cannot continue to engage in these wars with non-state actors who don't care how many of their own people die so long as they hurt Israel; it's like playing chicken with someone who is suicidal. Weapons and war can only make Israel safe in the short term; the only thing that can make it safe in the long term is compromise, negotiation, and peace.