Short New York Times editorial: When PM Netanyahu visits with President Obama, Netanyahu ought to listen to his superior and faithfully do all that the President, in his infinite wisdom, asks him to do.
The NYT has a perfectly obnoxious editorial An agenda for Mr. Netanyahu.
If there is going to be a serious peace effort with Palestinians, Israel must work toward a two-state solution, Mr. Biden said. It must freeze further settlement construction in the West Bank and dismantle roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns not needed for security. Israel must also grant Palestinians more responsibility for security to the extent that they combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel, he added.
This should not come as news to Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Obama and his aides have been telegraphing their intentions for weeks. But the Israeli leader’s responses have been unconvincing and insufficient. Growing tensions were obvious when his White House meeting slid later into May — after Mr. Obama hosted Arab leaders.
I would argue (and have argued) that Netanyahu did more in his first term to create a Palestinian state than any Palestinian (or Arab) leader ever did. I would also argue that the New York Times by underplaying or ignoring Arafat’s duplicity and the insincerity of Mahmoud Abbas had done more than its share of undermining peace in the Middle East.
Was the delay in the meeting due to tension, or because Netanyahu wanted the time to prepare an appropriate presentation for the President. Obviously the Prime Minister and President are not entirely on the same page. It is Netanyahu’s job to convince the President of the reasonableness of his position.
(And even if Netanyahu were to do everything the editors of the Times claim is necessary, what makes them so certain it would lead to peace or a Palestinian state?. Here’s “moderate” Palestinian “negotiator” Saeb Erakat:
“Let me recount two historical events, even if I am revealing a secret. On July 23, 2000, at his meeting with President Arafat in Camp David, President Clinton said: ‘You will be the first president of a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders – give or take, considering the land swap – and East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, but we want you, as a religious man, to acknowledge that the Temple of Solomon is located underneath the Haram Al-Sharif.’
“Yasser Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: ‘I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50, or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah.’ That is why Yasser Arafat was besieged, and that is why he was killed unjustly.
“In November 2008… Let me finish… [Israeli prime minister Ehud] Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: ‘We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.’ Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: ‘I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places.’ This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign…”
This is form a month ago. Does this sound like someone who believes in a two state solution or even compromise?)
I’d add that even this rather obnoxious article in the Washington Post makes an important point:
After the signing of the 1993 Oslo peace accords and throughout the 1990s, the West Bank and Gaza combined grew at a healthy 6 percent annually, according to the World Bank. That stopped with the second intifada, which proved disastrous economically. According to the World Bank, Palestinian gross domestic product in both areas peaked in 1999 and has fallen by about 30 percent since then. Current per capita income is about $4,000 a year.
So yes, under Binyamin Netanyahu the Palestinian economy grew. The growth stopped when Yasser Arafat decided to launch a terror war against Israel in September 2000. The Times need not lecture Netanyahu on making the lives of the Palestinians more comfortable.
The editors of the Times continue:
In his video speech to the same activist group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Netanyahu said he wants peace with the Palestinians. He even committed to negotiations “without any delay and without any preconditions.” But it rings hollow. He has resisted — and his foreign minister and unity government partner, Avigdor Lieberman, has openly derided — the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace. On Monday, the 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a statement endorsing the two-state solution.
Lieberman, in fact, has advocated a two state solution. And Netanyahu isn’t going to agree to a Palestinian state if it presents a threat to Israel. That’s hardly unreasonable.
Other differences also threaten next week’s meeting. One is the president’s decision to reach out to Iran, which has made Israel uneasy. Mr. Netanyahu — perhaps trying to ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere — hinted that he might condition peace efforts on Mr. Obama’s success in ending Tehran’s nuclear program.
Actually the threat from Iran is more significant. I don’t think that Netanyahu is specifically conditioning peace efforts on progress against Iran’s nuclear program, but certainly it’s a priority to him. Iran doesn’t just threaten Israel, though, it threatens to project its power throughout the Middle East. If it acquires nuclear weapons, it will have one more threat to help them spread power. So any actions Israel takes ought not to strengthen Iran’s allies – Hezbollah and Hezbollah. In fact in the name of peace, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and Gaza, strengthening Iran’s allies and thus Iran too. So any concessions Israel makes need to be weighed against the risks they carry by strengthening Israel’s enemies generally and Iran specifically.
Stopping Iran’s nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obama’s approach — a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail — is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehran’s capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obama’s initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action.
Nothing Netanyahu will say will “push” the United States into “unnecessary” military action. Of course the question here, is what the Times’s editors mean by “crucial.” If they mean “preferable,” well then any military action would be “unnecessary.” If, however, they mean “essential” then military action may indeed be necessary regardless of what Netanyahu says, unless they have some other plan for disarming a nuclear Iran. What do the editors suggest? Sprinkling pixie dust?
It cannot be either-or. We have seen how former President George W. Bush’s delay in engaging seriously on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts sabotaged United States interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran by giving Al Qaeda and other extremists a rallying point for anti-Americanism. There are huge obstacles to peacemaking, including the rivalry between the ruling Fatah and militant Hamas Palestinian factions. Fortunately, there is also a new, potentially useful dynamic: Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are as worried about Iran as Israel is. That is a shared concern that should be exploited to bind these old adversaries in common cause — to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace and to restrain Iran.
I’d argue that President Clinton’s focus on Middle East peacemaking to the exclusion of the threat of Al Qaeda is what really damaged American security. And did President Clinton’s deep involvement in the peace process bring peace any closer?
Of course the Times’s approach makes sense if you give credence to the view of Arabists that the central conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There’s no evidence to suggest that’s true. And the main obstacle to peace making is the refusal of even “moderate” Fatah to unambiguously accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State. And while there may be some good accomplished by exploiting the Arab fear of Iran, it should be done in a way that weakens Israel.
Finally we have:
As new leaders of two deeply entwined countries, President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu have an interest in getting their relationship off to a good start. Mr. Netanyahu, a smooth talker, will have to do better than vague promises, however. Just think what might happen if he declared an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations.
Mr. Obama could then challenge Arab leaders who supported a 2002 peace initiative to respond, perhaps by initiating openly acknowledged diplomatic contacts and trade ties with Israel. Pessimism is the norm in the Middle East, but those kinds of moves could be game-changers.
Actually it should be up to the Arabs to initiate contacts with Israel ahead of any diplomatic process. That would show that their “peace initiative” might actually be sincere instead of an ultimatum camouflaged by vague promises of moderation.
In short the Times asks Binyamin Netanyahu to adhere to the agenda of J-Street – presumably also the agenda of President Obama. But Netanyahu’s responsibility is not to satisfy the whims of the United States but to protect his country and its interests as much as possible. The arrogance of the Times is astounding.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
What’s interesting and significant is what the Times calls for: “Israel must do this.” It does not go on to say, “And then the Palestinians must do that.” All the compulsion is on Israel and if it doesn’t mellow out people whose desire for Israel’s extermination is overt, then the Times will call for Israel to do something else.
Curious also, isn’t it, that Palestinian insistence that Jews have no connection to what is now Israel and the Temple was not on the hill is never met with calls for the Arabs to face reality and the justice of at least some of Israel’s positions? AlsoJune 4, 1967 lines. At that date the Arab view was that there were and could not be recognized Israeli borders and the lines merely reflected where the Arabs had for the moment agreed to stop fighting.
I think a description of J Street as pro-Israel in any real sense is misplaced. The group could not decide which side to support in Operation Cast Lead, which rendered them less pro-Israel than the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. And recently it supported a presentation of Caryl Churchill’s “Seven Jewish Children,” a playlet which is not only factually false but has no real distinction from the blood libel.
J Street claimed they didn’t necessarily endorse the sentiments of the drama but thought it was important to start a conversation. I had two responses: 1. There’s hardly a dearth of “conversation” on the issue; and 2. What sort of conversation would be prompted by “Seven Jewish Children?” Are we going to discuss whether Jews are bloodthirsty murderers who delight in using the Holocaust as an excuse to kill Palestinian children?