To the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, the crisis between Israel and the United States was a necessary fight, that put Israel in its place.
Jerusalem is the hardest issue of all in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, and for that reason, would-be peacemakers have wanted to save it for last. But this month’s crisis makes that strategic waffling impossible. Thanks to the Israeli right, the Jerusalem issue is joined.
What’s needed now is for Obama to announce that when negotiations begin, the United States will state its views about Jerusalem and other key issues — sketching the outlines of the deal that most Israelis and Palestinians want. If Netanyahu refuses to play, then we have a real crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
The short Ignatius: The main impediment to peace in the Middle East is Israel (or at least Israel’s so called “right wing” government and the United States must dictate the terms of Israel’s surrender to the Palestinians for there to be peace.
Jackson Diehl, though, has a somewhat fuller understanding of what’s going on. It’s not just Israel – though I think he assigns too much fault to Israel – but Israel’s partner too:
Behind Obama’s deliberate fight with Netanyahu last week seemed to lie a calculation that a peace settlement will require the United States to bend or break Israel’s current government. That might be true; it’s almost certainly the case that Netanyahu would not accept the terms that Olmert offered. But behind that obstacle lies another — the recalcitrance of Abbas — that the new administration has been slow to recognize. It’s all there in the annals of Rice’s diplomacy — but then, that was the Bush administration.
Diehl suggests that Netanyahu’s refusal to as far as Olmert is a problem. I can’t agree. But he’s correct. Abbas (and Arafat before him) refused deal(s) that would have ended the occupaton. But the Palestinians continue to refuse to reach a settlement with Israel. The Obama administration only strengthened their resolve and contrary to Ignatius, made peace even more distant.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
kudos, ms yourish. great post. love reading the blog.
as to the top at at hand.
for the muslim world the existence of Israel is an existential crisis. until they can come to terms with jewish sovereignty, they will never make a real peace.
for the West, the existence of Israel causes a different reaction. I mean for over 1500 years, the Jews were the convenient other. They were handy to have around to release societal pressures. In short Jews could be pushed around. Nations in the West got used to that.
I mean look at Western attitudes right up to the Shoah. The Allies would hold conferences(eg at Evian) with the question being “What to do about the Jews?” And the answer was always nothing.
But now there is a independent Jewish state. Not only an independent state but a powerful, very successful state.
But attitudes, particularly noticeable amongst the European governing elite, haven’t changed. They still think that Jews can be pushed around. They still think that Jews can be given dictats or be told we knows what’s good for you and they expect Jews to accept what they say… just like Jews always have.
And so when Israel says ‘bugger off’ the attitude is one of astonishment. For many that astonishment turns into the anti semitism of “God damn those uppity Jews.”
One man’s opinion. :)