After Hamas won legislative elections three years ago, the Washington Post reported:
“The hope is that there is a government that is really committed to peace with Israel,” said one senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing another country’s politics. Even if Hamas prevails, the official added somewhat hopefully, “they’ve grown over the years. Getting back to the talks with Israel is really the only solution.”
Actually, with a few strategic changes that’s what the Washington Post reported about the results of the Israeli election yesterday, In Israeli vote results, a setback for Obama.
While the centrist Kadima party appeared to eke out a victory, the right-wing Likud party more than doubled its seats and an ultra-nationalist party made big gains, increasing the prospect that a government uninterested in peace talks will emerge from the post-election efforts to form a governing coalition. Even if Tzipi Livni, the head of Kadima who has vowed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, manages to cobble together a coalition after weeks of negotiations, many experts predict she will be hamstrung by her coalition partners.
“You are going to have a very wobbly, dysfunctional, survival-minded coalition in Israel,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator.
Daniel Levy is currently a left-wing activist. His role with J-Street should have been mentioned, instead of presenting him as some sort of expert.
Well yes perhaps Netanyahu is less interested in peace talks than Livni would be, but is that the result of being “right-wing” as the reporters suggest, or a reasonable approach given history? Netanyahu’s successor, Ehud Barak, tried to negotiate a final status agreement with Arafat and got terror in return. Barak withdrew Israel from southern Lebanon and that led to the strengthening of Hezbollah. Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza and that led to the strengthening of Hamas. “Peace” moves have a record of backfiring.
Administration officials said yesterday they would not comment pending official returns, but many key players have long and difficult memories of dealing with the Binyamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. It is no secret that U.S. officials would prefer to deal with Livni, who as foreign minister spearheaded unsuccessful talks with the Palestinians in the waning days of the Bush administration.
Well, yes the Clinton administration retreads who are part of the current “hope and change” administration might have long memories. But Netanyahu, for all of the scorn heaped on him, did maintain the peace process. He might have done it reluctantly, but he did keep it alive.
“The hope is that there is a government that is really committed to peace with the Palestinians,” said one senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing another country’s politics. Even if Netanyahu prevails, the official added somewhat hopefully, “he’s grown over the years. Getting back to the talks with the Palestinians is really the only solution.”
Just a reminder, one of the hallmark’s of the Clinton administration (and the Bush 41 administration) was the regular willingness of anonymous “senior administration official’s” to go on record criticizing Netanyahu. There wasn’t as much of that with the administration of Bush 43.
But Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator, offered this succinct appraisal of the election result: “This is like hanging a ‘closed for the season’ sign on any peacemaking for the next year or so.”
Miller said even a broad unity government — one possible outcome — would be unable to agree on peace moves but could reach quick consensus on military strikes against Hamas or Hezbollah, such as the recent invasion of Gaza. “You may get a government good at war-making, not peacemaking,” he said. “It’s really going to create a major headache for the administration.”
This is a great soundbite. Except Miller, it should be remembered, is a Clinton administration official, who was not recycled. It also should be remembered that his critique of American policy is that the United State too often acted as “Israel’s lawyer,” It’s an odd charge coming from someone who was part of an administration that welcomed an unreformed Yasser Arafat to the White House more than any other world leader but openly showed contempt to Israel’s duly elected leader, when Netanyahu was PM.
But the problem with Miller’s soundbite is that there is little “peacemaking” Israel really can do. The main obstacle to peace is the Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy. The problem with concessions of land is that they’re irreversible, so it is reasonable – not the result of weakness – that any Israeli government approach concessions carefully. And when a nation is threatened, it ought to respond. Even at that, it took Israel years to respond forcefully to the Qassams from Gaza. Like I said, Miller’s soundbite is great – especially if you view Israel as the main obstacle to peace – however, it’s divorced from reality.
Netanyahu was critical of the U.S.-backed Annapolis talks last year, and on the campaign trail he expressed deep skepticism that any agreement could be reached.
He has vowed not to divide Jerusalem, in which Palestinians want to establish their capital, and not to return the Golan Heights to Syria. He has also warned of the danger Israel would face if it gave up the West Bank, saying that Palestinians could use the territory to fire rockets at Ben-Gurion Airport.
Still, Netanyahu has deep connections to the United States, and few in Israel expect him to do anything that would jeopardize American support. With U.S. mediation, Netanyahu agreed during his tenure as prime minister to a peace deal under which Palestinians received partial control over the West Bank city of Hebron. Analysts say he could be susceptible to U.S. pressure.
Actually, the PA got control of most of Hebron. And while Netanyahu’s warning about ceding more of Judea and Samaria is presented as campaign rhetoric, surely the Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza show that this fear has a real basis.
That line about analysts, seem to be less an observation than a suggestion. Perhaps it’s even coming from that “senior administration official.”
Peace isn’t simply about negotations and concessions. The past 15 years also show that ill-conceived concessions lead to more violence. Netanyahu, if he is able to form the next Israeli government, will have to convey the risks involved to the American administration effectively. It’s already clear that a whispering campaign against Netanyahu is starting with the Washington Post playing a willing role in conveying the administration’s dissatisfaction with the Israeli electorate.
And how did the Washington Post report the (anticipated) Hamas victory in 2006?
The administration must also hold together its allies in the peace process, particularly the European Union. Last late year, the sponsors of the “road map” peace plan, known as the Quartet, issued a statement saying that “a future Palestinian Authority cabinet should include no member who has not committed to the principles of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism.”
But that statement was not categorical, and some European officials have indicated in recent days that instead of the black-and-white view expressed by the United States, perhaps Hamas needed greater encouragement to make a break with its past, much like the Irish Republican Army. One U.S. official sighed that the European Union was like the “International House of Pancakes — there are a ton of waffles there.”
Despite that last comment from a sensible American official, the implicit view of the Post was that the United States (and Israel) would have to deal with Hamas.
So when Palestinians elect terrorists, the world is expected to respect the results, but when Israelis vote, well their leaders better get with the (American) program. Ain’t democracy great?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
