Obama tries to play Israel's nanny
The Obama administration is determined that - like Big Brother - it knows what is best for the State of Israel - our leaders and our electorate be damned. With the President in London bowing down to his Saudi lords, it was left to a 'State Department spokesman' to pick up the pieces of Avigdor Lieberman's first speech as foreign minister. "We're going to be working hard to see what we can do to move the process forward. But we're under no illusions. It's not going to be easy," Reuters quoted US State Department spokesman Robert Wood as saying.But according to Herb Keinon in Thursday morning's JPost, Lieberman isn't rejecting the 'two-state solution.'
Wood explained that the Obama administration is interested in pursuing the two-state solution "because we believe it's in the best interests of all the parties in the region."
"We have to engage constantly and remind the parties of their obligations and to try to set up a framework, a process for getting us toward that goal of a two-state solution," Wood reportedly added.
Wood went on to say that new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is "well aware" of the US position.
What did Lieberman essentially say? He said disengagement was a failure, as was Annapolis, as were all the generous concessions former prime minister Ehud Olmert said he offered the Palestinians over the past two years. Lieberman said none of that moved peace any closer, but rather pushed it all farther away.Well, maybe, except that it was Sharon himself who ended up bringing 'disengagement' to the world. Would Sharon disown 'disengagement' if he were capable of doing so today? Perhaps. Just as Yitzchak Rabin might disown the entire 'Oslo process' today were he capable of doing so.
But he did pledge allegiance to the road map, saying that this is a document that is binding on the government. And what is the official name of the road map? Interestingly enough, it is called "A Performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Lieberman may have trashed Annapolis, but by saying that the road map obligated him, he was at the same time accepting a two-state solution, because that is where the road map leads.
But, again sounding like Sharon, Lieberman said that the road map must be adhered to by the letter, and it must be implemented phase after phase. What this means is that negotiations for a final agreement are to take place at the end of the road map, not at the beginning: not before terrorism is eradicated, not before Palestinian institutions are created, not before the Palestinians show real security capabilities.
Lieberman, in a move that does not seem to have been coordinated with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, ditched the diplomatic framework of the past two years in favor of one adopted by Sharon in 2003.
No surprise, really, considering the identity of two of his key diplomatic advisors: Danny Ayalon, who was Sharon's trusted ambassador to the US, and Dov Weisglass, Sharon's closest diplomatic adviser.
I've said before that in his heart of hearts, I don't believe Binyamin Netanyahu wants to create a 'Palestinian state.' I don't believe Lieberman wants to create one either. And that's exactly why Obama and the State Department are all over them.
What the last 15.5 years of 'peace process' have taught the Americans and everyone else is that making the 'Palestinians' fulfill any kind of obligations means that there won't be a 'Palestinian'
If Israel sticks to a policy is that there's no state until 'Palestinian' terrorism is eradicated - really eradicated - there won't be a 'Palestinian' state. That's why Obama - who has promised all his 'Palestinian' friends that he will bring about the creation of a 'Palestinian' state - is trying to play Nanny and convince Israelis to take their bitter medicine 'for their own good.' Like this:
Israelis elected a government of the Right because we understand that the 'medicine' is almost certainly really poison - even if our friends cannot or will not recognize that fact. We Israelis all recognize that as imperfect as they may be, Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman don't believe (as Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert do) that creating a 'Palestinian' state is a 'vital Israeli interest,' and they won't knowingly sacrifice our security to create one. They'll make sure it's really medicine before they try to force it down our throats. They won't let the nanny- knowingly or unknowingly - make us drink poison.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:34 AM
7 Comments:
Funnily, Israel's biggest right-wing hawks, Begin and Sharon, who gave land to the Arabs in exchange for peace.
I was just reading Caroline Glick's new column this morning and the point she misses is Israel has to step from more than just Annapolis; it has to walk away from yes - the so-called Road Map and its Oslo parent. A sovereign Palestinian state would be a terrorist state. Israel's agreement to its creation would be signing Israel's death warrant. A people that sends and lauds the killers of Jewish children is not fit to join the civilized world. At the end, its really a matter of political will. Right now, the political hurricane force winds raging against the Jewish State makes the task of Israel's leadership to preserve the country's existence an uphill struggle. To stand against a Palestinian state means accepting the heavy price of international isolation. But being lonely and alive is to be preferred to being popular and dead. That is the choice Israel faces in our time.
Russe1,
Begin believed he was buying off the 'Palestinian' problem by giving back the Sinai. He believed that 'autonomy' would perpetuate Israeli control, and he thought it would satisfy the Arab states. (There are those who still want to resolve the issue with the 'Palestinians' through 'autonomy.') Begin turned out to be mistaken (partly because he gave the Egyptians everything in the end instead of compromising on their land demands), but that doesn't detract from his being a right-winger.
Sharon was a closet leftist who sold out Israel's right to keep himself out of jail.
NormanF,
I believe that Glick - like Netanyahu and Lieberman - doesn't believe that we need to rub the Americans' faces in it by walking away from the road map and Oslo because so long as we insist on the conditions being fulfilled, it will never happen. She doesn't look at a 'Palestinian' state as an Israeli goal any more than they do. While it would have been better had Oslo never happened, Glick and Netanyahu believe that once we signed an international agreement, we signed it and we're stuck with it. Lieberman professes to that belief as well, but I'm not sure he grasps it intellectually as much as Glick and Netanyahu do.
I don't buy it, Carl - I think it was the French President Charles De Gaulle who said when national interests change, earlier obligations are not binding. An agreement that jeopardizes your well-being is something that you want to get out of. Perhaps the better lesson there is not to get into anything you're not sure of and Israelis allowed the Oslo euphoria to carry them away and now the country is stuck between a rock and hard place. Perhaps Israel can't do what France did but if you follow Glick's and Bibi's logic, just because Israel entered into a bad deal doesn't mean Israel is obligated by it to commit national suicide. If Israel needs to keep to it for reasons of realpolitik, then the next critical step is to "do no harm." That's the very least Israel's government should do now.
Sharon was never a rightist, but I don't think he was ever in the closet about that. He grew up in Mapai, and he was upset at the establishment - who didn't like his disobedience and didn't promote him to IDF Chief of Staff. His allegiance was always to Mapai, and his "big change" in 2004-05 should not have been such a big surprise.
There are two paths in front of Israel, with two interesting set of consequences that arise from this situation.
First, Israel can succumb to pressure and help create a second 'Palestinian' state.
Second, Israel can stoically insist on adherence to the roadmap, and force all parties to live up to their obligations, allowing no deviation from this path.
Lets talk about the second option initially. This option is the direction that Lieberman is going in. Compel the 'Palestinians' to live up to their obligations. This is with the full understanding that they are generally incapable of doing so ... not due to lack of anything other than will power. Do not allow this agreement to be abrogated, compel them to act towards peace and get rewarded for doing so, or suffer consequences. The arab machismo will prevent them from ever being able to live up to their obligations ... such agreements with arabs are known full well to not be worth the paper they are printed on. Use their agreement as a club to beat them over the head with when they inevitably misbehave. Reward them when they behave.
The two possible outcomes of this are both in Israel's favor. If the 'Palestinians' actually meet their obligations, Israel gets peace. Alternatively, if they don't, and we all know that they simply lack the political will power and courage to do the right thing by their people and meet the obligations, they are stuck in limbo forever, without any cost to Israel. Israel wins in both cases.
Now lets look at that other point. Lets create that 'Palestinian' state. Do it right now. Call gazastan 'palestine' and be done with it. Declare that any projectiles or people coming over the border constitutes an act of war, and that the response will make Cast Lead look like a love tap. Then you wait.
Because you know, again the much vaunted arab machismo, they need to attack you to show how much of a man they are.
Then you destroy them. Completely and utterly. Drive them out of gaza, enmasse. Insist that the UN high commissioner for refugees gets involved, and have them resettled elsewhere.
Again, Israel wins.
The only way for Israel not to win is if it gives up on any of these reasonable directions, and allows itself to be pushed around by "the one". Don't do that. I didn't vote for the current administration, I knew what an epic fail he and his cronies would be, and he is living up to my worst expectations. Israel has, hopefully, less than 3 and 3/4 years of this crap to deal with left. In 18 months new elections will happen which I hope, and will work for, some semblence of balance in power. But Israel must pick a path, and stick with it, and not be pressured. Stick to the path and you win. Deviate, and you lose. Yes, "the one" wants you to lose. The American people however, do not. Do not mistake "the one" to be Israel's friend. He and his administration are obviously not. Almost openly hostile to Israel.
The dispute needs to be aired out with more honesty, that means acknowledging that the Jews of Israel include a large percentage of refugees from countries now dominated by Arabs. Those Jews lost far more land that the entire area of Israel.
This needs to become the standard talking point with the clearly stated objective of resettling all hostile Arabs beyond the fully defensible borders which include the Jordan river and the Golan.
Anything else is a prescription for endless war.
Post a Comment
<< Home