Israel Matzav

Huckabee's vision

Mike Huckabee was in Israel this past week espousing a very different vision for Israel than what you are used to hearing in the mainstream media.

It's a stark contrast not just to Obama's approach--but decades of U.S. bipartisan policy towards Israel. While most observers have a hard time realizing it, there is not much of a difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency when it comes to the Israeli-Arab peace process. Yes, Obama is more "engaged," more ambitious, more determined, and acting with a greater sense of urgency. He is also more aggressive in his treatment of Israeli feet-dragging. But overall, Obama hasn't changed much when it comes to the strategic goals set by the Clinton and the Bush administrations: two-state solution, Jewish state, Palestinian state, settlements dismantled, right of return denied. If there is a difference, it is mostly temperamental. After all, Bush too was set--at least rhetorically--on the establishment of a Palestinian state in the near future. "We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing, and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008," reads the document produced at Bush's Annapolis Summit.

Shmuel Rosner seems to want to support Huckabee's vision, but can't quite bring himself to do it:

Thus, Huckabee isn't just an alternative to Obama--who was the preacher's primary target in Israel. He may be the first viable presidential hopeful of the last two decades to challenge the fundamental assumptions of America's Israel policy. Is he really a viable candidate? Political observers say he is. Is the alternative he presents viable? It seems radical and out of touch. It is also half-baked: Huckabee is very precise about what should not happen (no evacuation, no limiting of settlements, no Palestinian state in the land of Israel, no division of Jerusalem), but has yet to present a more comprehensive alternative--an actual plan that can work, or at least has some chance of working. On the other hand, Obama has yet to present such a plan either.

What Rosner doesn't get (or maybe he gets but doesn't want to admit) is, there is no 'plan.' There is no plan that can be put forth that says "Israelis here, 'Palestinians' there and now we shall have peace." There are no terms on which Israel can allow the establishment of a 'Palestinian state' within its borders that the 'Palestinians' will accept. We can either accept that reality or continue to deny it and continue to restate the 'two-state solution' platitude, knowing there's not a shot in hell that it's going to happen in your lifetime or mine. What Huckabee's doing is that he's saying, 'let's think outside the box.' If the 'Palestinians' really want a state, they should jump at the idea. And there's so much empty land in the Arab world that if what the 'Palestinians' and the Arab countries really wanted was a state, the Arab countries would give a state to the 'Palestinians.'

But the 'Palestinians' don't want a state and their Arab brothers don't want to give them one. They want to destroy the Jewish state and expel all the infidel Jews from their midst. Huckabee recognizes that. Obama doesn't. Rosner hasn't decided yet.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:59 PM