The new Bibi?
Caroline Glick worries that there is a new Binyamin Netanyahu. ON WEDNESDAY evening, ahead of a dinner at the White House with US President Barack Obama, Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, Netanyahu made a startling statement.Glick understands the implications if Netanyahu has become another Sharon.
He said, "I have been making the case for Israel all my life. But I did not come here to win an argument. I came here to forge a peace. I did not come here to play a blame game where even the winners lose. I came here to achieve a peace that will bring benefits to all."
This statement is worth considering carefully. Does Netanyahu truly believe that by "making the case for Israel" he and others who speak out in defense of Israel have merely been argumentative?
Does he think that defending Israel's rights diminishes the prospects for peace and so those that defend Israel are actually harming it?
Does he believe that in calling the Palestinians out for their brutality, barbarism and hatred of Jews and Israel he and his fellow advocates for Israel have merely been playing a blame game?
Does he think that a peace forged on the basis of ignoring Israel's case will be a viable peace?
If Netanyahu does believe all of these things - and his statement on Wednesday evening indicates he does, then the public should be very worried. Indeed, if this is what the premier believes, then it is just a matter of time before he begins echoing his predecessor Ariel Sharon and tells us that we are too dimwitted to understand him because the world looks different from where he is sitting than from our lowly perches on the ground, in Israel.
IN NETANYAHU'S defense, his speech on Wednesday evening was not simply a repudiation of his life's work on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu seemed to hedge his bets when he said, "We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror. We want to ensure that territory we concede will not be turned into a third Iranian sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel. That is why a defensible peace requires security arrangements that can withstand the test of time and the many challenges that are sure to confront us."Good questions. I warned her about that three years ago.
The problem with this statement is that in light of the free pass he gave Hamas for Tuesday's attack, Netanyahu already conceded this crucial principle. If he believes that the only way for the talks to advance is to stand down in the face of attack rather than aggressively strike back, then Netanyahu has already committed himself to a peace that will create "a new Iranian sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel."
Likewise, if he believes that only by ceasing to make Israel's case can he make progress with his "partner" Abbas, then Netanyahu has already conceded his demand that a peace agreement contain security arrangements that will defend Israel's national rights and other vital interests.
The most distressing aspect of Netanyahu's enthusiastic participation in a process the Israeli public rationally opposes is that it is him doing it. With Netanyahu now joining the ranks of those that attack Israel's defenders as enemies of peace and claim that defending the country is antithetical to peace, who is left to defend us?
The problem with Bibi is that while his heart is in the right place, he's completely pliable. He repeats whatever the last adviser told him. And too often, that's been Ehud Barak.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:15 AM
3 Comments:
I would view this statement very differently. It is a brilliant opening move, in that he can say "we tried this before and it didn't work, what guarantees do I have that it will work this time? More to the point, if it fails, I don't want to be pulled into yet another gambit of land for peace that has failed us so miserably before."
That is, you end any possibility of future bartering of land for peace if, and its widely anticipated that this will happen, the 'palis' pull their standard failure from the jaws of success and attack Israel.
That is, you make the point that this is the end of the conflict and end of the bargaining at the same time. There is no more after this. No future deals will be considered.
Further, you let the people in the room know that you have begun a campaign, already deep in progress, with significant success, that will bring the 'palis' question up in a way as to resolve it, by disbanding the UNRWA, and having the UN Refugee and resettlement group take over. Which is a necessary precondition to either a successful negotiation, or a failed one. The latter, will require resettlement outside 'palestine', the former within 'palestine'.
It is a brilliant opening gambit. If the parties don't want to move there; there is no political way Obama can back out of this, then you can state that negotiations are on ice until the parties are ready.
If they are ready to move, they will. They aren't ready, so this lets Bibi put it on ice. Or the can force Abbas to accept this, and then you know hamas is going to blow it up. Because 'palis' never miss an opportunity to screw themselves badly.
Either way, Israel wins. But it has to be played like this. Obama is more pro-'palis' than Abbas, so locking him into a position that will be impossible for him to back out from is going to be easy. Making it obvious that you are really open to real peace, not some hudna crap, is also easy. Showing that the other side really isn't interested in peace, give it time, they fall all over themselves to outdo each other in their vile jew-hatred and judeocide. Make it clear that this is the end of the process, one way or the other ... that if there is real peace, there is real peace. If the peace is shattered by homocidal maniacs, which we all know it will be, then Israel will no longer participate in a process guaranteed to fail.
Checkmate.
But you have to play it right.
Does anybody remember Livni before she put on tons of make-up? Like all Israeli polititians, she suffers from "Weitzmans Syndrome" or as soon as you get to the top, you make a sharp LEFT turn!
Ordinarily I like much of what Glick has to say. But, I think her fear is getting the best of her on this because she seems to be hearing something in what Netanyahu has said that is so far off the mark from what I understand him to have said. To say that he is not there to cast blame is not the same as somehow obliterating history. It is to say that if we are to negotiate peace, regardless of what we or the Palestinians feel and think casting accusations and blame will hold us back and not move us forward. As a psychologist I can say that in conflict becoming obsessed with blaming the other party is a loser, regardless of who is right and who is wrong when the task is to move forward. Make no mistake I firmly believe that our people have tried far harder than the Arab world to make peace. But regaling them with our view will not contribute to moving forward towards peace. They know how we see things. Caroline should focus on todays real bad guys, Iran and their minions. It is highly significant that Abbas' spokesman responded to the charge by Ahmadinejad that Abbas is not legitmate to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians by saying in effect that having stolen the Iranian election he was in no position to shoot off his mouth. Bringing up past bitterness will not encourage Abbas standing up to Hamas and Iran. Taking care of Iran in no uncertain terms will. Put your energies there Caroline will be helpful, so chill and let Bibi work.
Leonard Schwartzburd, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA
Post a Comment
<< Home