Israel Matzav

Desparation?

I don't normally feel obligated to post everything (or anything) Haaretz's Aluf Benn writes. But in this case, reader Racquel R did such a good job of fisking him that the post writes itself:

Dear Tom,

I want to thank you for sending this, because it shows the fallacies of the so-called left.

Secondly, let me show where the article flat out lies.

When he regained the prime minister's post, he discarded his predecessor's peace proposals and refused to discuss "core issues" with the Palestinians.

This is a LIE. I know for a FACT that Bibi did not "discard" his predecessor's revolting 'peace' (i.e., surrender) proposal. By disgusting, I mean that Olmert offered to not only divide Jerusalem, he offered to give up the Temple Mount, including the Kotel, and have a limited 'right of return.' Of course, Abbas did not accept this deal because he does not want a state. He just wants to retain his mafioso quasi-government and stay alive.

Now that said, while Olmert's deal was basically a surrender deal, it was Abbas who discarded all peace talks. When Obama took office, he decided to offer the 'Palestinians' far more than they were expecting (including essentially saying that all areas east of the "green line" were illegitimate), and so Abbas refused to even bargain! Moreover, he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state or give security assurances. So in short, he offered nothing. To blame this on Bibi - despite the fact that it was Abbas who reneged on everything, is absurd.

But let me go on to prove how misleading Aluf Benn really can be.

The new Israeli peace initiative presented by leading figures in the business and academic communities undermines the central foundation of the Netanyahu-Barak government, which is that there is no Palestinian partner. The prime minister's popularity is damaged when he is occupied with explaining his lavish travels around the world. It is increasingly reminiscent of Ariel Sharon's forlorn autumn that led him to the disengagement policy.

What "new Israeli peace initiative"? What "business and academic communities"? He doesn't even explain what this is, who has put this forward, or whether the public at large accepts or even knows about this. And yes, Israel is unpopular abroad. But he does not explain why that is not the fault of anti-Israel lies in the "mainstream media" of "Western" countries, as well as antisemitism, rather than Bibi. The "international community" has hated and isolated Israel for quite some time. None of what we see here is new or specific to Bibi. The "Goldstone Report" was commissioned when Olmert was in charge. And need I remind you of the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution?

The prime minister is considering throwing the governments of the West a bone in the form of the transfer of territory in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority without harming the settlements. In return, the Americans and Europeans will ease their pressure on Israel and refrain from recognizing a Palestinian state, and will convene an international conference where Netanyahu will be presented as a statesman and peacemaker rather than as a stubborn politician.

The amount of anti-Israel incitement (and particularly anti-Bibi incitement) in the "West" has reached such a fevered pitch, that it is far more likely that if you give a finger, they expect a hand. If Bibi thinks that conceding to the "West" and "international community" will prevent further action by the so-called "international community," then he is sadly mistaken.

The party of the disengagement, Kadima, will be forced to support Netanyahu in his concessions. Its support will neutralize the growing threat of early elections against the backdrop of the expected indictment of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman [Lieberman was indicted on Wednesday CiJ]. The left will praise Netanyahu, the investigation over his trips abroad will be shelved, and the right wing will criticize him but swallow the withdrawal out of concern over falling from power.

To that I say...maybe? But so what? Does this prove that if Bibi decides to give up land for nothing that he will be acting in Israel's interests? No. So much for his "statesmanship" if he surrenders.

It sounds perfect, but there's a problem here. Netanyahu's new policy is not rational. If the territories are important for Israel, as he has argued up to now, why give them up for a deferral of a U.N. vote or for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama? And if the territories are not important, why hold on to them? If Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is refusing to negotiate and the PA has engaged in incitement, as Netanyahu has argued, how can they be given more territory? And most importantly, let's assume Netanyahu gets through September and buys the deferral of a UN vote with a few thousand dunams of land. What will he do in October?

The world will not abandon its aspiration for an end to the occupation and independence for the Palestinians, and the pressure on Israel will continue.

There is no reason to carry out a miserly withdrawal without a quid pro quo just to buy more time.

Wow, this I agree with Aluf Benn about.

There is a logic in a unilateral process that creates fundamental change on the ground and ultimately establishes a new border, such as was done in Gaza. The public will understand and the world will support a major withdrawal that includes the evacuation of dozens of settlements and heralds the end of the occupation while maintaining military control over the Jordan Valley. But such a decision requires courage and political ability on Sharon's level, and it is not enough to be a good speechwriter.

I don't know that the Israeli public would support this necessarily. [It would not. CiJ] And he hasn't proven that it is good for Israel, or would lead to increased safety and security for Israel. The "West Bank" is not the same as Gaza, and it is much closer to big Israeli population centers. Plus, much of it is the high ground. We see how well "disengagement" worked out for Gaza, and so why exactly would it work out for the "West Bank"? Aluf Benn has not shown one scintilla of evidence to explain how this could work. Thus, he has not shown where this action would be "courageous," rather than an action of capitulation to the "international community," which would still demand more, anyway.

Well done, Racquel.

Labels: Aluf Benn, Binyamin Netanyahu, unilateral concessions, unilateral withdrawal

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:32 AM