Jonathan Tobin
The New York Times returns to one of its favorite hobbyhorses today when it again attempts to shift the blame for the current impasse in the Middle East to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Times editorial, titled “Squandering the Moment,” starts off with the astonishing assertion that the current situation is “the best chance for Middle East peace in nearly a decade.” The piece backs up that dubious premise by saying, “President Obama is committed to serious negotiations and, for now, there is a lull in regional violence.”
But this is, of course, nonsense. There have been lulls before, even during the last violent decade that was marked by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli cities and rocket fire on its southern towns and villages. And though the Times’s editorialists have adopted the self-congratulatory stance of the president and his acolytes, Obama is no more committed to the idea of Middle East peace than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush was. Though liberals are loath to give any credit to the latter, it should be remembered that it was he who first proclaimed America’s support for the concept of a Palestinian state in peaceful coexistence with Israel, though it should be noted that in making that concession, he was no more or less successful than any other American leader in getting the Palestinians to buy into the notion that they could acquire sovereignty in exchange for recognizing the legitimacy of their Israeli neighbors.
And that not inconsiderable point is the crux of the fallacy that forms the basis of not only the Times editorial but also the policies of the Obama administration. The focus on Jewish settlements has served to divert the world’s attention from this fact, but Palestinian rejectionism remains the key issue, as has been proved over and again since Yasir Arafat rejected a state in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem in July 2000. Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas repeated this performance when Ehud Olmert desperately tried last year to make peace. Indeed, the “moderate” Abbas made it clear in interviews with the Western press this year that he wasn’t even inclined to talk to Israel. As Israel has demonstrated time and again, anytime there is an actual partner for peace, the existence of settlements in disputed territories is no impediment to Israeli concessions.
The failure of Obama to cajole America’s Arab allies into even the tamest of confidence-building measures toward Israel stems from the same problem that has little to do with anything Netanyahu does or does not do. The result of several generations of fomenting hate against Israel and Jews in Palestinian society as well as in the wider Arab and Islamic world means that the constituency for peace there is virtually nonexistent.
An understanding of this dismal reality underpins the widespread support within Israel for Netanyahu’s attempt to stand up to Obama while still stating Israel’s willingness to make peace in the unlikely event that the Palestinians change their tune. Unlike American Jews, the majority of whose understanding of the situation is filtered through their partisan loyalties to the Democrats, wishful thinking about the peace process, and an unwillingness to confront the facts about the Palestinians, the vast majority of Israelis have given up their illusions about peace. So when the Times encourages Obama to “prod Mr. Netanyahu toward bolder action by making a direct—and better—case to a skeptical Israeli public on why a settlement freeze and reviving peace talks is in its interest,” it is not only overestimating Obama’s considerable rhetorical powers but also asking Israelis to ignore the inconvenient facts about the Palestinian political culture, which views any recognition of the Jewish state as unacceptable. Whatever their opinions about the value or the wisdom of some settlements might be, the majority of Israelis understand that the argument about a freeze on building in Jerusalem and the areas surrounding it has little to do with the actual prospects for peace. That is why in Israel, Obama is the most unpopular American president in recent memory.
The summit that Obama will host at the meeting of the United Nations this month will lead, as have past attempts by more skillful diplomats than the president, to nothing—simply because a Palestinian people divided between Fatah and Hamas are constitutionally incapable of recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state under any circumstances or within any borders. The idea that the presence of Barack Obama in the White House renders this a “moment” that holds an opportunity for peace is nothing but hubris on the part of the president and hero worship on the part of his followers.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment