Obama, Netanyahu and a Palestinian State
|
Tomorrow’s newspapers will carry stories of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Barack Obama. The same stories will report an apparent rift between the two leaders. In short, Obama strongly backed the need to establish a Palestinian state. Netanyahu refused to say the same thing. People might ask, if international opinion is in favour of establishing a Palestinian state, and if the last three Israeli prime ministers likewise supported such an outcome, why is Netanyahu being so stubborn? The answer comes from studying recent history. Netanyahu thinks that if Israel gives the Palestinians something they want, such as land, the Palestinians should give Israel something Israelis want, such as peace. It’s how he understands the land for peace framework. Netanyahu saw that in the first few years of the peace process Israelis handed over lots of land, but got an increase — not decrease — in terrorism. So when he became prime minister in ‘96, he put the brakes on the peace process. He made it clear — Palestinians would get no more land ‘til Israelis got some peace. The peace didn’t come; the process stopped. After his ‘99 election loss, he saw how Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and how rockets increased after that withdrawal. A decade later, Netanyahu’s hands are once again guiding the Israeli ship of state. He’ll be damned if he’ll give the Palestinians statehood unless and until they are willing and able to run such a state and not use it as a garrison from which to stage attacks on Israel. So, what’s he doing about it? He’s continuing the program championed by Quartet envoy Tony Blair, to have an American general in the Palestinian Authority (PA) properly train Palestinian security services. The program has been a huge success, with law and order restored to a handful of Palestinian cities and more forces on the way. He also believes endemic Palestinian corruption must end if Palestine is to be viable. The international community is in a prime position to help, by ensuring (not just demanding) that aid given to the Palestinians is accountable, and dependent on the PA ending anti-Israel incitement. Fatah runs the West Bank and is the party with which the world deals. It’s also highly corrupt, incompetent and unpopular. This will only end if internal reform takes place. The biggest reason Hamas won so many votes in the 2006 election is because of Fatah corruption, followed by the fact it is credited with kicking the Jews out of Gaza (although this image was dented when Hamas essentially failed to turn up during Israel’s operation in January). But don’t think Netanyahu is simply washing his hands, saying, “it’s up to American police trainers/international funders/Fatah anti-corruption polices, otherwise all would be good.” He knows Israeli checkpoints, designed to stop terrorists, also limit free movement and trade. Part of helping a struggling PA get off its knees is helping the Palestinian economy do the same thing. That’s why checkpoints are being slowly, carefully, lifted. Combined with the newly trained Palestinian police, there is a slow, careful change in Palestinian governance and economy. Netanyahu isn’t what you’d call a peacenik. But he is a pragmatist. He sees the Israeli control of Palestinians as a millstone around his country’s collective neck. He wants it to end, but he knows if it ends without foundational planning, the result will be more poverty and more deaths (on both sides), with peace further away and harder to reach. History has proved this to be the case. Twice. The most important issue vis-à-vis the Palestinians is that the West Bank does not become Gaza. If Israel were to pull out of the West Bank tomorrow, rockets would follow. Unlike Gaza, which is on Israel’s periphery, the West Bank embraces Israel’s industrial and civilian heartland. Rockets from the West Bank would shut down Israel’s economy and bring about a massive military response. No one, except Hamas, wants that. Netanyahu is putting the building blocks in place so a viable Palestinian state can one day emerge. When it finally does, history will likely judge Netanyahu’s second term as a key part of that journey. Bren Carlill is a policy analyst with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council |
|
|
|
17 Comments
Perhaps it appears in the email version, but a bit of background on the author would be helpful.
This is *your* job Crikey!
Bren Carlill is a writer and policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4299
Thanks Paddy, it was in the email. Apologies for not carrying it through to the website. That’s remedied now. Jane
Remind me again whose land it is that Netanyahu may or may not give back.
Of far more interest was the joint communique issued by the Israeli PM and Obama regarding Iran. That’s where the main game is for them, and the rest of the world. Iran is working steadily and relentlessly towards nuclear proficiency and then it’ll be “game on” in the most apocalyptic sense. Hezbollah and Hamas will be straining at the leash.
Obama stated he would give Iran until the end of the year. I dont think Israel can afford to be so accomodating.
Nice piece of alarmist specualtion J. James. I think that there is not much that the US can do in the long run to prevent Iran becoming nuclear armed. We saw the same thing happen with Pakiastan and India, along with similar apocalyptic predictions. However, as always, the aquiring country had no intention of actually using the weapons. They are simply a necessary aquisition of a nation is to gain a place at certain international fora or at least to have their POV considered at those fora. I for one would prefer it if nations such as Israel, Pakistan etc didn’t have these weapons but it would appear to be a fait acompli. Israel, “suck it up” as they say.
Patrick, I can’t claim to read the Israeli’s mind, but if the leadership of Iran inform another sovereign nation, Israel, that the best thing to happen is that Israel is annihilated,I just don’t think they’re going to ” suck it up”.
I wouldn’t! Strike, and strike hard, would be my advice.
Short comment - Yigal Amir, and the racist ‘settler’ movement.
Longer comment -
Actually, I suspect an ‘Iranian no-nukes trade for brand new Palestinian State’ proposition being paraded around the Middle East.
Could Ahmadinejad find himself wedged on his own tub thumping over Palestine and nuclear aspirations in the lead up to the next Iranian election?
Both outcomes, Iran delivering a Palestinian State in return for promising to avoid nuclear weapons armament, would be a blessed contribution to global peace, and a slam dunk for a Nobel Peace Prize.
You can tell this is a biased analysis (this is even before I read that Ben Carlile works for the Jewish Affairs Council) because there is not a single mention of SETTLEMENT expansion.
John James: why are we surprised you’re peddling that well worn misinformation that the current Iran leadership have called for the modern State of Israel to be wiped off the map.
I suggest you cite the source for your claim…or shut up once & for all on this point.
My research shows it didn’t happen… [Crikey has edited this post to remove comments of a personal nature]
“if Israel gives the Palestinians something they want, such as land”. Give them land! Huh?
“Netanyahu is putting the building blocks in place so a viable Palestinian state can one day emerge.”
What planet are AIJAC living on? Or what planet do thay think we are living on? Do they still think they are the official gatekeepers on the Israel/Palestine situation?
How is Netanyahu putting place any Palestinian state when his own party’s official policy is to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state at all costs?
The only building blocks in place are the concrete slabs that are used to manufacture that blasted apartheid wall.
“The biggest reason Hamas won so many votes in the 2006 election is because of Fatah corruption, followed by the fact it is credited with kicking the Jews out of Gaza (although this image was dented when Hamas essentially failed to turn up during Israel’s operation in January).”
So the Palestinians voted for HAMAS because Palestinians are all inherently racist. Presumably using that logic, Israelis are equally racist. After all, how many votes did Israel’s foreign minister obtain?
Irael’s right to exist exists only in the limits imposed by the UN in ‘48. It doesn’t have any rights to the land invaded since and delineated by their great wall of hate. Given the Apocalyptic debacles of the world’s most powerful nations in Iraq and Afghanistan only an idiot could envisage an invasion of Iran. An aerial assault would simply strengthen their elected president’s position and risk a war of WMDs as Iran appears to have the ability to deliver chemical weaponry. Israel’s retaliation would drag in other Arab nations. It’s time the West forced Israel to hand back land accept a peaceful resolution to the Middle east.
A little history Christophertyne: Israel occupies land as a result of having been attacked by Jordan in 1967. There can be no question of invasion in a defensive war. It is a contradiction. And in the years that followed, the West Bank would have been handed back if there had been an assurance that it would not happen again. This has not been forthcoming.
Sam Sharp:
You say “And in the years that followed, the West Bank would have been handed back if there had been an assurance that it would not happen again. This has not been forthcoming.”
On what actual facts e.g statements by whom, when etc, do you base your claim that the West Bank would have been handed back?
Actually Sam Sharp, a little history IS in order. The 1967 war was started by Irael using that old and now discredited canard, pre-emption. By attacking Egypt Israel knew Jordan would, through her alliance, be dragged in. A war which increases one’s boundaries can hardly be called defensive. In fact Israel is the most belligerent nation in the Middle East, invading it’s neighbours kinda like , ahem, Saddam (except Israel did have links to terrorist organisations and WMDs)! Given that the two-state solution is nothing but a mirage to relieve pressure from it’s critics, the most equitable solution (short of giving the Palestinians their land back) would be a confederation of the original partitioned British mandate using the Australian federation as a basis.
No Chris. The preemption was in response to Nasser’s expulsion of the United Nations’ peace keeping troops, his closure of the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and the buildup of the Egyptian army on the border with the clear intention to attack. There is no question of who the aggressor was in that war. You imply that Israel risked a war with the most powerful Arab nation in order to draw Jordan into the hostilities so that the West Bank could be occupied. This is preposterous. It was widely reported at the time that the Israeli Government begged King Hussein not to join the war. He could not resist the temptation, given the probability of the Arabs being successful. I am not a supporter of many of the policies and actions of successive Israeli governments, but we should keep a historical perspective of how we arrived at this mess.
Sam it all sounds so familiar. Nasser threatened Israel, like Saddam threatened the US! Every intelligence agency in the world told us that. Kofi Anan, Mohammed el Barradai and Hans Blix weren’t fooled though. I agree we need to keep a historical perspective, whose land is it?