Love of the Land: A low and dishonest decade

A low and dishonest decade

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
01 January 09

Upon returning from Cairo on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "It's time to move the peace process forward."

The most sympathetic interpretation of Netanyahu's proclamation is that he was engaging in political theater. It was a low and dishonest statement uttered at the end of what has been, in the immortal words of W.H. Auden, "a low and dishonest decade."

Everyone with eyes in their heads knows that there is no chance of making peace with the Palestinians. First of all, the most Israel is willing to give is less than what the Palestinians are willing to accept.

But beyond that, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is controlled by Iran.

For its part, Fatah is not in a position to make peace even if its leaders wished to. Mahmoud Abbas and his deputies know that just as Hamas won the 2006 elections in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Hamas would win elections today. To maintain even a smudge of domestic legitimacy, Fatah's leaders have no choice but to adopt Hamas's rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state.

Clearly, now is not the time "to move the peace process forward."

No less than what it tells us about Netanyahu, his statement is notable for what it tells us about Israel. Our continued willingness to ensnare ourselves in the rhetoric of peace processes demonstrates how little we have progressed in the past decade.

In 1999, Netanyahu was ejected from office by an electorate convinced that he was squandering an historic opportunity for peace between Israel and its neighbors. A majority of Israelis believed that Netanyahu's signature policies of demanding that the Palestinians abide by their commitments to Israel, and maintaining the IDF's security zone in south Lebanon were dooming all hope for peace.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: A low and dishonest decade

Love of the Land: Constructive or Destructive Ambiguity? Unspoken Requirements For “Demilitarized State”

Constructive or Destructive Ambiguity? Unspoken Requirements For “Demilitarized State”

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA Weekly Commentary
24 December 09

“Real demilitarization is not a piece of paper, it’s not an agreement, and it’s not some kind of Security Council resolution, because it is our problem. It is our problem when we evacuate territory, and the territory fills immediately with Iran or their agents or weapons from Iran and also Syria…It has been demonstrated that this is the problem. That almost all the weapons aren’t manufactured inside, they are imported, at least the effective weapons, and they are becoming ever more effective, and thus a true solution to demilitarization is required.

I know what the minimum conditions are for this demilitarization, and when the time comes we will also discuss it.” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressing the Knesset 23 December 2009

“This Palestinian state will be completely demilitarized. It will be allowed to maintain lightly armed police and interior forces to ensure civil order. Israel will continue to control all entries and exits to the Palestinian state, will command its airspace, and not allow it to form alliances with Israel's enemies.”
Speech by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Herzliya Conference, Institute of Policy and Strategy, December 4, 2002

Back in 2002 Prime Minister Sharon spelled out what he believed would be necessary in order to insure that a Palestinian state would indeed remain demilitarized.

Of course, Sharon’s last minute abandonment of the Philadelphi Corridor that separated Gaza from Egypt made a mockery of that critical condition. But Sharon’s notoriously short planning horizon isn’t the focus of this note.

If Ariel Sharon had no problem talking about the arrangements that would be required to guaranty demilitarization, why does Binyamin Netanyahu opt to leave us in the dark?

Here is a suggestion:

(Continue reading)

Love of the Land: Constructive or Destructive Ambiguity? Unspoken Requirements For “Demilitarized State”

Love of the Land: Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin

Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin

Ari Shavit
Haaretz
04 December 09

(Those familiar with Ari Shavit will know which parts to discount, but there is definitely what to take notice of here.)

Benjamin Netanyahu made history twice. The first time was when he adopted the two-state solution in his Bar-Ilan speech, and the second was when he decided last week to freeze settlement construction. The Palestinians dismiss his steps and the Europeans say they're not enough. The skeptics are skeptical and the cynics are cynical. But the truth is that Netanyahu circa 2009 is situating himself to the left of Yitzhak Rabin circa 1995.

Unlike Rabin, Netanyahu now accepts the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state. Unlike Rabin, he is issuing orders prohibiting construction throughout the Jewish West Bank. Netanyahu has crossed the Rubicon, on both ideological and practical levels, and reinvented himself as a centrist.

At the beginning of this decade, Ariel Sharon underwent a similar process, with the road map his equivalent of Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech. The road map expressed his support for the two-state concept, while insisting that essential basic conditions be fulfilled before the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Advertisement
But a short time after accepting the road map, Sharon revealed that its trails led to a dead end. No Palestinians met the basic conditions, no Palestinians were capable of signing a final-status agreement, no Palestinians had the power to implement peace. When the father of the settlements finally came out in favor of dividing the land, it turned out that there were no Palestinian leaders likewise committed to dividing the land.

Thus was the disengagement born. Although Sharon was aware of its flaws, he realized that disengagement was the only plan of action a centrist Israeli leader could advance without a real partner for real peace.

Six years later, Netanyahu has reached the exact same point. He accepts the principle of two states, and receives no response. He suspends construction in the settlements, and is rejected. He courts Mahmoud Abbas, and is disparaged. The son of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's personal secretary wants a historic reconciliation with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are slamming the door. He is offering the Palestinian national movement negotiations over the establishment of a Palestinian nation-state, and has found that there's no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. Zilch. A brick wall.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin

Love of the Land: What's really behind the housing freeze? A plan against Iran - or spinelessness?

What's really behind the housing freeze? A plan against Iran - or spinelessness?

Weekly Commentary by
Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
26 November 2009

There are two possible explanations for the housing construction freeze Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just announced:

The freeze could be Israel's "pound of flesh" to facilitate the launching of a critical operation to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Or the freeze could no more than an attempt to appease the international community in general and the Obama Administration in particular.

I fervently hope that the former is the case.

Then again, I also hoped that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was retreating from the Gaza Strip as part of a secret plan worked out with America to act against Iran rather than a move to get the criminal justice system off of his back.

That apparently wasn't the case.

If the freeze is in fact an attempt to appease the world then Mr. Netanyahu should pack his bags tonight.

Granted, the freeze is considerably less than what the Obama team first demanded. But it only serves to encourage more pressure for Israeli concessions in the future.

And the world's appetite for Israeli concessions is insatiable.

Love of the Land: What's really behind the housing freeze? A plan against Iran - or spinelessness?

Love of the Land: Dov Weisglass demonstrates profound misunderstanding of Roadmap in interview

Dov Weisglass demonstrates profound misunderstanding of Roadmap in interview

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
10 November 09

Attorney Dov Weisglass , Former Chief of Staff to PM Sharon, who played a pivotal role as his key contact with Washington, showed a profound misunderstanding of the terms of the Roadmap in a live interview broadcast this morning on Israel Radio during the 8:00-8:30 segment.

In response to a question about MK Shaul Mofaz's "peace proposal", Weisglass claimed that a sovereign Palestinian state would be created under Phase II of the Roadmap approved by the Government of Israel.

Attorney Weisglass declined to note that this was an "option" in the Roadmap rather than a requirement.

"Phase II: Transition -- June 2003-December 2003

In the second phase, efforts are focused on the option of creating an
independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of
sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent
status settlement. ..."

A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The U.S. State Department
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
April 30, 2003
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/A+Performance-Based+Roadmap+to+a+Permanent+Two-Sta.htm

It should be noted that Dov Weisglass is an attorney - a profession in which performance hinges on paying strict attention to the both the wording of relevant texts but also the words the attorney himself employs. Attorney Wiesglass also suggested that the Netanyahu Administration should accept the massive concessions offered by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, asa "general path" according to which Israel would resume negotiations withthe PA.

Love of the Land: Dov Weisglass demonstrates profound misunderstanding of Roadmap in interview