Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 6, 2009, 00:15
Courtesy Of The Online Journal
Israel’s new government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is not only pushing for a military confrontation with Iran, it is indicating there will be no progress toward a Palestinian state until the Iranian nuclear issue is resolved.
Israel’s controversial right-wing Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann told the New York Times that the problem doesn’t center on occupation, settlements or even the Palestinians themselves. Instead, it’s all the fault of the “Iranians,” he said. This is, quite frankly, laughable. Concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions only came to the fore during recent years, so, if peace solely hangs on solving this, then why haven’t we seen the establishment of a Palestinian state decades ago?
In reality, Israel’s new leadership is desperate to shift the blame for its own reluctance to deliver land for peace and is linking Iran as a form of leverage. Translated, it’s saying, “You help us defang Iran and we’ll cooperate with your plans for Palestine.” Even if we woke up tomorrow to find that Iran had magically disappeared into the mists of time, Netanyahu and his cohorts would still wriggle out of negotiations toward a two-state solution.
Judging by previous statements by the Israeli prime minister and his foreign minister, it’s perfectly evident that neither has the slightest interest in any peace process.
Netanyahu, for instance, doesn’t really care what happens to the Palestinians as long as they don’t have the power to threaten Israel’s security and he doesn’t have to relinquish land. On the contrary, he wants Israel to maintain at least 50 percent of the West Bank as part of any deal and control over Palestine’s coastline, airspace and land borders. His paradigm for peace is based on a restricted sovereignty model outlined by the former director of the Policy Planning Staff at the US Department of State, Stephen D. Krasner.
Krasner believes that “the problems preventing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relate not to population, size or geography, but to the political interests of key actors.” He says “regardless of the demarcation of borders, Israel will reject any agreement that does not allow for Israeli or third-party authority over security operations inside Palestine. A recognized Palestinian state would, thus, not enjoy complete autonomy.” Precedents already exist for such security arrangements, Krasner says, citing France’s responsibility for Monaco’s defense, the joint responsibility of France and Spain over Andorra and US authority over the defense of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
However, there is a serious flaw in his argument. France and Monaco aren’t in a position of daggers drawn and the same goes for his other examples. What nation in the world would support a longtime sworn enemy being in charge of its security? Would Pakistan, embrace India’s military protection? Would Japan welcome North Korean security guarantees? Of course not! Putting Israelis in charge of Palestinian security is just as ridiculous.
Netanyahu is expected to meet with President Obama in Washington on May 18 when he will unveil his policy. However, he isn’t expected to adamantly reject a two-state solution, which would put a damper on US-Israel relations. Instead, he is likely to beat around the bush by indicating general support for a Palestinian state in some far, far distant future.
He will huff, puff and fluff and hope that he gets away with pulling the wool over Obama’s eyes. Hopefully, America’s new commander in chief isn’t naïve enough to be taken in by Bibi’s smarmy fake charm and silken American accent. It’s likely, too, that he will attempt to persuade Obama that the interests of Arab states are akin to Israel when it comes to Tehran.
On Sunday, Israel’s former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who heads the Kadima party, told AIPAC delegates that “on the issue of Iran, there is no opposition party in Israel” adding, “the threat from Iran has created new possibilities for alliances between Israel and the pragmatic states in the region.” While it is certainly true that some Arab states are concerned at Iran’s growing influence and military capabilities, there are none that would welcome a new regional war. It is a pity that the so-called “moderate” Arabs are in no mood to set aside differences with Iran, as were they to be on the same page, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
A poll conducted by the Anti-Defamation League and sponsored by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, has found that 66 percent of Jewish Israelis support military action aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, 19 percent were on the sidelines, while only 15 percent were against. And by all accounts, both Netanyahu and Liebermann are chomping at the bit waiting for a green light from Washington. Those of us who are sick of Israeli-engendered conflict and bloodshed can only pray that President Obama is savvy enough to recognize Israel’s weasel words, obfuscations, plastic carrots and empty promises for what they really are.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment