Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 25, 2010, 00:15
Courtesy Of The Online Journal
Benjamin Netanyahu and his ideological ilk are Israel’s worst enemies. They arrogantly tout their nationalist credentials with propaganda, threats and, of course, military force. Their idea of a two-state solution comprises a demilitarised Gaza and West Bank shorn of occupied Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, the Judean Desert and existing Jewish colonies, with no control over its borders, airspace or shoreline.
In other words, their version of Palestine would be a virtual open-air prison unable to defend itself; a toothless shell of a country ringed by Israeli missiles and tanks. Netanyahu is currently paying lip service to the creation of a Palestinian state as a direct result of US pressure, but up until June 2009 he characterised peace talks as a waste of time.
Since the recent fallout between Washington and Tel Aviv over the construction of 1,600 Jewish homes in occupied East Jerusalem, speculation as to whether President Barack Obama backed by the Quartet and the EU will force Netanyahu’s hand is rife. It is true that the Israeli prime minister has agreed to make certain concessions such as “suspending” construction in occupied East Jerusalem along with relaxing the blockade of Gaza. But even if he is forced to resume negotiations, nothing will come of it. A leopard doesn’t change his spots.
In the unlikely event Netanyahu decided to erase some of his own blotches, his right-wing coalition government would collapse. For instance, Yisrael Beitenu headed by Avigdor Lieberman advocates the expulsion of Israel’s Arab citizens and desires the country’s cleansing of non-Jews. Another coalition member, Shas, will not countenance giving up occupied East Jerusalem. With this lot what is there to discuss? Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, has already warned that any attempt by the US to impose peace would be akin to forcing someone “to fall in love.”
The hope is that the Israeli people can be made to see the light. According to the results of an opinion poll published by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot last Friday, if elections were held now the Likud-led coalition would lose to centrist Kadima. Some 64 percent of respondents said the Netanyahu government does “not represent their wishes”; a shift interpreted by the paper as being partly due to the US-Israel spat.
Israelis have been basking in the unconditional approval of the international community for decades, so the recent criticism from just about every quarter must have come as a shock. Some have long been drunk on power and like addicts everywhere an intervention on the part of Israel’s facilitator, the US, was perceived as a show of tough love by some and a display of Obama’s inherent anti-Israel leanings by others.
Wake-Up Call
For many Israelis and their supporters in the US, this very public row has been a wake-up call. There may come a day when Washington and Tel Aviv will no longer be joined at the hip. If America realises that Israel is more of a strategic liability than an asset, that will happen. After all, what use is a Middle East proxy that refuses to do its master’s bidding and, worse, threatens to create a region-wide conflagration by striking Iran?
The seeds of Washington’s disillusionment with its staunchest regional ally began in the summer of 2006 when the mighty Israeli army was embarrassed by a guerilla force in Lebanon. Furthermore, Israel’s Operation Cast Lead that robbed more than 1,400 Palestinian civilians of their lives did nothing to enhance its reputation and led to the Goldstone Report citing Israel as potentially responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Judging from a statement by General David Petraeus, the US understands that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of anti-Americanism and negatively affects US-Arab relationships. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has acknowledged that Israel’s stubbornness makes America appear impotent, while Vice President Joe Biden is quoted as telling Netanyahu, “What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” These coordinated messages signal that the Obama administration is re-evaluating Israel’s usefulness.
Likewise, the Israeli electorate should re-evaluate Netanyahu’s usefulness. He and the other ideological antiques in his cabinet have had their day. They are so soaked in bitterness and suspicion that they can’t get that an equitable two-state solution is just as much in their interest as the Palestinians.’
In return for giving up occupied territory, Israel would receive international security guarantees, fixed borders, normal diplomatic relations with neighbours, an improved economy, and a forever Jewish state impervious to changing demographics. Once welcomed into the regional fold, Israel would no longer have to depend on US goodwill or the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and would not need to fear Iran, Syria or Lebanon. For Israelis (and all others involved), it’s a win-win outcome if only they could remove their blinkers long enough to see it.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email atheardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment