Netanyahu’s and Abbas’ moments of truth
Strenger than Fiction-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..
(While not about the Iran conflict, Strenger’s analysis of the potential solution to the Palestinian conflict posed by the new coalition in Israel is very much worth reading. – JW )
Mofaz’s two-phased plan for peace with the Palestinians could force both Netanyahu and Abbas to make tough, fateful decisions.
Yesterday’s political bombshell, for obvious reasons, has left both citizens and commentators dumbfounded. It has been pointed out thatNetanyahu is now the undisputed king of Israeli politics: basically no single coalition party has any real power over him; each and every one of them now knows that Netanyahu can live without them.
Of course Netanyahu and Mofaz explained why they went for this move only because of the greater good, and of course most Israelis don’t believe them, because the political interests are too clear. After all this is said, and the winners and losers of this development have been named, we should have a dry look at Israel’s new situation: what can we expect, and what are the major decision points of Netanyahu’s new coalition?
Both Israel’s domestic and the international press focus on Iran. Israeli commentators tend to emphasize that the wall-to-wall coalition provides Netanyahu with more bargaining power, whereas the international press hopes that Mofaz brings a more cautious position on military intervention into the government.
To my mind the most interesting factor is one that has been mentioned only rarely: the new coalition agreement’s commitment to resuming negotiations with the Palestinians. As we know from formerShin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin (and many of us thought all along), Netanyahu rather than Abbas refused to negotiate. So far he had little room to do so, as he was at the mercy of his right-wing coalition partners – and he always indicated that this was the reason he made sure nothing happened.
I have never thought that this was the only reason for Netanyahu’s stalling any movement on the Palestinian front: he has never believed that it is in Israel’s interest to allow a viable Palestinian state to emerge. Whatever the truth may be, the excuse that his coalition prevents him from moving ahead on the Palestine front is no longer valid: with Kadima’s 28 MKs in his coalition, Netanyahu no longer depends on either Shas or Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu.
Netanyahu’s new coalition partner Mofaz, for quite some time, has advocated a two-phased peace plan. He proposes to immediately establish a Palestinian state on 60 percent of the West Bank, thus liberating more than 99 percent of Palestinians from Israeli rule. This would create favorable conditions for final status negotiations.
Mofaz’s plan would require dismantling a number of settlement outposts placed in the 60 percent to be ruled by Palestinians. Implementing the Mofaz plan means to put an end to the dream of the greater land of Israel; it would make a Palestinian state a fact, and the question would only be, how the final borders will look.
Hence, in the next eighteen months, Netanyahu’s moment of truth will come: So far Netanyahu’s commitment to the two-state solution in his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech has been nothing but lip-service. He has consistently avoided confrontation with the settlers and with the large faction in his party that continues to believe in the greater land of Israel.
If Mofaz puts his plan on the new government’s table, Netanyahu will either have to make a decisive step towards ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the century old conflict with the Palestinians, or go down in history as the man who destroyed any option for doing so.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the question whether his father’s death will give Netanyahu more freedom to act creatively. I am afraid that this is not the only factor: Netanyahu has a characterological distaste for grand moves. As tactician supreme, he feels safe, and his latest maneuver’s success might strengthen his resolve to continue playing for time without making real decisions. His distaste for risk-taking, no less than his father’s Manichean worldview, will determine the road he will take.
If Netanyahu chooses to move ahead with something like the Mofaz plan, Mahmoud Abbas’ moment of truth for will come, because it will not be easy for him to take this road. Palestinians are afraid that if in any multi-phased process, the intermediary stage of a Palestinian state on 60 percent of the West Bank might turn into the final status. Given that the occupation has been in place for forty five years, these suspicions are more than understandable. As a result, Abbas might opt to refuse cooperation on the basis of the Mofaz plan, and demand that the final status agreement needs to be reached first.
This, I believe, would be a historical mistake. Abbas must realize that Israelis need at least a decade of peace on the Palestinian front to accept the idea that Palestine will reach the 1967 borders, and put Israel’s population centers within striking distance of Katyusha rockets. Mofaz’s plan could provide the physical and political conditions for such a decade of peace; it would make Palestinian lives immeasurably better, while safeguarding Israel’s security.
Establishing a Palestinian state with temporary borders would decisively undermine rejectionists on both sides: it would make clear to Israel’s ideological right that its dream has come to an end. If indeed a new reality on the ground would give Palestinians more freedom and dignity, this would strengthen Abbas: it would show Palestinians that there is a political horizon, and that they have only to loose from endorsing Hamas rejectionist line. This, in turn, would force Hamas within a few years to change its political program, and to accept Israel’s existence.
Abbas should therefore engage with the Mofaz plan if it is put on the table. I am completely aware that this will be very difficult for him: he will be accused by his foes to sell out his people’s interest; he will be called a collaborator with the enemy. He will have to use all his political acumen and the leadership status he achieved during the last years to convince his people that this is the only way of establishing a Palestinian state on the ground, and that, in the long run, Palestinians will only gain from this.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
May 9, 2012 at 12:57 PM
It was never a true will for peace from the palestinian part. They always saw any agreement like an ” udna ” and nothing more. Even Mohamad, the prophet, make ” peace ” with some rival tribes after which, at a moment of his choice, he slaughtered them. And if their greatest man did it, why they should behave different ? Its an issue of mentality, its an issue of tolerance. I never heard about a ” Peace Now ” movement on the arab camp. There is a ” Shalom Ahshav ” movement in Israel , for decades. The Muslim mentality is that by dagger the islam should spread; lucky europeans hardly stopped them at Viena’s gates. The Jews never tried to impose their religion on others by weapons. From the very begining of the young Jewish State, coalitions of muslims tried to finished the new home of too much persecuted jews and those coalitions failed. Today, we see their true faces in Syria, in Egypt, in Levanon; cruel dictators and local terorrists are killing their own people. Is still very much to be said on these issues, but…we are already tired by their crimes, demagogy and lies. One thing they must know : he who rise his sword to kill jews, died by the sword.
May 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Luis, pardon me for my ignorance on this issue, but they were right, Bibi’s Iran policy has completely overshadowed the Palestinians. It’s an oversight that I fully intend to remedy in the fullness of time but whose urgency is necessarily diminished by Tehran.
Please let me know what “udna” means as the net only provided “intoxicating liquor” as a definition, which from context, seems unlikely.
As Mohammed slaughtered the rival tribes, God slaughtered the Egyptians.
The Marx quotation of “religion is the opium of the masses” is in reference to the Catholic Church, but equally well describes the current, ongoing situation whereby illiterate (by design) populations are subjugated via warped eschatologies of al Qur’an by megalomaniacal types who crop up in all walks of life. It’s unfair to blame those in blind dread for their actions/inactions. Methods of crushing independent thought from enquiring minds is not unique to Islam.
Human nature is universal.
Please watch “Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?” by Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) and I’d love to send you a link to an article I found in Tikkun Magazine http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-jihad-question
Another thought occurs, Hezbollah and Hamas should be grateful to Israel for existing otherwise they would be constantly at each other’s throats in a state of perpetual warfare.
Shalom