Israel Sues for Peace
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Jerusalem Post, Yated Ne'eman
August 9, 2013
We can safely stipulate that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not happily agree to release 104 savage Palestinian murderers as the prize for Palestinian agreement to once again sit at the negotiating table. In so doing, he damaged not just his political standing, but whatever remains of his moral authority and reputation for strategic thinking.
Not too many readers outside of Israel will be exposed to a full catalogue of the deeds perpetrated by those to be released. But Israelis were, and they were revolted.
Over the years, Netanyahu has often adopted the role of Churchill hectoring the nations of the world about the futility of attempting to appease terrorists or of giving in to their demands. He has now lost whatever standing he might have once possessed to do so.
No concessions were sought or offered by the Palestinians as a price for entering negotiations. Only Israel is expected to cough up pre-negotiation concessions, as it did during President Obama's first term by twice agreeing to settlement construction freezes in order to jump start negotiations.
The result of this imbalance is to turn Israel into the desperate party, which cannot possibly contemplate a continuation of the status quo and must therefore seek some form of peace at all costs. And it reinforces the Palestinian belief that no matter how bad the present seems, time is on their side.
Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel is today a world leading incubator of new technologies and ideas, and by far the dominant military power in the region. It is poised to become a major energy provider. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are going nowhere. Were they not the largest recipient of alms from the international community in history, they could barely survive a day or two. None of the institutions of a viable government have developed under Abbas, who is now in the ninth year of his four-year presidential term.
Worse, Netanyahu knows full well that nothing will come from the present negotiations – certainly nothing good for Israel. Without Israeli troops on the high ground overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport and the densely populated coastal plain, the country is indefensible. The same is true for the Jordan Rift Valley and the mountain range overlooking, without which Israel's eastern border would be an open invitation to potential attack. Yet no present Palestinian leader could contemplate agreeing to such an Israeli permanent presence. Abbas just recently set forth his demand that all territory beyond the 1948 armistice lines be Judenrein.
The first baby steps towards peace have yet to be taken by the Palestinian leadership in terms of educating the Palestinian people about the benefits of peace or the costs of its attainment. Without an end to the constant incitement against Jews and Israel, the soil for peace remains untilled.
On the eve of renewed talks in Washington D.C., the PA's Minister of Religious Affairs likened any agreements signed by the PA to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The reference to Muhammad's unilateral abrogation of a 10-year truce with the Quraish tribe of Mecca and his subsequent conquest of Mecca two years after signing the truce would have been instantly understood by all Arabic-speaking listeners. Remarkably, that sermon was delivered in the presence of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas. In short, even if the PA enters into a peace accord with Israel, it has no intention of permanently ending hostilities.
The time-worn approach of coddling the Palestinians as the weaker party, who must be showered with gifts and concessions just for participating in negotiations – an approach to which Netanyahu has now made himself fully complicit – is counter-indicated if the achievement of a permanent peace is the goal. Harold Rhode, a former U.S. Defense Department analyst and fellow at the Gatestone Institute, points out that the concept of win-win negotiations is largely absent in shame-based Arab society. Concessions are always viewed as a loss of face, and only made when forced upon a party by military defeat or overwhelming necessity. Shimon Peres's grandiose vision of a new Middle East of Jew and Muslim working hand in hand towards economic prosperity was greeted with incomprehension or bemusement in the Arab world.
As long as the international community, Israel included, shields the Palestinians from the consequences of their bad decisions and obstinance, they will never countenance any type of concessions.
ONE SURMISES that Netanyahu must have either been subjected to unbearable pressure, or else that it does not take much to make him capitulate. Neither conclusion is good for Israel.
Since Netanyahu has made clear that Iran is just about the only thing on his mind, one further assumes that the pressure must have had to do with Iran. But it is hard to understand what it could have been. President Obama will order an American attack on Iranian nuclear installations or countenance an Israeli attack if and only if, he views such an attack as a strategic necessity for the United States or to revive his flailing presidency. He will not do so to protect Israel. Nor will he refrain to punish her.
The public demonstration of Israel's vulnerability to American pressure ill-served Israel's interests. But it did little to bolster America's plummeting prestige in the Middle East and worldwide. Though many Arab countries may derive some visceral pleasure from watching the screws turned on Israel, in the long-run, the American action will do more to reinforce the Arab perception of the United States, under President Obama, as a country that is pusillanimous towards its enemies and treacherous towards its allies.
Israel appears to be the only country on earth towards with which the United States is prepared to play hardball and exercise its still considerable leverage. Only Israel's Prime Minister is subjected to 45-minute harangues from the U.S. Secretary of State or left to stew downstairs while the President sups upstairs. Repeated and deliberate recent American leaks about Israel's covert activities in Iran and Syria needlessly endanger Israel and compromise those activities.
Vladimir Putin cannot resist tweaking Uncle Sam's nose and sticking a thumb in his eye at every opportunity – most recently by granting asylum to Edward Snowden and gaining the hard disks containing a mass of National Security Agency data in the process. He shows no fear of reprisals.
The United States never considered using the leverage of its billions of dollars in aid to starving Egypt to convince ousted president Morsi to cool his rush to full Islamization. On the eve of the military takeover, the American ambassador Anne Patterson was busy ordering the Christian Copts, who had a long list of legitimate grievances with the Muslim Brotherhood government, not to participate in anti-Morsi demonstrations. Similarly, Obama has avoided doing anything to damage his special friendship with Turkey's Erdogan by suggesting, for instance, that he keep promises to Israel that were the quid pro quo for Israel's apology for the Mavi Marmara boarding.
The Mideast is in flames, and the United States has become a helpless bystander, with no influence over events in Egypt or Syria. Early in his presidency, President Obama embarked on a policy of cultivating the Muslim Brotherhood, hoping in ProfessorWalter Russell Mead's words, to detoxify US relations in the Middle East and promote Islamist moderation.
That policy lies in shambles today, in the wake of the Morsi disaster in Egypt and Erdogan's surging authoritarianism in Turkey, for it fundamentally failed to credit the religious worldview of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nor does the administration appear to have a fall back position. In sum, according to Mead, "it would be difficult to design a line of policy more calculated to undermine American prestige and influence than the one we chose."
Well, not quite. You could have your Secretary of State make six trips to Israel over four months to restart the "peace process," while Assad, with Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian support predicts victory in Syria; Iraq allows Iran to send weapons to Syria via Iraq; and jailbreaks in Iraq, Libya, and Pakistan, and terror threats against American embassies in the Middle East forcing their closure show Al Qaeda to be very much alive and kicking. As Adam Garfinkle writes in The American Interest, "If Kerry (and by indirection the President) fiddles with Palestina while the rest of the region burns to the ground, the United States will forfeit what's left of the benefit of the doubt as to whether we know that the hell we're doing."
The shuttle diplomacy either reflects Kerry's vain desire to bask in the limelight shone on more distinguished predecessors or the Obama administration's reluctance to entrust him with any serious task. Either way it does nothing to restore the lustre of American prestige in the region. Whatever plausibility – actually, near zero -- there might once have been to the claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict holds the key to all Middle East tensions has been refuted by Arab Spring and the reigniting of the thousand-year-old Sunni-Shi'ite divisions. Even those Arab governments that were once only too happy to foist this myth on State Department Arabists now sing a different tune. Iran, Iran, Iran is their hue and cry.
But apparently Secretary of State Kerry's fine head of hair (he once offered "we have better hair" as a selling point for the 2004 Kerry-Edward ticket) has covered his ears and affected his hearing.
Related Topics: American Government & Politics, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Israeli Society, Peace Process
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free jewish media resources mailing list