The Jews are divided as to what they want. The left wants to get the hell out of the West Bank. The center, including Kadima and Labour, want to keep the settlement blocks containing most of the settlers but are prepared to uproot as many as 70,000 Jews, perhaps even 100,000. The right does not want to allow a Palestinian state to emerge, even if demilitarized.
All are united in requiring an end of conflict and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Netanyahu is a centrist, though he campaigned on the right. In his response to Obama's Cairo speech, he demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and was prepared to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state. He also demanded that Jerusalem be part of Israel and that Israel have defensible borders.
Unfortunately, he was silent on his intentions regarding the settlers and the demanded settlement freeze. He did emphasize Israel's historical rights but went nowhere with them.
If he was sincere in his demands, he would have said that until such time as the Arabs accept Israel as a Jewish state with defensible borders and a united Jerusalem, and until they accept a demilitarized Palestine, there would be no reason to proceed with negotiations. Having not done so, one must conclude that none of these are red lines.
The Arabs weren't shy about totally rejecting demilitarization and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. They also said that they wouldn't commence negotiations until there was a complete settlement freeze. I suspect that this position is for starters only, and if Israel agreed to a meaningful freeze, if not total, they would go along.
Subsequent to Netanyahu's speech, Netanyahu has sided with Barak in being prepared to compromise on a freeze. In trying to avoid it, his government has been rejecting the freeze as being immoral or unjust or unworkable. They have been pleading for "natural growth".
Nowhere do I hear the government of Israel insist on the right of Jews to live anywhere, particularly in their ancient homeland, or to reject the notion that such settlements are illegal under international law or to reject the constraints of the Roadmap regarding a settlement freeze. Nowhere does it reject the notion that Israel must withdraw from100% of the territories except for mutual exchanges. Netanyahu has not even banged his reciprocity drum by demanding that the Arabs stop their incitement and violence and get unified before any settlement freeze will be agreed to. Obviously, Netanyahu's remarks about the rights of Jews were throwaway lines for home consumption.
Under no conditions should Netanyahu agree to a settlement freeze. Any time the Arabs want to stop the growth of settlements on "their land," they could compromise on all the issues, including borders, so that thereafter there would be no settlers or construction on their land. This assumes, without debating it, that the settlers would have to leave.
I am reminded of the story we read on Yom Kippur of
Rabbi Amnon of Mainz of whom it was demanded, convert to Christianity, or else, similar to the demand Obama made on Netanyahu, freeze settlements of else. Reb Amnon said in reply "Give me only three days to think about the matter -- then I shall bring you my answer." Netanyahu also replied something in the same vein, namely, let's discuss it.
The Rabbi was horrified by what he had said and then explained his actions and change of mind.
- "In a moment of weakness I fell into sin and lied and made false promises. To save my life without defying my faith I sought the cowardly grace of three days in which to give you my answer.
Netanyahu should likewise have said "no" and take what comes with with it.
The reason that the settlement freeze is the most important issue for the Arabs is that so long as construction continues, time is not on the side of the Arabs. If they had a freeze in place, they could continue to be as intransigent and uncompromising as they have been. Concomitantly, it would put enormous pressure on Israel to capitulate.
The Arabs don't want a state. They prefer to be the object of everyone's attention and largesse. Why give that up. For a state? Fuget about it. They will not compromise on the "right of return" or on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would sell out the refugees and the Arab Israelis respectively.
So where does Obama fit into all this? His hubris, aided and abetted by his anti-Israel staff, friends and State Department, convinced him he could succeed where countless others couldn't.
To understand just how outrageous Obama's demand is read Joseph Farah's article
Obama tells Jews where they can live
- It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank. I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel ­ let alone their own country.
Obama thought he could get the Arabs to be less withholding, particularly if he kissed up to them enough. That was his first error in judgment.
Then he thought that he could force Israel to give in on settlements and that capitulation on Israel's part would win him friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia. No only was he wrong in this assumption, he was wrong to believe that he could put the squeeze on Israel in this way.
Netanyahu could have said, we accepted the Roadmap based on an agreement made at the time which was described by Sharon at the Herzelia Conference.
- "Israel will deliver on all its obligations, including on the matter of settlement construction. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction lines. There will be no land confiscations meant for construction, no special economic incentives, and there is no construction of special settlements."
If you now deny that agreement, we deny the Roadmap.
Now that Mitchell reached no resolution of the issue with Barak, Mitchell won't be meeting Netanyahu for another two or three weeks. My how time flies when you are not having fun.
When Bush Sr wanted to squeeze Israel, he froze loan guarantees just when Shamir needed the money to resettle the Russians, who were coming in droves.
Obama, on the other hand, made no issue as
U.S. re-approves Israel loan guarantees program.
Recently JPOST reported Israel,
US bridge gaps over fighter jet.
- A deal is close to completion for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jet after the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon recently reached understandings on a number of IAF demands to integrate Israeli technology into the plane.
On these two important matters, Obama chose not to impose linkage. Though he did attempt linkage with the Iranian issue, which appears now to be a dead letter.
He has not been able to get the Arabs to make meaningful concessions, which was part of his original plans.
So where does that leave him?
If he can get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze, as I have written in the past, that would be victory enough. But it would be a serious mistake on Israel's part. At least the Administration is now speaking of a moratorium only.
Time will tell. In the meantime, Israel should not agree to a freeze, even a temporary one. Of what significance is a temporary freeze unless it is considered a stepping stone to a permanent freeze.
Its not too late for Netanyahu to find Rabbi Amnon's resolve.
