By rejecting Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu and his Likud party have resurrected themselves from a political graveyard.
When I was in Israel in 2008 shortly after Barack Obama’s election victory, the mood in the Middle East was euphoric. Headlines in the Arab media proclaimed “Abu Hussein wins” and “A Dream Come True.” The expectations on the street that U.S. policies would change were unrealistically high. As attention turned to the upcoming Israeli elections in March 2009, there was hope that Israelis also would elect a more moderate government and that the peace process would be revived. An Israeli friend of mine, known for his rather different political views, told me that his dream team was Bibi Netanyahu and Obama. “Netanyahu is so outrageous that even the Americans won’t be able to put up with him” he said. He underestimated the tolerance of American politicians for outrageous Israeli behavior.
In this week’s election, Netanyahu and his Likud party have resurrected themselves from a political graveyard, in which they were predicted to trail their major opponent, the Zionist Union, by 4-5 seats, and achieved a stunning landslide victory. Predicted by pollsters to get only 22 Knesset seats, Likud won 30 and positioned Netanyahu to form the new governing coalition. While coalition building in Israel is always an adventure with much horse trading over who gets the most coveted ministerial positions, Netanyahu should be able to pull together a coalition of right wing secular and religious parties. It always was clear that the right would have an easier path to a governing coalition (a path that changed little in the election since Likud drew votes from other right wing parties) and that the Zionist Union platform differed more in tone than in substance. The magnitude of the Likud victory and the manner in which it was achieved, however, will have consequences for Middle East politics.
In the run up to the election, seeing Likud trailing by an ever-increasing margin, visualizing the end of his political career, Netanyahu panicked. With the help of his Republican friends in the U.S. Congress, he orchestrated his appearance in front of Congress and attempted to torpedo any nuclear deal with Iran. This move seemed to be designed to make his fraught relationship with Obama even worse. When this tactic did not seem to work, he decided to drop the fiction that he supported a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue and declare that there would be no Palestinian state if he were elected Prime Minister. This was a blatant move to draw votes from the other right wing parties. It worked. In order to ensure a strong turnout, he decided to play the race and fear cards, warning Jewish voters that the Arabs were coming to the polls “in droves.” It worked. He won. But, what did he win?
With it now abundantly clear that the “two-state solution,” long the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy, is dead, how much longer will a lame duck American President put up with Netanyahu’s antics? At some point Obama will reach the level of frustration that Bill Clinton reached when he famously said to his staff, “Remind me, who is the f***ing superpower here?” The European countries, already fed up with the lack of serious progress on the Palestinian issue, have yet another reason to distance themselves from Israel. The tendency in Europe to migrate from anti-Israelism to anti-Semitism will likely intensify. At home, the electioneering race-baiting will undoubtedly increase the alienation of Israel’s Arab citizens who are now explicitly seen as the enemy. Palestinian Authority President Abbas, having staked his political future on a diplomatic solution, will be weakened even further. Israel’s Arab neighbors, having long promoted the “Arab Peace Proposal” as the path to a “two-state solution,” have had this option taken off of the table. The Arab League meeting on March 28 will present some difficult choices.
In the name of political expediency, Bibi Netanyahu seems to have painted Israel into a corner, a place that will be difficult to leave. As Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf wrote yesterday, “For years we have been hearing that Israel will either end the occupation or cease to be a democracy. Could it be that the Jewish public [in Israel] has made its choice?”
Anyone willing to look beyond the Hollywood myths regarding Israel`s hiistory, will know that as early as 1944, a meeting in Cairo was held between David Ben Gurion and the British M.E. representative, Lord Moyne, where they discussed a “Partition Line” for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, that would be supported by the UK.
Yitzhak Shamir, the leader of the Jewish terror group Irgun, ordered the (successful) assassination of Lord Moyne, later stating that he did so because he did not want a limit placed on the borders of a future State of Israel.
The borders suggested by Lord Moyne were later accepted by the UN, and Israel commenced an immediate expansion of it`s borders, an expansion policy that has resulted in the complete occupation of Palestine, part of Syria and Lebanon.
Now Netanyahu has made it clear that he will not tolerate a two State solution, he has voiced the opinion, supported by most of the original European immigrants and their descendents, that the intrinsic population of Palestine have no right to live their own lives.
The creation of The State of Israel has resulted in the existence of 4.9 million UN registered Palestinian refugees, all denied the right of return to their homeland, nearly 2 million Palestinians living in the open prison of Gaza and nearly 3 million Palestinians living under the heel of an occupational Israeli army.
The 6 million western immigrants to Palestine have for years blamed the plight of over 9 million intrinsic Palestinians on the Palestinians themselves, some Israelis go so far as to claim those Palestinians, don`t exist, and each successive US Government has provided unconditional financial and Military support that has allowed Israel to pursue expansionist policies that have been described by the UN as “Genocidal Apartheid Actions”.
Over 77 UN General Council resolutions have been passed that were critical of Israel.
Only 1 UN general Council resolution has been passed that was critical of Palestinians.
The UN General Council has no authority to take actions against a Member Country, only the UN Security Council has that mandate.
Since 1947 over 44 UN Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israeli actions have failed to be passes, simply because the USA has used it`s veto. No other country in the world has received so much protection from the US.
Perhaps if Israel had been obliged to face up to over 68 years of UN critisism, then Israeli/Arab relations would not be so confrontational, who knows.
What is very clear however is; If Israelis were Druids, it would not be tolerated.
.
“With it now abundantly clear that the “two-state solution,” long the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy, is dead…”
Why should the two-state solution be dead on Netanyahu’s say-so? Whether there is a two-state agreement depends on how much pressure the international community, and especially the USA, puts on Israel. A Chapter 7 resolution for an immediate end to the occupation, and temporary UN supervision of the West Bank and Gaza while final issues are discussed in an international framework, would work wonders.
There are already over 150 countries that recognise Palestine as a State, WTHL, that`s already quite a lot of pressure by the international community, but the US has effectively rendered international pressure impotent.
The idea of the West creating a State and sustaining a State for the exclusive occupation for Westerners of one exclusive religion, right in the centre of that part of the world that has predominantly accepted the teachings of later prophets of the Abrahamic God, was always going to be a high risk strategy.
The 1919 US appointed King-Crane Commission.stated that such a proposal would require the removal of the intrinsic population and could only be sustained by force of arms.
Since 1947, the Israeli “Hasbara” propaganda organisation has successfully, particularly in the US, portrayed Israel as the innocent bystander and the intrinsic Population of Palestine as the instigators of all violence, on every occasion.
There is no, or very little public demand in the US for “pressure” to be put on Israel, so Israel continues to exist by “Force of Arms”
Israel cannot accept a one State solution, that would result in an Israeli population with a Palestinian majority of 2 to 1.
Nor can Israel accept a two State solution when, in the West Bank there are approaching some 500,000 Israeli citizens in illegal settlements, who would then be subject to Palestinian State Law..
You are quite correct the UN could act and impose a settlement but that would require the US not to use a veto, and somehow I just can`t see that happening, despite the rhetoric!
The UN does not have authority under the Charter to impose a settlement, but it can use force or sanctions (or threat of them) to rectify breaches of international law, of which there have been plenty.
I am more optimistic than you. I think there are many signs that attitudes towards Israel are changing in Europe and the USA, and there is a very real possibility that the USA will eventually support some strong UN Resolutions.
I can`t help wondering, WTHL, if Israel had been created by (Say) The Soviet Union as a homeland for Trotsky zealots and had aggressively expanded borders in the same manner as Zionist Israel.
Would the US have been as supportive of a Trotsky homeland in the same way that the US is supportive of Zionist Israel, or would the US have gone in, in 1947, swinging a baseball bat?
As for UN authority, the US successfully used the UN to approve a US led coalition, to attack Iraq, based on Iraq`s non-existing WMD.
It seems to me that US public opinion has long been polarised between Palestinians eliminating Israel, and Israel eliminating Palestine, with the result that Israeli actions are condoned as unavoidably necessary.
The US is becoming increasingly isolated with regard to unconditional support of Israel, The EC Supreme Court recently ruled that Hamas was NOT a terrorist organisation, is just one example of “the Worlds” changing attitude to Israeli actions.
The US, it seems to me, is in a “Catch 22” situation, without US support, it`s doubtful that Israel could have arrived at the situation that now exists. To withdraw US support would leave Israel vulnerable and isolated.
For 67 years Israel has been a M.E. country, yet Israel has made no attempt to integrate with the M.E.
Israeli broadcasting, sporting and trading associations are all with Europe, yet there are M.E. equivalents all around Israel that Israel has made no attempt to join. It seems Israel is attempting to “Have her cake, and eat it”.
You are correct when you mention a changing in the US approach, that said there is no sign of a change in the Israeli attitude and it`s the Israeli attitude that is at the root of the problem.
In my opinion of course!