Blogs and Stories
Bibi's Bait-and-Switch
Netanyahu no doubt believes he bought himself some time with his rhetorical shift on the two-state solution. And his short-term position was undoubtedly strengthened by the unhappy turn of events in Iran this weekend. As the Israeli journalists Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff pointed out in Haaretz that "from Israel's point of view, the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually preferable. Not only because "better the devil you know," but because the victory of the pro-reform candidate will paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions.”
But however worrisome the Iranian threat to Israel may be, the nation’s fundamental quandary remains inescapable. As difficult as it may appear to be to make peace with a corrupt and potentially powerless Palestinian Authority and a hostile Hamas, Israel’s other choices are actually worse: Either expel millions of Palestinians from their lands to preserve the state’s Jewish character or give up on democratic rule entirely, embracing a nightmare future much like that in South Africa under apartheid. Barack Obama offered Bibi Netanyahu an escape hatch, perhaps the last one Israel is likely to see while the conflict remains potentially solvable. Absent the pomp and circumstance, Netanyahu’s response could hardly have been clearer: “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why Democrats Are Smiling
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Speech of His Life—Again
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
How E.L. Doctorow Does It
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Can some one please explain the legitimate claim made by Israel to keep out Palestine and refuse a peaceful resolution?
There isn't one.
No I think you mean there is'nt one if you are an atheist or agnostic.
The Palestinians had almost 60 years to get their statehood act together. They're living in a dream world to continue to think the clock can be set back to 1948 or 1967. Israel's strategy is to move with its national development and like Britain in Northern Ireland resist even for hundreds of years demands it commit national suicide.
Except this "national development" is moving faster then the population is growing. And it comes at a very real cost in blood.
It's not national suicide. Far from it. The alternative from making peace with the Muslims who have lived on that land for thousands of years is to become a repressive dictatorship and commit the same kind of genocide that the Jews themselves suffered 60 years ago.
With all due respect, characterizing Obama's offer as an "escape hatch" is gratuitous at best. Obama unconditionally told Israel to get the total hell out of the occupied lands as a condition for the U.S. trying to maybe sweet talk Iran out of its nuclear ambitions by the end of the year. He peed all over both Clinton and Bush administration commitments that some of the settlements would likely be necessary for Israel's security. Good for him. There is little doubt that nothing would please his liberal base more than the utter annihilation of Israel. Good for them.
But there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Obama has the will to do anything to staunch Iran's nuclear ambitions -- and Israel knows it. Anyway, most of his liberal base considers Iran's ambitions to be a fiction, a fait accompli. or a legitimate national aspiration. Good for them.
All of these things may actually be the result of a clear and rational analysis of America's interests. And I am NOT being sarcastic when I make this observation.
But the biggest thing that many historians may remember as a result of this policy is the massive lie that Obama perpetrated on Israel and its supporters when he campaigned for the presidency last summer. No breathing person can characterize Obama's current policy as considering Israel to be America's BFF as he represented last summer. Israel is the same kind of BFF to this administration that Poland was to the UK during and after WWII. The position he has taken on Israel cannot be characterized as "tough love" as much as it is "screw you jews." In at least one respect he shares FDR's toughness on policies related to Israel. FDR turned away Jewish refugees, assuring some of them certain death and Obama seems to be headed into those brave footsteps.
Obama is a man of many talents. He is certainly persuasive. And he is surely well versed in the art of delivering a passionate kiss just before he throws you under the bus. Should throwing people under the bus ever become an Olympic event, we will not even have to hold tryouts to discover our best entrant.
Laugh.
Israel has taken the hard line for too long. Both sides will have to give something if we're ever going to stop being dragged into one dumb tribal conflict after another. These settlements will be one of Israel's concessions.
So Obama's getting tough with Israel. It's about time. Netanyahu has called his bluff.
As someone who firmly believes in the right of Israel to exist, I'm very much looking forward to the "crunch" as Netanyahu goes "under the bus."
You just need to read history to realise that you can not oppress people forever. Netanyau is a hardliner and he barely won the election. He is not being smart.
Obama did not say they had to get the hell out, he said they needed to freeze all settlement expansion.
Ehud Barak said it was ludicrous that no family in the West Bank couldn't add a third room to their house, for example, after the birth of a fifth child, and this is what, generously, they are calling "natural expansion."
Adding a room to a house seems within the bounds of reason, and Obama should probably figure out some way to make that clear. Turning a one room house into a fifty room apartment complex, however, is not in the same ballpark, and would have to be curtailed.
If not one additional square foot of dirt was claimed by Israel for expansion, it would be sufficient.
Bibi has been around a long time. He's been their Dick Cheney for just as long. I expected this to happen as soon as he was elected. It happened here when we elected a man of his character and it will happen is Israel just the same.
There no was "Nixon in China" gesture because unlike Nixon Netanyahu has a Yiddisher kop. Were that the case with Nixon he would have realized we'd end up with the Chinese taking us to the economic cleaners by stealing our industrial base and intellectual property, wrecking the wage structure so that we just have the appearance of a middle class, and are hopelessly indebted.
Israel is not "expanding" settlements into new areas but is growing "existing" settlements to accomodate natural growth. This was an informal understanding it had with the U.S. that the Obama admin has now refused to honor (see speech by Hillary). Additionally, the Obama admin has made what appears to be a dramatic shift in the U.S. stance towards a nuclear Iran really putting Israel in a tough spot. Thus, Netanyahu said that he would not expand settlements, and approve of a two state solution IF Palistine will recognize Israel as the rightful home of the jewish people and demilitarize itself so that Isreal is protected. Given the history of Palistine movements and Hamas, this only makes sense. Did anyone really expect Netanyahu to roll over and play dead simply because Obama put some pressure on him especially when Obama apparently says okay to a nuclear Iran and that all settlement activity must stop? The leaders in Iran and Hamas have made it abundantly clear that, for them, there is no middle ground, Israel is illegitimate and must be destroyed. Netanyahu did what he should have done by putting the ball back in the court of Palistine and Hamas by having them show they are willing to live in peace and recognize Isreal as the legitimate homeland of the jewish people.
The settlements are provocative and wrong. Even people sympathetic to Israel know that.
Hamas must publicly disavow any desire to see Israel pushed into the sea. Everyone knows that too.
People on both sides have been pointing at the other while ignoring their own role in this ongoing nightmare for a very long time. An adult is called for to drag both sides to the table and make them act like grownups.
Netanyahu was just given a chance to take up the challenge. He appears to have dropped the ball.
I'm looking forward to seeing serious pressure being placed on him. When it comes time for Hamas to make a brave move forward they should see the same kind of pressure.
"With respect to the conditions regarding understandings between the United States and the former Israeli government and the former government of the United States, we have the negotiating record. That is the official record that was turned over to the Obama Administration by the outgoing Bush Administration. There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which, of course, people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States Government. And there are contrary documents that suggest that they were not to be viewed as in any way contradicting the obligations that Israel undertook pursuant to the Roadmap. And those obligations are very clear." - Hillary Clinton
"Washington lost interest in it when it became clear it would not be easy to do," -Daniel Kurtzer, US Ambassador to Israel
"I thought it was a really bad idea...t would legitimize the settlements, and it gave them a blank check." -Daniel Kurtzer, US Ambassador to Israel
The Bush administration didn't formally agree or follow through with the Israeli plan to survey the settlements and establish a growth line. In all actuality, there appears to have been no agreement, and if there was, it wasn't followed through by President Bush or his staff.
Your dead on!
As someone who has experienced the stalemate in Israel first hand, I have moved along the political spectrum and find myself squarely in the middle. I do believe both sides need to make concessions to make this work.
One thing that really bothered me though from Obama's Cairo speech is that he forwarded the right of nations to choose their fates. Iran can choose nuclear. It's their right. North Korea is no longer part of the evil axis. I get that.
But for Israel, the U.S. has determined that a democratically elected government is not validated in their policies. Citizens are rioting in the streets of Tehran in an election that appears completely rigged in order to continue bolstering a fatalistinc megalomaniac who wants to blow up the world.
Why make one lone exception in a world view that encompasses massive change? It's Obama throwing Israel under the bus, hoping that this act will appease Israel's enemies.
Bull... it is not. I get so tired of hearing people parrot that particular line over and over and over again. He is not throwing Israel under a bus.
As has been stated repeatedly, Obama is holding Israel responsible. We have every right to demand that they stick to the plan they signed.
Israel wouldn't be there if it were not for the United States. We protect it. We prop it up. We shield it from the U.N. and the consequences of it's actions. The conflicts in Israel affect the region and the world.
There shouldn't be a single "settlement" in the West Bank. These "settlements" are basically residential fortresses and communities. It is a travesty. It is a land grab. It's wrong. If we ever want this conflict to end, Israel has to stop acting as badly or worse then the others involved.
How is he not throwing Israel under a bus? Compromising Israel's security? Usurping the ability for Israel to handle the situation itself?
The U.S. helps lots of countries. The U.S. certainly does lots of good for Israel and has helped it gain its footing.
You contradict yourself -- what plan are you holding Israel to? The Road Map? This didn't call for a complete dismantling of the settlements.
Your last statement is just flatout outlandish -- Israel "has to stop acting as badly or worse than the others involved." You just did the same thing Obama did. You equated settlements with terrorism and murder.
Netanyahu was talking first to his voters, without them he has no mandate. He has to get them to shift position and you don't do that before talks start. These expectations by commentators is unrealistic.
Ironically, in a hostile environment, you will see greater chance of lasting peace agreement brokered by hardliners than centerists. (The weakness of Olmert is a far greater threat) What we have to understand is that the greatest challenge to these leaders is from their own people, their power base.
With this in mind, you will see that great changes have been initiated in the last 2 weeks, greater than in the last 20 years.
Netanyahu is carrying out the classic Israeli strategy when they are in a unfavorable political position.
So they, set unacceptable conditions for peace with the Palestinians.
Now in the coming weeks, look at violence between Palestians and Israeli's escalate, starting with a couple of Israeli airstrikes.
Simple and effective ploy, yet so sad.....
Depressing to see the way the intelligent, normally independent minded Mr.Alterman, falls in with the trendies who keep peddling the Palestinian sucker story that everything is Israel's fault. Have you noticed - it always is? The key fact - key! - is that the Palestinians have never recognized the state of Israel created by a vote of the UN which finally recognized its historic homeland ( a fact that seems to have eluded Mr Obama who implied that Israel's right was based on the Holocaust, not so). .Fact is there has never been a Palestine. Sad to say, they seem incapable of creating a decent modern civilisation. See what they did with the golden opportunity of Gaza. The current fuss about settlements is particularly galling. Israel pulled thousands of settlers out of Gaza, bulldozed homes, and what did the Palestinians do to build a model new state? Started firing thousands of rockets. Of course the double-standard crowd expected Israel to say sorry for defending its population. If the Israelis pulled out of all the West Bank, without a demilitarisation agreement, the Palestinians would rocket Ben Gurion airport and Tel Aviv. No more Israel. The settlement issue is a red herring to divert attention from the fact that even now the Palestinians will not recognise Israel, will not renounce violence, but instead insist on a "right of return" that would, of itself, destroy Israel, the only democracy in the region. The Palestinians could get pretty well all they say they want if they would recognize the right of Israel to exist, forswear violence, and stop the filthy propaganda in their schools and on tv about Jews.
Blarney... no one blames it all on Israel. But they are making bad things worse. The U.S. will make sure that as long as we exist... they will exist. PERIOD. But the Palestinians deserve at least some consideration. The settlements are wrong. It is that simple.
Would someone please explain to me why a purported UN vote in 1948 creating Israel allegedly legitimizes the situation, whereas the resolutions seeking the return to the 1967 boundaries do not have to be followed because they are allegedly the product of a biased United Nations? Isn't this trying to have it both ways? (for the record: not questioning Israel's legitimacy, just not in agreement with this apparent contradiction)
As for the "golden opportunity of Gaza", shouldn't this comment be taken with a huge grain of salt in light of what some have described as "the crippling embargo of Gaza by Israel" that has been in place since then?
Finally, why in 2009 does anyone believe that it is legitimate to define countries on the basis of religion? Is it appropriate that there be a Jewish, Muslim or Christian state? In most democracies, the theory (imperfectly implemented as it may be) is that religion is not a factor in the determination of a citizen's rights, duties and obligations. Why does it seem accepted that Israel somehow should not abide by these rules?
The settlement "issue" is a red hearing.
First, before reading the "commentaries" I strongly urge people to start by reading the actual speech:
Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches by Israeli leaders/2009/Address_PM_Netanyahu_Bar-Ilan_University_14-Jun-2009.htm
Now, the response to the Prime Minister's speech from the United States and the European Union:
Obama: Netanyahu speech 'an important step forward'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092720.html
Then the Palestinians:
Hamas: Netanyahu speech 'racist' bid to deny Palestinian rights
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093063.html
(Really sounds like these folks are interested in talking, what?)
How about the Palestinian Authority?
Palestinians: Netanyahu is 'sabotaging' peace efforts
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092713.html
(Hmm ... interesting response to the statement by the Prime Minister, let's start negotiations right away.)
This is going to be a difficult process.
A lot of hurdles need to be overcome.
In that regard, I suggest folks read this analysis by Daniel Pipes:
Assessing Binyamin Netanyahu's Speech at Bar-Ilan University
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/06/assessing-binyamin-netanyahus-s peech-at-bar-ilan-university.html
His article can help with our perspective.
Now, the Arab media response to the Prime Minister's speech is roughly the same as that found in Haaretz (which also notes the upset of the Israeli far right with the speech).
Finally, as to Professor Alterman, the left and the settlements, the Jerusalem Post has published this piece:
Carter endorses Gush Etzion settlements
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371093499&pagename=JPost %2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
So, let's all take a deep breath, sit back and see how all this unfolds before we start with the criticism.
Eric, I've always admired your ability to get respect as an alternative voice in the media.
Although undoubtedly there is a war plan that exists involving an attack on Iran, I wouldn't put much faith that there is an actual scheduled date, or even an event which would, necessarily, trigger such an attack.
I believe what Israel is talking about, and needs to protect, is a certain self-identity (involving a particularly deity deeding them the land) which, necessarily, says that settlements are not just natural, but divine mandate.
Why would any sane Insraeli accept the Palestinians in any way shape or form. The Palestinians are usurpers on historical Jewish land and should be relocated to their real homeland in Jordan. There are already more Palestinians in Jordan than Jordanians anyway. Leave the historical Jewish homeland of Judea & Samaria to the Jewish people along with their historical capital of Jerusalem. Israel should be the country of Jewis people, not Palestinians, not arabs, only Jews !!!!
Could you please point to someplace on Earth where there aren't usurpers on other people's historic land?
Thanks in advance.
Just curious: Why could this racist principle only be applied in Israel to support Jews? Could it not be used against Jews (or other groups in other countries)? I hope that you do not live in the USA, because another application of this principle could lead Native Indians to move into your home.
Bibi's value is du-bi-ous. His talk is hot air for stalling and sanctimonious fawning while lying. His "speeches" are as helpful as the ones we get from Newt, Hatch, McConnel, et.al.
He is Zionist Jerkus Maximus.
Bibi Netanyahu has, to the casual reader, made it sound as if he endorses a two state "solution." The reality is that he has missed an incredible opportunity to go into the annals of Israeli-Palestinian history and dare say world history as a hero and and a peacemaker.
There is no way to mask one's true feelings and making a simplistic statement about 2 states without giving Israel any responsibility to attain such a goal is Netanyahu's failure.
The issue of settlements is key and that went totally unmentioned. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever for a Palestinian State to exist with Israeli settlements dotting the very small land area that would be the Palestinian state. It maintains a status quo that has afflicted the every conversation about a two state solution. The maintenance of what has evolved into small cities and large towns as well as the outpost-like land areas would forever keep Israelis inside Palestinian territory. How could any country without another country residing within its borders ever be able to function??
Bibi, is not stupid and he realizes all to well that with Israeli settlements maintained in the West Bank "territory"a Palestinian state could never exist.
His remarks are, to say the very least, are insincere and disingenuous and NOT at all helpful. It's very clear that he can't say that he supports a two state solution without saying that ALL settlements must be removed.
I hope that those in our state department are measuring his every word. His so-called support for a two state solution is a complete and total fraud.
This whole idea of "natural growth" is a sham. It's not about building a new bedroom, it's about building new houses on other people's land so your kids can live on the same block you do. I don't get to evict my neighbors because I want my kids to live next door. They actually have to go buy their own house, often in another neighborhood.
Only in Israeli settlements does this "natural growth" idea exist. In Israel itself there is no taking the land from Jews under the concept of "natural growth." The theory is only applied in occupied territory to Palestinian land. It's a nice-sounding name for theft. Nothing else.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.