- - -
Media sources today are reporting comments from Israeli government officials that a West Bank Settlement freeze may be acceptable under certain circumstances and as part of a larger commitment to obligations on the part of Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
On the surface, this will both be applauded and ridiculed by all sides. (What else is new?) But at a deeper level, this is very reflective of analysis that has appeared in this blog before. It is both not what any "side" will be happy with - and at the same time a brilliant political move by the Netanyahu government. It is also, I believe, a very rational and effective position in the long run.
If you take a close read not at the headline, but at the commentary by Defense minister Barak, you will see some of what "The Cohen Side" has been expressing all along. While I am generally no fan of the Netanyahu approach and lack of subtle nuance, this calculation, along with his recent endorsement of some kind of Palestinian state must be applauded.
Rather than come into office with the policies of a Palestinian State and Settlement Freezes on his table, he took them off. And I say this with precise language because for the previous 15 years, those were dead center on the table. Any commentary to the contrary is just false. Both the Camp David Accord proposals and the Sharon, Ohlmert and Livni government had been waving those flags of accommodation for quite some time.
Netanyahu's position was actually very rational and understandable. His stance was - look - we gave up Gaza, we have been offering this for some time, and what has it gotten us? We actually are criticized even MORE. We are demonized even MORE. We are bombed even MORE. And add to all that, the Palestinian Leadership is fractured, in practical Civil War, and even MORE dissatisfied. Now I am not saying all that is correct or a perfect policy stance. But it was genuine, honest, and in many ways dead on. How could any responsible Israeli leader envision a Palestinian government in the foreseeable future that would NOT be at risk of Hamas takeover. And if that was the case how could anyone talk about a state - much less a fully independent and armed one. And if that was the case, why would a leader bring normal life to a halt in the settlements, when this "limbo" may last for quite some time.
Again, it may not be the policy that makes the west or the left happy, but it made sense. It simply begs the question - could we please see some movement on the other side before we commit to what may be a suicidal policy of acknowledging a Hamas state on our border. In stark terms, that really was what was at stake.
So first we had a switch in policy that made Obama happy, but really didn't change much. I mean it did - because Netanyahu crossed that bridge he was asked to cross. But he maintained the reservations I spoke about above. And in many ways, the agenda is now more centered. We can say that Israel has supported a Palestinian state for the past 15 years, and he can say that he put front and center the pitfalls associated with that prospect under the current political realities.
And now in a similar way, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak have helped to do the same thing with settlements. They have put it back on the table (because it never really left) but it is now a more centered agenda - which is what it always should have been. What the Obama administration really wanted, when they said "complete freeze" was an end to illegitimate land takings, and end to construction for new settlers, and some show of willingness to budge on the part of Netanyahu. They got all that, but Netanyahu got what many on the right and the center wanted. An acknowledgement that if some settlements have always been designated (by Israel and the P.A.) to remain a part of Israel - why should construction in that defined area stop? Many on the left said it would send a better signal to the Palestinians. These people, I am afraid, don't really understand the game of signals in the Middle East. A better signal is the one that makes sense and is honest. And now what is on the table is not perfect, but a better and more rational starting point for Israel AND for long-term peace.
And as much criticism as this will get - precisely for the reasons I praise - it is now possible to soften this position in further negotiation. Rather than a rather black and white "freeze on all settlements" which is actually a meaningless phrase in reality, there will be a freeze on some of the activity that more people in the center believe should have been frozen in the first place.
To hear more about these views, please tune in to WDIS - AM 1170 today as David will discuss this further on the Chuck Morse show.
- - -
No comments:
Post a Comment