PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 24, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden, left, and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, right, listen. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

     I will write in more detail on the divergent speeches of President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when I return from South Asia, but I’ll just put down a few immediate thoughts here.

      There was something tragic about Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress, and something bizarre about attempts to demonize Obama’s earlier speech as anti-Israel.  Obama’s framework – a return to approximate 1967 borders with agreed land swaps – is the formula that U.S. and Israeli leaders have been talking about for the past two decades. It is the basis on which Israeli leaders from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Barak to Ehud Olmert negotiated with the Palestinians.

      True, final agreement was not reached. But the reason those Israeli leaders attempted to talk on that basis was that they knew Israel could not forever rule over 3-4 million disenfranchised Palestinians.  That is all the more true at a time when Mideast revolts are enabling many Arab publics, for the first time, to have a voice in political systems that were long run by autocrats or despots. In the coming era, Arab publics will be much more vociferous in pressing their leaders to obtain those rights for Palestinians.

 

      Netanyahu has every right to put Israel’s security foremost. However, it is one thing to state Israel’s readiness to accept a Palestinian state, conditional on full recognition by Palestinians and Arabs and. It is another thing to put forward a proposal that is not and never could be a Palestinian state – a Palestinian entity cut off from its historic capital, Jerusalem, with Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley, and with settlement blocs chopping up the West Bank into fragments. This is a formula for a Bantustan, not a Palestinian state, and Netanyahu knows it.

        Instead of putting the onus on the Palestinian side by offering a solid proposal and daring them to respond, daring them to drop the law of return in exchange for realistic borders and a shared capital, Netanyahu did the opposite. He made clear that he still, as he always has, believes that Israel can hold on to much or most of the West Bank forever.

       Keeping the West Bank – and effective control of Gaza – will present an existential threat to Israel as the Arab population in Greater Israel eventually outnumbers Israeli Jews there. With the peace process now dead, that seems the direction in which Israel is headed.  And, sadly, an unwitting Congress cheered an Israeli leader who seems determined to lead Israel down this destructive path.  

Posted by Trudy Rubin @ 2:25 PM  Permalink | 10 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:42 PM, 05/24/2011
    I agree with everything you say with one exception: "unwitting Congress".
    How about "a fully witless Congress heeding the bidding of AIPAC"?
    Definition of WITLESS
    1: destitute of wit or understanding : foolish
    2: mentally deranged
    Definition of UNWITTING
    1: not knowing : unaware
    2: not intended : inadvertent
    He Visto Todo
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:52 PM, 05/24/2011
    Isreal occupies land inhabited by Palestinians and Palestinians attack Isreal. This was all staged in the Balfour Declaration dating back to the early 1900's between Jewish Bankers and Britan's politicians. Jewish Bankers used their financial "leverage" in London to compel Britian's officials to use its "Empire" to create a national homeland for Jews in Palestine. Britian resisted as outside a world governing body, Britian could not condone an illegal occupation they knew would lead to regional instability. Enter the failed League of Nations (predessessor to UN), WWI and ultimatly WWII and the UN.
    Citizenc92
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:07 PM, 05/24/2011
    I've been following this conflict since 1980. Before the initial intifadah and Arafat was still in exile. There will never be peace there. NEVER. Only solution. War. WWIII. Christians against Muslims. Communism against Democracies. Shiites against Sunnis. Druglords against warlords. Etc etc etc. Then we repeat the cycle because there will NEVER be peace. Not here and Not there.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:16 PM, 05/24/2011
    ISRAEL is the correct spelling. It figures that someone who cannot spell would blame "Jewish bankers" for the conflagration in the Middle East!
    greenie
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:25 PM, 05/24/2011
    so isreal has has no choice but to roll over to the terrorist state that will be created? The sad thing is that isa ll the palestinian state will be. No industry, no commerce, just terrorism and welfare. Sadly you neglect to point out the consistent shelling as technology advances even low tech rockets are a threat. so Is your answer make isreal 8 miles wide and a shared capital? Did those who sacrificed and died in 1967 die for nothing?
    stevejones
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:47 PM, 05/24/2011
    @greenie - What's a matter, affraid to read history? You ARE a joke.
    Citizenc92
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:14 PM, 05/24/2011
    Citizen, no comment on your last post!!!
    greenie
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:17 PM, 05/24/2011
    @greenie - Hard to argue with fact isn't it?
    Citizenc92
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:26 PM, 05/24/2011
    I guess thats why you have NO argument!
    greenie
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:42 PM, 05/25/2011
    Trudy, Yes, the discussion of a "palestinian state" for a betrodden, downridden, nomadic horde of unwanted arabs has been on the table for some time; but using this as a way to bash Netanyahu is misleading. Forget the somnolent Jimmy Carter, who did more than any other American president to create a larger mid-east crisis than anyone before or after him. Reagan and Bush 41 were strong allies that didn't waver or eqiuvocate about our support of THE ONLY DEMOCRACY in the Midle East. Israelknew it had a partner. Then along came tandem team Clinton.. Hillary best expressed her husband Bill's sentiments about Israel with her pro-palestian rant. And Obama? Well, after Bin Ladengate, an adrenal rush must have caused Obama's endomorphins and endorphins to kick in and lead him to tongue lash the Israeli prime minister. For some time, Netanyahu has been aware of Obama's relativist sentiments. If there were any doubts by Israel, last summer's misguided anti-Gaza Strip boycott fiasco sealed the fate of Israel having to go it alone.
    lefty


10 comments
About Trudy Rubin
Trudy Rubin’s Worldview column runs on Thursdays and Sundays. In 2009-2011 she has made four lengthy trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Over the past seven years, she visited Iraq eleven times, and also wrote from Iran, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, China, and South Korea. She is the author of Willful Blindness: the Bush Administration and Iraq, a book of her columns from 2002-2004. In 2001 she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary and in 2008 she was awarded the Edward Weintal prize for international reporting. In 2010 she won the Arthur Ross award for international commentary from the Academy of American Diplomacy.