POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES OF A NETANYAHU GOVERNMENT
ZALMAN SHOVAZALMAN SHOVAL
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES OF A NETANYAHU GOVERNMENT.
(Briefing: The “Presidents’ Conference of Major Jewish Organizations” - New York, March 12, 2009)
Over the last few months all sorts of genuine or self-proclaimed well-wishers, including parts of the media, have been falling over themselves, about the disaster that would befall Israel if Netanyahu became Prime Minister. Everybody was looking for quotations from this or that book of reminiscences - as if in politics it makes any difference what a person might have thought or said 10 years ago.
But for some quaint reason the Israeli people thought that it was their democratic prerogative to make up their own minds about who is right to lead Israel in these crucial times. Nor, strangely, did the Obama people seem to have been overly impressed by those crocodile tears - and this shouldn’t surprise anyone either. After all, there is a new administration in America - a very pragmatic one - it has its own priorities, and it doesn’t necessarily want to be tied to the failed ideas of its predecessors - and being pragmatic, it realizes that in Netanyahu it can have a partner who no less than they, wants to succeed.
I shall perhaps start with the Netanyahu-Clinton meeting. It was a very good meeting. There were actually many things agreed upon. First, there was Iran - and you may have read in the American press that Mrs. Clinton isn’t very optimistic about the outcome of the diplomatic engagement there. Neither are we. And, by the way, one very important point in this matter is that there must be a time-limit to negotiations, as otherwise, the Iranians will go on with building the bomb under the cover of the negotiations - as Nazi Germany did in planning aggression under the cover of her supposed peace-intentions. Iran has reached the stage where it could produce a bomb within a relatively short time - so, time is of the essence!
It is not for me to second-guess American foreign policy priorities - but one can try to interpret them. My impression from what I read and heard, including from what we heard from Mrs. Clinton, is that as far as the broader Middle East is concerned - Iran, and perhaps even more so Pakistan and Afghanistan - come before the Palestinian-Israeli problem. And frankly, rightly so. In this connection, one should be wary of the view according to which settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem is supposedly the key to solving all America’s other problems in the Middle East and beyond. That’s nonsense - the shoe is actually on the other foot. If Iran will be allowed to go nuclear, this will spell the end of any chance of achieving progress on the peace-front - and it will considerably diminish America’s leadership position in the whole region as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt understand that - some people in Washington apparently do not.
Then there is the matter of “Palestinian unity”, namely a joint Fatah-Hamas government. I believe, the U.S. is still a bit doubtful about the unity - and rightly so - because what this would mean is not only legitimizing Hamas but also giving them the upper hand, not only in Gaza but eventually also on the West Bank. It will also mean the end of the Dayton mission - which has achieved some positive security results in the West Bank.
“O.K., but what aboutAnnapolis and the two-State solution?”
Elliot Abrams, who was President Bush’s deputy National Security Adviser, and very closely involved with the whole Annapolis effort, has said that it has achieved nill results, and that furthermore, “a Palestinian state cannot come into being in the near future - and that the focus should thus be on building the institutions that will allow for real Palestinian progress in the medium or longer term”. He’s not the only one; General Giora Eiland, former Head of Israel’s National Security Council under Ariel Sharon, and not a member of “Likud”, has written that a Palestinian State at this point, whether we like it or not, is just not feasible or realistic - not because of ideological reasons, but for practical reasons, both Israeli and Palestinian ones. Hamas is one reason, but not the only one. He also calculates that removing the 100,000 Jewish settlers who live outside of the agreed to large settlement blocks, would cost at least 30 billion dollars. Even the deputy editor of the “Washington Post” has written that the “U.S. President should focus on building a foundation for peace from the ground up”. As Netanyahu put it after the Clinton meeting: “We need to think creatively in order to move forward and create a different reality, both in terms of security and politically - and this is a common goal for both sides”.
I want to state our position very clearly: The so-called “2-State solution”, or in its full formulation “2 States for 2 peoples” has become a sort of mantra, almost an ideology - but as far as we are concerned, we don’t want to turn it into an anti-mantra either; it’s a formula which has to be judged by its practicability - and not ideologically, for or against. Netanyahu 2009 is a very pragmatic leader and a statesman; he puts Israel’s interests first, but he does not ignore that one of those most important interests is the close relationship with the United States. He also understands that the number one threat facing Israel today is not only this or that Palestinian terrorist activity, or this or that Israeli check-point in the territories - but a rapidly nuclear-going Iran and her genocidal intentions against the Jewish people. His approach to the Palestinian question is pragmatic and logical: No, we don’t want to rule over the Palestinians; yes, we want them to take their destiny into their own hands - but we shall not agree to an arrangement which could jeopardize our security; putting the cart of Palestinian statehood before a weak and divided Palestinian horse would create the worst of all possible worlds; therefore there should, first of all, be a major effort to bring economic prosperity, or at least economic betterment, to the Palestinian people, plus institution-building - more or less along the lines of what Tony Blair, the representative of the “Quartet” proposes - not instead of political negotiations, but as a conduit, a corridor towards a political settlement. To act precipitately could easily create some kind of political Tonzi scheme. What we heard from Secretary Clinton was not all that different: Yes, she still thought that whatever is done or planned, should ultimately lead to Palestinian statehood - but she has also said that there are other views - and that the “goal of the Palestinians should be control of their own destiny” - which, by the way, more or less corresponds to Netanyahu’s formulation - and she has also spoken about the need for economic viability - again just like Netanyahu. Also, the Netanyahu government will respect Israel’s international obligations, which do not contradict security - as he did, by the way, also last time.
Furthermore, in our talk with her in Jerusalem, she made some interesting and, I think, encouraging statements - such as: “we don’t want to be encased in old formulas”; nor were settlements and indeed the 2-State solution mentioned by the way, also not in our meetings with Senator Mitchell - in other words, she made it clear that the U.S. does not want to necessarily be tied to old formulas. While the main topic, and rightly so, was Iran, and not the Palestinians.
I don’t want to gild the lily or to paint too rosy a picture. Of course, there will from time to time be disagreements, even confrontations - there always were. Jerusalem may be one of them; or Syria; the way we shall have to deal with Gaza may be another - especially if the missiles don’t stop; there is the still ongoing lack of consistency and logic in the U.S. position on building even in the settlements inside the large settlement blocks; there are different interpretations with regards to the so-called “Arab Peace Plan”, or Saudi Initiative; and there may be others.
The point I am making, and with this I conclude, is that on both sides there seems to be a genuine will, and interest, to co-operate on a wide range of issues important to both countries and both leaders. Our roads may not always run parallel - but there is certainly no reason for a smash-up.
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES OF A NETANYAHU GOVERNMENT.
(Briefing: The “Presidents’ Conference of Major Jewish Organizations” – New York, March 12, 2009)
Over the last few months all sorts of genuine or self-proclaimed well-wishers, including parts of the media, have been falling over themselves, about the disaster that would befall Israel if Netanyahu became Prime Minister. Everybody was looking for quotations from this or that book of reminiscences – as if in politics it makes any difference what a person might have thought or said 10 years ago.
But for some quaint reason the Israeli people thought that it was their democratic prerogative to make up their own minds about who is right to lead Israel in these crucial times. Nor, strangely, did the Obama people seem to have been overly impressed by those crocodile tears – and this shouldn’t surprise anyone either. After all, there is a new administration in America – a very pragmatic one – it has its own priorities, and it doesn’t necessarily want to be tied to the failed ideas of its predecessors – and being pragmatic, it realizes that in Netanyahu it can have a partner who no less than they, wants to succeed.
I shall perhaps start with the Netanyahu-Clinton meeting. It was a very good meeting. There were actually many things agreed upon. First, there was Iran – and you may have read in the American press that Mrs. Clinton isn’t very optimistic about the outcome of the diplomatic engagement there. Neither are we. And, by the way, one very important point in this matter is that there must be a time-limit to negotiations, as otherwise, the Iranians will go on with building the bomb under the cover of the negotiations – as Nazi Germany did in planning aggression under the cover of her supposed peace-intentions. Iran has reached the stage where it could produce a bomb within a relatively short time – so, time is of the essence!
It is not for me to second-guess American foreign policy priorities – but one can try to interpret them. My impression from what I read and heard, including from what we heard from Mrs. Clinton, is that as far as the broader Middle East is concerned – Iran, and perhaps even more so Pakistan and Afghanistan – come before the Palestinian-Israeli problem. And frankly, rightly so. In this connection, one should be wary of the view according to which settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem is supposedly the key to solving all America’s other problems in the Middle East and beyond. That’s nonsense – the shoe is actually on the other foot. If Iran will be allowed to go nuclear, this will spell the end of any chance of achieving progress on the peace-front – and it will considerably diminish America’s leadership position in the whole region as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt understand that – some people in Washington apparently do not.
Then there is the matter of “Palestinian unity”, namely a joint Fatah-Hamas government. I believe, the U.S. is still a bit doubtful about the unity – and rightly so – because what this would mean is not only legitimizing Hamas but also giving them the upper hand, not only in Gaza but eventually also on the West Bank. It will also mean the end of the Dayton mission – which has achieved some positive security results in the West Bank.
“O.K., but what aboutAnnapolis and the two-State solution?”
Elliot Abrams, who was President Bush’s deputy National Security Adviser, and very closely involved with the whole Annapolis effort, has said that it has achieved nill results, and that furthermore, “a Palestinian state cannot come into being in the near future – and that the focus should thus be on building the institutions that will allow for real Palestinian progress in the medium or longer term”. He’s not the only one; General Giora Eiland, former Head of Israel’s National Security Council under Ariel Sharon, and not a member of “Likud”, has written that a Palestinian State at this point, whether we like it or not, is just not feasible or realistic – not because of ideological reasons, but for practical reasons, both Israeli and Palestinian ones. Hamas is one reason, but not the only one. He also calculates that removing the 100,000 Jewish settlers who live outside of the agreed to large settlement blocks, would cost at least 30 billion dollars. Even the deputy editor of the “Washington Post” has written that the “U.S. President should focus on building a foundation for peace from the ground up”. As Netanyahu put it after the Clinton meeting: “We need to think creatively in order to move forward and create a different reality, both in terms of security and politically – and this is a common goal for both sides”.
I want to state our position very clearly: The so-called “2-State solution”, or in its full formulation “2 States for 2 peoples” has become a sort of mantra, almost an ideology – but as far as we are concerned, we don’t want to turn it into an anti-mantra either; it’s a formula which has to be judged by its practicability – and not ideologically, for or against. Netanyahu 2009 is a very pragmatic leader and a statesman; he puts Israel’s interests first, but he does not ignore that one of those most important interests is the close relationship with the United States. He also understands that the number one threat facing Israel today is not only this or that Palestinian terrorist activity, or this or that Israeli check-point in the territories – but a rapidly nuclear-going Iran and her genocidal intentions against the Jewish people. His approach to the Palestinian question is pragmatic and logical: No, we don’t want to rule over the Palestinians; yes, we want them to take their destiny into their own hands – but we shall not agree to an arrangement which could jeopardize our security; putting the cart of Palestinian statehood before a weak and divided Palestinian horse would create the worst of all possible worlds; therefore there should, first of all, be a major effort to bring economic prosperity, or at least economic betterment, to the Palestinian people, plus institution-building – more or less along the lines of what Tony Blair, the representative of the “Quartet” proposes – not instead of political negotiations, but as a conduit, a corridor towards a political settlement. To act precipitately could easily create some kind of political Tonzi scheme. What we heard from Secretary Clinton was not all that different: Yes, she still thought that whatever is done or planned, should ultimately lead to Palestinian statehood – but she has also said that there are other views – and that the “goal of the Palestinians should be control of their own destiny” – which, by the way, more or less corresponds to Netanyahu’s formulation – and she has also spoken about the need for economic viability – again just like Netanyahu. Also, the Netanyahu government will respect Israel’s international obligations, which do not contradict security – as he did, by the way, also last time.
Furthermore, in our talk with her in Jerusalem, she made some interesting and, I think, encouraging statements – such as: “we don’t want to be encased in old formulas”; nor were settlements and indeed the 2-State solution mentioned by the way, also not in our meetings with Senator Mitchell – in other words, she made it clear that the U.S. does not want to necessarily be tied to old formulas. While the main topic, and rightly so, was Iran, and not the Palestinians.
I don’t want to gild the lily or to paint too rosy a picture. Of course, there will from time to time be disagreements, even confrontations – there always were. Jerusalem may be one of them; or Syria; the way we shall have to deal with Gaza may be another – especially if the missiles don’t stop; there is the still ongoing lack of consistency and logic in the U.S. position on building even in the settlements inside the large settlement blocks; there are different interpretations with regards to the so-called “Arab Peace Plan”, or Saudi Initiative; and there may be others.
The point I am making, and with this I conclude, is that on both sides there seems to be a genuine will, and interest, to co-operate on a wide range of issues important to both countries and both leaders. Our roads may not always run parallel – but there is certainly no reason for a smash-up.
Last posts Bureau
- Following are excerpts from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's re mark s at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting today: - May 5th, 2009
- PM Netanyahu's Yom Ha'atzmaut Message to the Diaspora Communities - April 29th, 2009
- Address by PM Benjamin Netanyahu on Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Day - April 20th, 2009
- PM Netanyahu's Remarks at the Start of the Weekly Cabinet Meeting - April 20th, 2009
- 100 Days team - April 19th, 2009
- Netanyahu: I would like to emphasize three things that will guide us: Unity, responsibility and work. - April 5th, 2009
- Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech 03.31.2009 - April 1st, 2009
- Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech marking 30 years of peace with Egypt - March 30th, 2009
- Breaking news from the Likud Parliamentary Party meeting - March 30th, 2009
- Netanyahu at the Likud Parliamentary Party meeting: "The nation of Israel is in dire need of a strong government" - March 26th, 2009
