Israel’s former failed prime minister and current defense minister, Ehud Barak, is now saying that PM Netanyahu
- will present the U.S. administration a diplomatic plan in line with the principle of “two states for two nations” during his upcoming visit to Washington.
Until now, Netanyahu has refused to commit himself to agreeing with the Obama administration that statehood for the Palestinians is the way forward for peace. So now, Barak is indicating Netanyahu may be a bit “flexible” on the statehood issue. (Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, however, remains strongly opposed. Oops.)
But here’s the thing. It is not the word “state” that’s important, regarding the outcome. South Africa’s Bantustans were also called “states”, remember.
It is the content of the sovereignty and decision-making powers, the independence of the decision-making process, and the territorial and economic foundations that support this independence that are important.
So people should not get hung up on the word “state”– and certainly, they shouldn’t suddenly rush to crown Netanyahu with a peacemaker’s laurels if he should deign to say the Palestinians might be able to have one.
Look at the content of any proposal made, not just its name.
A couple other things to bear in mind:
1. Past PM Olmert also said he believed in a Palestinian “state.” His concept of it was very restrictive, including of course territorially. The fact that he accepted the notion of a Palestinian state did not mean his proposals regarding the final settlement were in any way acceptable.
2. Ten years ago, Barak won a strong victory in the polls against Netanyahu, and replaced him as PM. On that occasion, Barak won by promising Israelis that he was the man who could conclude a final peace with the Palestinians “within six to nine months.” Eighteen months later his premiership collapsed into chaos with that pledge still unfulfilled.
Worse than that, the peremptory and bullying way he conducted his peace “diplomacy” with the Palestinians ensured that the Camp David II summit was a disaster. Barak then loudly blamed PA leader Yasser Arafat for the failure and said Israel “had no partner for peace.” (Clinton, quite shamefully, completely backed him up on that.)
Leaders and activists in the real Israeli peace movement say that Barak’s behavior at that time was a stab in the heart for their movement, from which it has still, nine years later, not recovered.
This time, Barak is “promising” that the Netanyahu government will have peace with the Palestinians “within three years.” He has no credibility.
the peremptory and bullying way he conducted his peace “diplomacy” with the Palestinians ensured that the Camp David II summit was a disaster. Barak then loudly blamed PA leader Yasser Arafat for the failure and said Israel “had no partner for peace.”
I wonder what your source is for that assertopm?
And if “state” is just a word, well then shouldn’t we ask what PA leader Yasser Arafat had in mind when he called for two states?
And why was he so reluctant to declare an end to the conflict, when even according to his own negotiators the territorial issues were pretty much agreed upon?
The way I see what happened, Barak and Arafat were both the sorts of leaders who – like most leaders really – hesitate to make themselves irrelevant by actually solving anything. Why would Barak shoot himself in the foot by failing to succeed? Um, he’s still in the game, ten years later, isn’t he? He’s had a good gig. Woulda ruined it by actually achieving peace.
JES, it’s unclear which portion of the quoted segment you’re seeking a source for. CD-2 was, of course, a failure in its own terms. It was also a political disaster that delivered a strong, possibly mortal blow to the Israeli peace movement as all the movement’s leaders that I’ve ever talked to readily acknowledge. (Since you appear not to be a member of the movement, maybe you don’t know that, though I suspect you do.)
Rob Malley and Hussein Agha, who were at CD2, published an evaluation of it that made clear that Barak bore a large portion of the blame for its failure– as also for the hasty and ill-prepared way it was convened. You can read their accounts in the NYRB, or Clay Swisher’s book, or look at any number of sources to learn about the distinctly unhelpful and showboating way Barak was acting.
So now here comes this vain and self-referential man once again, trying to sell a different US president a bill of goods that’s only slightly different…
CD-2 was, of course, a failure in its own terms. It was also a political disaster that delivered a strong, possibly mortal blow to the Israeli peace movement as all the movement’s leaders that I’ve ever talked to readily acknowledge.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t address anything in the statement I quoted from you post. Go back and look again. I think it’s clear that I was referring to your assertion that Barak was to blame and then he turned around and, in turn, blamed Arafat.
Dennis Ross, Shlomo Ben Ami and Gilad Sher tell a slightly different story. Even Nabil Amr blames Arafat for the failure.
Personally, I agree that Barak is vain and self-referential. I also happen to think that Arafat was probably vain and self-referential. But what do these adjectives have to do with making peace?
A new order emerges in Lebanon
“We have seen the Sunnis in the field, huh!” he said, adding, “They didn’t last for more than 15 minutes!” Jumblatt quickly apologized – but the damage was already done.
Jumblatt realizes that for all practical purposes, its only a matter of time until the United States begins dialogue with two arch-enemies of the former Bush White House – Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah. Delaying his own rapprochement with Hezbollah would harm nobody but him.
During the recent Summit of the Americas, Obama said that he would respect the “legitimacy” of all democratically elected governments, even if the US “might not be happy” with the results of any elections. He added that the US “condemns any efforts at a violent overthrow of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere”. Talks with Hamas have already begun in Europe and it is only a matter of time until they are expanded to include Hezbollah.
According to a January 9 article in The Guardian, “sources close to the [Obama] transition team” will change course via Hamas, and “initiate low-level clandestine approaches”.
Recently… Paul Volker, a senior economic advisor to Obama, was among those who authored a letter calling for a more rational approach to dealing with Hamas. Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel, who is close to Clinton, recently wrote that any peace deal without Hamas was destined to fail.
The United Nations couldn’t disarm them, nor could Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or the United States. The same applies to Hezbollah, which emerged victorious from the war of 2006. Obama, a practical leader by all accounts, realizes that if these groups are voted into power, it would be sheer hypocrisy not to deal with them and repeat what was committed by Bush.
Walid Jumblatt – and anti-Hamas figures in Palestine like President Mahmud Abbas – is among the first to fully grasp this new attitude in Washington.
This is a report from a Syrian perspective, but it seems in accord with your hopes, Helena. I will be thrilled to be wrong if this sort of thing comes to fruition.
will present the U.S. administration a diplomatic plan in line with the principle of “two states for two nations” during his upcoming visit to Washington.
More Zionist baloney, cut from the same putrid chunk of BS that has been floating around for the last 35+ years.
As long as the USA gives unconditional backing to Israel, supplying that Apartheid state with billions of dollars in weapons and funding each year and backing at the UN, there will be NO two-state solution or any solution.
The only diplomacy that will be used is the same diplomacy Israel uses anytime someone in the ME mentions the “P” word, peace.
That word makes most Israeli leaders go into a panic and they respond by sending in flights of heavily armed F-16’s and Apache helicopter gunships to “negotiate.”
will present the U.S. administration a diplomatic plan in line with the principle of “two states for two nations” during his upcoming visit to Washington.
More Zionist baloney, cut from the same putrid chunk of BS that has been floating around for the last 35+ years.
As long as the USA gives unconditional backing to Israel, supplying that Apartheid state with billions of dollars in weapons and funding each year and backing at the UN, there will be NO two-state solution or any solution.
The only diplomacy that will be used is the same diplomacy Israel uses anytime someone in the ME mentions the “P” word, peace.
That word makes most Israeli leaders go into a panic and they respond by sending in flights of heavily armed F-16’s and Apache helicopter gunships to “negotiate.”
a diplomatic plan in line with the principle of “two states for two nations”
Israeli politicians tend to use words very carefully – as opposed to Palestinian officials whose loose use of language often causes them serious problems. Apartheid is “in line with the principle of two states for two nations.” So is transfer or ethnic cleansing. Barak has committed to nothing except a continuation of the status quo. Israelis have decided they can live with this and I believe that a majority now believe that real peace is simply not achievable, at least not in the forseeable future. So stringing the US, the EU and the rest of the world along with empty, meaningless negotiations, while continuing to consolidate the existing situation makes the most sense.
Shlomo Ben-Ami blames Arafat for not jumping at what he says was on offer at Taba in early 2001, but he has also said that at Camp David in the summer of 2000 the offer made to the Palestinians was a bad one. This was on a “Democracy Now” program from a few years ago, where he and Norman Finkelstein appeared. You can probably still find the transcript via Norman’s website, or by googling for it (I’m too lazy to do it right now).
Nobody (AFAIK) denies Arafat has at least some of the responsibility for the failure in 2000-2001, but it’s a question in the US of whether Barak also deserves some of the blame.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275571.html US-Funded Racist “Palestinian-Islamic” Apartheid Government Will Execute Man Who Sold Land To Enemy Religion
—
No, this is REAL APARTHEID, this is not the usual buzz word of that “ficticious” apartheid slur on pluralistic democratic Israel, where its 20-25% Arabs are not only equal citizents but are often treated in preferencial treatment OVER Israeli Jws, such as in: court cases, in Hebron land issues and standards in the universities as “affirmative action”, not to mention the unfairness of Israeli Arabs NOT serving in the military yet having the same rights as Israeli Jews…
—
And those racist Arabs dare to shout “apartheid”???
“pluralistic democratic Israel, where its 20-25% Arabs are not only equal citizents but are often treated in preferencial treatment OVER Israeli Jws, such as in: court cases, in Hebron land issues and standards in the universities as “affirmative action”, not to mention the unfairness of Israeli Arabs NOT serving in the military yet having the same rights as Israeli Jews…”
Gosh, Laura, just this portion of your comment is so full of factual errors (aka bull****) one hardly knows where to begin.
1. Israel is and ethnocracy, and is therefore neither pluralistic nor truly democratic.
2. The Palestinians who are citizens of Israel (and not all of whom are Arabs, therefore it is an error to refer to them as such) are far from equal citizens, even under the law, let alone de facto.
3. Preferential treatment over Jews? In whose dreams?
4. You seem unaware that Hebron is not in Israel, but is occupied territory which Israel has colonized in violation of international law. And if you want to talk about how Palestinians in Hebron are treated, we could have quite a conversation about that, complete with video evidence.
5. Palestinian citizens of Israel (only some of whom are Arab) are not required to serve in the military only because they are not considered trustworthy, and by no means do they have the same rights as Jews in The Jewish State.
PS I just remembered reading something from an American Jew who visited Israel last year, and was lamenting the fact that Jews and “Arabs” no longer seemed to mix as freely as they once did. His example? That there was some discomfort when he visited the “Arab” family that used to serve as servants in the home of his sister and her family, and that this family no longer worked as servants in Jewish homes.
How sad, really, that these “Arabs” are no longer mixing freely as servants for the Jewish “equal” citizens!