As widely predicted, in his speech at Bar-Ilan University this evening, Bibi Netanyahu cautiously abandoned one of the many outer defenses he had thrown out around his core project to preserve the ability of Jewish Israelis to settle in and control all of Jerusalem and as much of the West Bank as possible.
That’s my reading of the speech, in which for the first time he gave very guarded support to the proposal to establish a Palestinian state.
A completely demilitarized Palestinian state, that is, and moreover one in which Israel’s control over all of Jerusalem will apparently be undiluted.
These excerpts from the reuters web-page above:
- The territory in Palestinian hands must be demilitarised — in other words, without an army, without control of airspace, and with effective security safeguards …
A fundamental condition for ending the conflict is a public, binding, and honest Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
…Israel needs defensible borders and Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, will remain united.
I believe it is excellent that this man has now expressed his support for a Palestinian state. So there is now a goal for the immediate next round of robust peacemaking to focus on.
Haaretz has a page of live-blogging of the speech, in English. It’s a little confusing since (as with most live-blogging) you have to read it from the bottom.
At 20:15 the blogger, Benjamin Hartman, notes this: “Three mentions of Iran in first two minutes.”
At 20:19: “He calls for an immediate start to peace talks (uncomfortable shifting in seats heard) with no preconditions.”
The audience, remember, is a toughly religio-nationalistic one. Bar Ilan is a university for religiously observant Jewish Israelis and was the alma mater of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin.
(Which reminds me of a comment I heard from a pro-peace American-Jewish friend the other day. He said, “It’s actually good that Obama didn’t go to make a speech at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It could have been really dangerous for him… Don’t forget, 30% of Israelis now routinely say that Amir should be pardoned.”)
Oh, I just saw the BBC’s collection of text excerpts from the speech. It is a slightly different collection. (Why hasn’t Israel’s allegedly tech-savvy government made the whole text available in English already?)
The BBC text has these important provisions:
- The Palestinian territory will be without arms, will not control airspace, will not be able to have arms.
I call on you, our Palestinian neighbours, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority – Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions. Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfil their obligations as well.
We have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating land for new settlements. But there is a need to allow settlers to lead normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like all families around the world. [The ‘natural growth’ canard there.]
The refugee problem must be solved outside of Israeli borders. Their return goes against the principle of Israel as a Jewish state. I believe that with goodwill, and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be solved once and for all.
This is, of course, only this Israeli leader’s opening position in what I hope will be a speedy and successful negotiation. It is one that keeps his hard-line coalition intact and pays a nod to Washington on the two-state question, while Bibi is continuing to dig his heels in hard on the settlement issue.
By the way, on settlements, Dan Kurtzer, who was the US ambassador to Israel 2001-2005, gave the definitive version of what was agreed and what was not agreed between Israel and the Bush administration on settlement building, in this piece in the WaPo today.
Bottom line there: in the absence of a Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the matter and in the absence of Israel providing firm and fixed demarcations for either the outer or the “built-up” areas of the settlements, there was no agreement with Washington on where additional settlement construction might be “okay”.
That, in response to Krauthammer’s claims there was an agreement.
But back to Bibi. His concession on a Palestinian “state” is still extremely paltry. Worth giving a small welcome to, I suppose. But let us never forget that Bophuthatswana and its like were also, back in the day, described by Pretoria (and significantly also by Israel), as “states.”
The term means nothing unless the state has real powers to determine its own policies. Some constraints on the level of militarization of a Palestinian state have always been on the table–though there should be some element of reciprocity involved, and with Israeli drones still hovering low over Gaze 24/7 the idea the Palestinians should have no control over their own airspace would be a hard one to sell.
So now we’ve gotten Bibi to say the S-word, Obama should push as fast as possible to secure a final-status peace in which the issues of Jerusalem, final borders, and refugees are all finally resolved. This S-word– like S-for-settlements S-word– is only a very preliminary step on the way.
Why must you call Netanyahu ‘Bibi’? You appropriately refer to Charles Krauthammer in this post as ‘Krauthammer’, not as, for example, ‘Chuck’. Yet their views are probably close to identical. Your use of Netanyahu’s diminutive leaves the same impression that Dennis Ross’s excessive use of it and of various other Israelis’ diminutives did in The Missing Peace, namely that he is one of us, we’re on his side.
Bibi Netanyahu’s spiel brings to mind an old Arab saying referencing the response of a young boy in school when asked; “how much are 2+2” responded, “it depends on whether one is selling or buying”.
The 3 realities facing the Israelis are:
1. Continue policies developed over the past 60 years with increasing prospects of military actions.
2. Accept the wording of the UN Resolutions tha created both Israel and the Palestenian State in their entirety. (No haggling)
3. Incorporate the West Bank and Gaza with Israel with full and equal citizenship to Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Bibi’s speech merits Rigoletto’s aria of ” La comedia et finita”.
The insistence on an undivided Jerusalem – I supect that this may be in reserve as the second “disposable position”?
Or is Netanyahu playing back to Obama his famous committment to undivided Jersualem during the campaign?
I assume Helena uses the term Bibi because that is what many people, including journalists and commentators, refer to him as. Helena has often been nasty and disrespectful, but this isn’t one of those times.
I am glad that the Israeli PM has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in principal. Sharon had to break away from Likud to state such an opinion. Now Bibi has done so as head of Likud.
I agree with Helena that this is best viewed as an opening position. If Bibi had said that these were his preconditions for meeting to negotiate, it would be more troubling. But his recognition of statehood should also be seen in light of his offer to negotiate anytime, anywhere.
No, we’re not there yet. But it’s not a bad step forward.
For Joshua,
As Ms Cobban offers analysis that is independent of, and different from, that of other ‘journalists and commentators’, I see no obligation for her to copy other people’s way of referring to Netanyahu, which gives an unfortunate and no doubt unintended impression of cloying intimacy. If there’s any risk of disrespect, calling the Prime Minister of Israel ‘Mr Netanyahu’ would solve that problem. But how to avoid being ‘nasty’ when one is writing about the Middle East, or politics in general, is another matter.
Netanyahu is obviously now on the defensive walking a fine line between US and his own govt. For the coming days ahead, Obama will push for quick resumption of negotiations and quick initial steps to reduce settlement activity and control the violence of Palestinian extremists. The final deal will not be worked out in a day or even years. It will be the success of numerous confidence building measures that will lead to the end goal of a deal. But the onus will really be on the weaker party, the Palestinian leaders, whether they are clever enough to leverage the current climate to their favor by turning public opinion against Israel instead of worsening their own terrorist image.
No preconditions except that the ‘state’ cannot defend itself, has to accept all Israel’s annexations and must abandon the rights, properties and inheritances of more than half of its people.
That and the ineffable nonsense of recognising that “Israel is a Jewish state” a formulation which is not only racist but specifically anti-semitic.
But no pre-conditions, you understand.
There is no knowing what the Israelis, the Americans, and anyone they can rope in to listen to them, can discuss. But this is not a serious move towards a settlement. It is an insult, designed to be interpreted as such by all, but the ignorant and indifferent whom it is intended to stupefy.
Sorry, I think it’s the typical Israeli bullshit.
I have been studying and watching Israel and the US zios since 9/12 the day after WTC, when Bibi made his famous Freudian slip on MSNBC that “this (911) is good for Israel”.
There is one thing you count on with the Israelis and one thing only…when their lips are moving they are lying.
When Netanyahu said “No preconditions” to peace talks in this speech what he was trying to head off is the Palestine declared “precondition of stopping settlements before peace talks can begin”.
Bibi wasn’t giving up anything..it was only another NO to stopping the settlements…while trying to show Israel as willing to talk.
Call it your typical false flag.
I read Stratfor’s report recently on what Obama is doing with Israel and it jives with what we see that Obama has ‘actually’ done. If you break Obama’s approach so far to this intractable down into steps you get 1) the setup-setting a ‘condition’ on Israel from which he will not back down, 2)the stakes- want a fight over it Israel? 3)the clarfying the illegal settlements- that the settlements ‘aren’t’ Israel’s anyway so giving them up isn’t really a ‘concession’,it’s a ‘requirement’ 4)who makes the rules- the US 5) all that remains…which is what Bibi will do and how far Obama will go.
Personally I think Obama will go all the way, he has boxed himself into it in front of the whole world in Cairo now and there is no way out. The game has changed, the Israelis now have to play Obama’s game. And it will be a game of attrition. Bib will continue the old Israeli game of lie, hedge and stall..he will get called on it and give up a penny…but he will keep on and get called again and it will cost him another penny..it will go on like that until Obama has all the pennies he needs for his own idea of what a Palestine state should be and Israel cries Uncle.
Or Israel throws a ballistic joker into the game like provoking or attacking Iran…in which case there will be a political earthquake in several places.
I pay no attention to WH press releases,no one should take those as any kind of indication of Obama’s or the ME teams real opinion or reaction to anything Israel says or does.
Watch what Mitchell says to the Israelis and others in the region instead.
I could be the wrongest I have been…but I think Obama is going to make Bibi and Israel fold…on both the settlements and the real conditions for a Palestine state. Behind Obama’s boyish charm beats the heart of a master poker player.
Can you imagine if Hamas had an airforce? Instead of sending suicide bombers, they would train suicide pilots straight at Tel Aviv’s towers. Years of brainwashing and hate education are hard to wipe out. Remember, most in the Arab world have been trained to hate Israel for 60 years, although the Western media has ignored this story.
I actually do think that Netanyahu outlined a settlement freeze. He said that Israel would not build new settlements. He also said that Israel would not appropriate land to expand existing settlments. And Ehud Barak is already holding up construction indefinitely within the settelements (as Defense Minister, he has this right without consulting Netanyahu). So where is the settlement construction?
Regarding a demilitarized state, I though that, as a Quaker, you’d be all for that Helena.
It’s also useful to look at the initial reaction from the Palestinians:
A senior Palestinian negotiator called on U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene to force Israel to abide by previous interim agreements that include freezing settlement activity in the West Bank. The alternative, he said, was violence.
“President Obama, the ball is in your court tonight,” Erekat said. “You have the choice tonight. You can treat Netanyahu as a prime minister above the law and … close off the path of peace tonight and set the whole region on the path of violence, chaos, extremism and bloodletting.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092720.html
Significantly, Israel has never defined any borders of settlements, so “natural growth ” within “existing settlements” could (and almost certainly does) mean continued theft of Palestinian land.
I do believe that you are wrong, Jack. Israel has defined the jurisdictional borders of authorized settlements (i.e. the “town limits”) in the occupied territories.
Unauthorized outposts are a different matter.
I’d be interested in knowing where you get your information.
Regarding a demilitarized state, I though that, as a Quaker, you’d be all for that Helena.
In that case, JES, Israel can demilitarise too. It’s the logic. And you’ll be in favour of it, of course.
“Israel is committed to international agreements”
This has to be the most hilarious statement in the entire speech.
Sorry Alex. I’m not a Quaker. My only relationship with Quaker’s are the oats I eat for breakfast every morning.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the speech “closed the door to permanent status negotiations”… “He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain.“
The resident of the White House, impersonating the President of the United States, has reverted to crawling on his belly like a snake before the AIPAC. One would think that those drunk on Obama would finally sober up at this point point, but in truth their capacity for self-delusion is infinite. Because they really aren’t deluding themselves. Like Obama they’ve thrown the Palestinians, the Pakistanis, the Afghans, the Iraqis… all of them under the bus. But to listen to them… why, there’s a change that’s gonna come. Greasing the skids to perdition with the lard of cynicism.
The White House praised Netanyahu’s speech as an “important step forward” and offered implicit support for the prime minister’s demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish nation.
“The president is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic land of both peoples,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
Accepting Israel as a Jewish nation is equivalent to accepting South Africa as a white nation. Cheney was OK with apartheid South Africa, Obama is OK with apartheid Israel.
It took “hardcore” Dick Nixon to give de facto recognition to communist China, It’s taken black Barak Obama to give de facto recognition to Israeli apartheid.
Wonderful post. Also, kudos for your piece on recognizing Hamas that appeared in the Nation.
I agree that it is time for Obama to proceed quickly to the negotiating the final status issues. Whether he will is a whole other issue.
A few quick points:
I do not believe that Netanyahu presenting his opening negotiating position in this speech was appropriate if he intends to pursue meaningful negotiations. Presenting such an extreme position at this time only angers the Palestinians and makes them more entrenched. This is what happened at Camp David. Also, the speech was presented as an answer to Obama’s initiative. As a response to Obama presenting the opening position could be considered as an insult.
Some of the limitations such as a demilitarized state and restrictions on airspace have been agreed to by Arafat and Abbas in the past. This does not mean that the Palestinians will continue to accept these limitations, though. Also, Palestinians rightly object when the Israelis try to “pocket” these concessions which which they (the Palestinians) want to use as negotiating chips in the future.
The fact that in the Oslo negotiations the Palestinian state under consideration was never a normal state but a very limited one is hardly ever mentioned. Maybe it is positive that this fact is now beginning to be discussed.
Can there be any negotiation without Hamas? Does Abbas alone have enough support and authority to implement any final status treaty which would result from negotiations? I think your own Nation article is one of the best answers to this question.
Ira
JES, if you read Dan Kurtzer’s piece carefully, you’ll see that one of the problems that arose in the discussions on settlements between the Bush administration and Sharon was PRECISELY that the Israeli government never did do the demarcating of the boundaries of the ‘built-up’ areas of the settlements that was required before “some allowable construction” (inside those boundaries) could proceed with US blessing.
Yes, we all know that “jurisdictional” boundaries have been established for most settlements. That process was an essential part of creating the apartheid system inside the West Bank, after all, since within those (completely unilaterally determined) boundaries Israeli civil law applies and outside them Israeli military law applies. But those “boundaries” were thrown out extremely widely around the settlements, to draw in as much land as possible– much of it privately owned by Palestinians– and most of it quite empty except for the clusters of settlement residences dotted within it.
Not even those “boundaries” were ever fully demarcated, either.
Bottom line, though: Dan Kurtzer argued that given Israel’s failure to do the required demarcating, and its failure to reach any agreement on this matter with the Palestinians, there WAS no agreement with the Bush administration that Israel could carry on with settlement building.
One constant in Israeli history, JES: your government HATES to demarcate boundaries, and only does it when it absolutely has to.
{i}Bibi’s speech merits Rigoletto’s aria of ” La comedia et finita”.[/i]
I assume you mean Pagliaccio, and it was not an aria but merely a line at the end of the opera.
Same old, same old! Netanyahu’s speech preludes yet one more round of zero-option negotiations for the Palestinian People. Israels settlement ‘Facts on the ground’, on the stolen Palestine grounds that is, are dead-locking in advance even the remotest chance on peace. What is the value/worth of the illegally (according to international law) built real-estate? 15 billion dollar? 30 billion?
Netanyahu will sit this one out for the coming 3 and a half years and stall/sabotage real negotiations until the next U.S. presidential elections, wich may turn a friendlier card to his fortune. And Obama, Obama will have his hands full with domestic upheavel due to his failing economic policy, a budget deficit running amok and two, maby three countries he needs to geo-strategicly control with military means.
Same old, same old.
And Helena, if you read what I wrote carefully, you’ll see that I was not arguing that what Charles Krauthammer was correct or, for that matter, saying what you implied.
What I said was that Netanyahu stated yesterday that Israel would not build any new settlements; that Israel would not appropriate additional land for the expansion of existing settlements; and – and you should read this carefully – that despite what he has to say about “natural growth”, effectively there is no construction going on within the settlements today because Ehud Barak, in his capacity as Minister of Defense, is simply not authorizing it. Further, because Israel has demarcated boundaries around the larger settlement blocs, their town councils need to apply to the Ministry of Defense (because the land is in occupied territory!) for building permits. In other words, it would appear that de facto there is a settlement freeze. If this is what Netanyahu has to do to preserve his coalition so he can make peace, then so be it. If he’s just stalling, then we’ll all find out soon enough, and Labour will be forced to leave the coalition.
What I did pick up from the Kurtzer article however (and perhaps you should read this carefully) is that he specifies the following as “settlements” likely to stay within Israel: Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion. Apparently the previous administration did not consider the neighborhoods of Jerusalem that had, on June 5, 1967 been either no-man’s land or Jordanian military bases (e.g. Ramot, Gilo, Pisgat Ze’ev, etc.) as being settlements.
At any rate, I’m planning on posting on my blog in the next few days a piece on why the whole “natural growth” issue is really a non-issue.
“Israel has never defined any borders of settlements, so “natural growth ” within “existing settlements” could (and almost certainly does) mean continued theft of Palestinian land.”
Why not? It always has.
And of course, Israel has never defined its state borders either. Ben Gurion made it very clear why he would not declare Israel’s borders, and it remains clear to this day.
their town councils need to apply to the Ministry of Defense (because the land is in occupied territory!) for building permits.
Looks there is misleading stake here with statement made by JES.
As fare news report, there are many settlements have no approval and many hardliner Jews did built on the occupied land without building permits.
There is more problems and difficulties for Palestinians to build or get building permits on their own land (not Occupied land)than Israelis, this very clear and documented by many Palestinians sources.
“natural growth” issue is really a non-issue
Looks this statement regarding Israeli “natural growth”?
But as JES wrote or comment in the past the Palestinians “natural growth” is a problem and need to be birth/ mirage control due to water resources and other issues?
What we call this? is it a hypocrisy? isn’t JES?
“natural growth” issue is really a non-issue
Looks this statement regarding Israeli “natural growth”?
But as JES wrote or comment in the past the Palestinians “natural growth” is a problem and need to be birth/ mirage control due to water resources and other issues?
What we call this? is it a hypocrisy? isn’t JES?