T. Belman. According to Savir, who is a strong leftist, Netanyahu is against a Palestinian state and is working toward a binational apartheid state. I do not believe that Netanyahu wants either a binational state or an apartheid state or a binational aparthied state.
He wants to grant autonomy to a Palestine entity just as Menachem Begin wanted to do.
A two-state Israeli-Palestinian solution seems further away today than ever. Yet, the Israeli prime minister’s office doesn’t take this for granted and has developed a multipronged strategy as insurance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to place roadblocks in the path of any political process designed to bring about a two-state solution, according to a senior European Union official in Brussels who visits the region on a regular basis and spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity.
“There are two facets to Netanyahu’s anti-two-state strategy,” the official said. “Netanyahu attempts to ensure the nonviability of a Palestinian state, mainly through the expansion of settlements, and at the same time he recites a long list of reasons why Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is sabotaging possible negotiations. In every meeting with Netanyahu, we discover another obstacle and hear another argument. In the corridors of the EU headquarters there are those defining Netanyahu as a ‘serial alibi-ist,’ always finding a reason not to place himself at the scene of a two-state solution negotiation.”
At EU headquarters, there is a sense of hopelessness regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, given Netanyahu’s rejection of any initiative, Abbas’ weakness and the US abstention from attempts to revive a peace process or to accept a UN Security Council resolution on the issue.
The EU source warns of a possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority and an outbreak of a violent intifada.
Netanyahu has a different analysis of the situation. A close confidant of the prime minister, talking to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, said Netanyahu is interested in a two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state, conditioned on the recognition of the Jewish State of Israel and with stringent security measures throughout the West Bank.
Yet the source said, Netanyahu believes that now is the wrong time to move in that direction, when the entire region faces the threat of fundamentalist terror groups such as the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Terror, according to Netanyahu, must first be quelled — only then can political negotiations take place.
The Jerusalem source admitted the prime minister’s office clearly has a plan to delay the two-state solution. The strategy consists of several elements.
First, the right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party of Naftali Bennett needs to be kept within the coalition. Netanyahu has made this clear to Zionist Camp leader Isaac Herzog in back-channel talks on a possible national unity government. The prime minister considers Israeli settlers his main political base for his next election campaign. This constituency must be convinced that Netanyahu is their best guarantee against a Palestinian state, as he knows how to outmaneuver the international community.
Second, settlements need to be expanded, which would render establishing a Palestinian state impossible. This is especially true in the case of the Jerusalem-area settlements and those outside the settlement blocs that disrupt the contiguity of a future Palestinian state. Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel said in a Dec. 18 interview with the daily Israel Hayom that by 2019, the government plans to increase the number of settlers by 50% — to 600,000 — in the West Bank (not counting East Jerusalem).
Then there is the element of resisting US pressure. Netanyahu responded with a resounding “No” to US Secretary of State John Kerry during Kerry’s last visit on Nov. 24 regarding any meaningful confidence-building measures, such as the release of Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu excels in resisting US pressure and pointing the finger at Abbas. During the Kerry peace initiative of 2013-14, the prime minister agreed to certain concessions on a border based on 1967 lines, but conditioned them on Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, something he knew the Americans would accept but Abbas would reject.
A fourth strategic component of Netanyahu’s plan is cooperation with neighboring countries. Part of his well-orchestrated, anti-two-state strategy is to use Israel’s close security cooperation with Egypt and Jordan to defuse their pressure on the Palestinian issue. The same is true for Israel potentially exporting natural gas to Turkey.
In addition, Netanyahu’s office views IS as a major propaganda asset in making the case against a Palestinian state. The prime minister and his representatives equate random Palestinian terror attacks by individuals to IS terror, and warn that the West Bank risks turning into an IS base should Israel withdraw. This approach works well with most Israelis and with some in the international community who are mesmerized by the IS threat.
This strategy also shapes the content of Netanyahu’s policy dialogue with both the United States and the EU.
This indicates that those who claim that Netanyahu has no foreign policy or does not achieve his strategic goals are wrong. The strategies, the diplomacy and the rhetoric all serve one central purpose: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel is shaping a new reality, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River — a binational apartheid state in the making.
Uri Savir has spent his professional life working on the strategies of peacemaking in Israel. In 1996, he established the Peres Center for Peace and is currently the center’s honorary president. In 2011, Savir founded the YaLa Young Leaders online peace movement.
woolymammoth Said:
what prevents the state is that Hamas does not want to declare it in gaza…. I wonder why? Certainly if they declared a state there, unlike the PA, they would fulfill criteria in law for a state as they exercise soveriegnty over their borders and within and their borders are clear.
1DavidKA Said:
deport all anti semites… anti semitism should be a severely punished crime in the Jewish homeland. Until then one must keep them under tight supervision deserving of those who teach their children that Jews are sons of apes and pigs. folks who believe that and teach it to their children are dangerous lunatics and criminals requiring strict controls and limited rights.. just like any civilized society treats its criminals and lunatics.
what they want is not as important as protecting jews from their lunacy. 50% 0f gazans were polled at wanting to go to europe but did not have th e10k to pay the smugglers. By expanding criminal networks covertly their dreams, and Israels, can be realized killing 2 birds with one stone(the euro funders of Jew killers and the jew killers themselves). Keeping the west bank poor while allowing voluntary escape through the smugglers to europe would reduce the problem.
1DavidKA Said:
When dealing with swindlers, liars, libelers and funders of jew killers one must tread surreptitiously. Perhaps you never noticed that world diplomacy is 99% dishonesty?
1DavidKA Said:
the existence of jews continues to anger the world, why else would the 2000 year jew murderers, swindlers and stalkers continue to libel and swindle the Jews while now funding arab terror orgs to do their past dirty work of the slaughter? Judea Samaria is the historic Jewish homeland and there is no logical reason for the world to swindle the Jews when most of them prior signed on to guaranteeing the jewish settlement there… and now lie that it is illegal or illegitimate.
@ 1DavidKA:
Oslo granted them autonomy over A and B. Bibi olso maintains the status quo.
If, as Ted says, he wants to grant autonomy to a Palestine entity just as Menachem Begin wanted to do, why doesn’t he say so openly and honestly? He would be more respected if he was candid.
Why does BB let the expansion of the settlements if it angers the world community and makes life harder for him and Israel?
Security is a legit concern, people can’t argue against it. So why doesn’t BB say it openly? Why does it have to come from a “close confidant of the prime minister”, as if it’s a kind of a covert political maneuver?
@ Bert:
How can we push for such a solution when those who live there, the pal’s, don’t want to move away from there?
@ babushka:
The answer to your question is both, and maybe for our own good. Netanyahu will not be the first PM to have done so.
This analysis makes sense and gives a glimpse into the complexity of the role of Israeli PM. Such a strategy sounds much more survivable than some of the talk going around here of giving Israeli citizenship to The Arab residents of Judea and Samaria by some “folks”, who believe they can play back seat driver with questionable qualifications.
Like him or not, whether it be a “tv face” or his actual personality on view before the world, when it came to frustrating Obama, Netanyahu has excelled. He is truly, “The Obamanator”, at least so far. If you consider the upheaval of the last several years, just in Egypt alone, one would most certainly have to give Netanyahu well deserved credit.
As I have stated…several times, despite the acrimony towards Netanyahu, he will imho earn a passing score at what he himself might describe as “…at the end of the day”.
Right now, in comparison with this PM, the humiliation in HIS tenure in the PM’s residence is on the criminal Ehud Olmert, who could not talk his way out of a prison sentence, the first PM and hopefully the last to earn such a dubious distinction. At least we know he is finished, finally.
@ oldjerry:
Absolutely right. I would think 500,000 times worse, at a bare minimum.
The issue of The Gaza Disengagement is a very interesting one. I was wildly opposed to the Gaza withdrawal and sickened by Sharon’s clumsy and criminal, in my view neglect of Israeli rights, for which he may have one day been indicted and stood trial. Nonetheless, despite his callous disregard for the lives of his fellow Israelis affected by the repugnant grotesque move, it needs to be examined in finer detail. If for no other reason then to bring closure. One thing that I find interesting, is that during the weeks leading up to the actual withdrawal there were a series of votes in his cabinet on the matter. Sharon designed the approval process this way to appear, I suppose somehow legitimate and transparent. There seemed to be ample opportunity for a change of heart on the part of the Cabinet to scuttle the impending disaster. As we know or remember, every vote went for approval, despite Netanyahu’s and Ya’ya’alon’s presence, until they both staged their comedy of the absurd melodramatic resignation, seemingly when it was a fait accompli. I remember after the Knesset finally approved the plan, I was furious and I had a chance to ask MK Uzi Landau whether there might be some “mechanism” of stopping the withdrawal despite the Knesset approval given what will certainly result in a Hamas takeover or as I put it a takeover by “United Terrorist Forces”. Uzi Landau agreed with me, that my analysis was “in place” and stated that he had no idea at the moment of any mechanism for stopping the withdrawal. If Landau knew the outcome, now please humor me and tell me General Arik Sharon could not figure that out himself. Then, it is reasonable to assume, he did it knowing that in the end, the Gaza Disengagement would probably prevent a palestinian State from coming into existance.
@ Bert: Well no, Jordan can not “easily” cede
territory for a “p” state. The reason why is not because it does not have enough physical ground to give. Jordan knows, for sure, that just as Israel cannot exist with one, neither can Jordan, for a whole variety of reasons which I believe you can figure out yourself if you imagine what would develop there, in practice, not in theory or leftist mythology.
If not, we can go into detail…later, if you wish.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that ceding land for a Palestinian state would be a repetition of the Gaza pull out, but a thousand times worse? If need be give the Palestinians some degree of autonomy but under strict Israeli oversight.
When you praise someone for being deceptive, take care that you are not the one being deceived. Is Netanyahu cleverly manipulating the Americans? Or the Israelis?
The “West Bank” is 2,000 square miles. The artificial state of Jordan is 35,000 square miles and is mostly Palestinian. Jordan could easily cede 4,000 square miles of its territory for a Palestinian state an be twice the size of the West Bank. Israel would then go from 8,000 square miles to 10,000 square miles. Jordan would still have 31,000 square miles and be over three times the size of Israel. Everyone would benefit EXCEPT the anti-Semites among the Jewish left, the Muslim enemies and the anti-Israel crowd in the State Department and the American left. This solution should be put in play to compete with the insane “two state” solution. This would be infinitely easier to defend than the “two state” solution. The main problem is that Jewish officials lack vision and courage to think a fresh thought.