Give the Palestinians what they want, or else.

By Ted Belman

As the Netanyahu government nears completion, everyone is piling on the pressure to succumb to Palestinian demands. The EU made it clear again, if Israel rejects the two-state solution, it won’t be business as usual between Israel and the EU.

Yesterday the NY Times, the publisher of the antisemitic Oliphant cartoon, editorialized,

It will not be that hard to judge by his deeds, and relatively soon, whether Mr. Netanyahu is serious about seeking peace with the Palestinians. His government is expected to win parliamentary approval next week.

After that, we suggest that he start with freezing further settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank, as Israel has so often promised but failed to do. He should lift roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns that are not needed for security. In East Jerusalem, he should stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians. And in Gaza, he must expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials.

If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a preventive war with Iran.

As The Times’s Ethan Bronner reported, Israel is increasingly isolated and facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades following its Gaza war. Mr. Netanyahu has understandably raised alarms with the expectation that his foreign minister will be an ultranationalist leader with what are widely considered to be anti-Arab views. Failing to pursue peace talks with the Palestinians would only make things worse by causing frictions with the new Obama administration and with Europe.

Essentially what the Times and the EU are saying is, don’t bother me with the niceties, just give the Palestinians what they want. Gone is the pretext that the US or the EU won’t compromise Israel’s security. Gone is the commitment of the Quartet to allow the parties to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

In its place is the demand, nay the threat, give the Palestinians what they want or else. No demands are made on the Palestinians.

The Times suggests that Israel is controlling America, preventing it from pursuing its interests. Its that damned lobby again. More ominous is the idea that the US, if constraints were removed in Congress, could cut a deal with Syria and Iran. Or are they also suggesting that if Israel doesn’t provide the US with bargaining chips, such as the Golan, then Israel is preventing the US from pursuing its interests.

The NYT lowers the bar for acceptance of Hamas to the level that they accept former agreements. Hamas prefers to only “respect” them. No where is there a demand that they honour them. Netanyahu has committed to abide by all Israel’s signed agreements, which by the way do not include the Roadmap which is a blueprint and not an agreement. The NYT wants more from Israel than that it honour all agreements. It wants her to make new agreements. It certainly doesn’t expect the Palestinians to honour their agreements.

This attack by the EU and the NYT culminates a long standing plan of the State Department and others to impose peace. It started with the insertion of the Saudi Plan into the Roadmap. It continued with the publication of The Israel Lobby and the prosecution of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC. Four years ago, I wrote “Viable State” trumps “secure borders” in which I took the position that the Saudi Plan was the State Department Plan. A few months after this article I commented

“Friends of Israel should recognize reality here. Israel is merely going through the motions of negotiating and agreeing or disagreeing while the reality is that the outcome has been predetermined and forced on Israel.”.

The selection of Gen Jones and Samantha Power to serve in the Obama administration is further evidence of the long standing plan to force the Saudi Plan on Israel. It is no accident that during the period when Netanyahu was forming his government the attacks reached a crescendo to affect the makeup of the ultimate coalition. Just a day before the above noted editorial appeared, the NYT published a Op-Ed by Roger Cohen in the New York Times (The Fierce Urgency of Peace), advising on the right way to deal with Israel, based on a “Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking.”. This report enshrined the thinking of Power and Jones as to the terms of the settlement and how to get there.

In Obama’s recent press conference he said “.. the status quo is unsustainable. That it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution”.

Yet it is critical that Israel not advance the two state solution especially on Palestinian terms.

The pressure applied to Netanyahu will be unbearable.