Israel, he said, has undergone “a fundamental political transformation” as a result of enduring five years of high-level terrorism, beginning in 2000. He pointed out that whereas Labor and Meretz, the two leading political parties of the left advocating for territorial concessions, received 56 seats in the 1992 national elections, they won only 16 seats in last year’s vote.It should be noted that Obama has received advice along these lines already. In a post from February of last year entitled Obama Being Advised To Pursue A Minimalist Approach In Israel-Palestinian Conflict I wrote about Robert Malley, an Obama adviser during the campaign, Aaron David Miller, who recently wrote that resolving the conflict will not fix the Middle East, and Robert Satloff, the Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy--who all advised Obama to take it slow.
“Israel was mugged by reality,” according to Keinon, with missile attacks on northern cities from Lebanon in 2006 and on Sderot from Gaza for years have heightened a national sense of insecurity. Not a time for diplomatic risk-taking and ceding land, he said.
“We can’t go back to the land-for-peace paradigm” the U.S. is calling for now because “we got terrorism for land,” after withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005.
“Washington believes in resolving the conflict, but Israelis now talk about managing the conflict.”
Netanyahu has a peace plan, Keinon said, though it is not to Washington’s liking because it calls for gradual rather than dramatic progress, based on creating economic growth for the Palestinians and involving Arab states in the process, as well as insisting on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Obama, by contrast, “needs immediate results,” Keinon said, because he is convinced a resolution of the Palestinian conflict will help speed up the effort to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama has chosen not to take this advice. Keinon writes that Obama believed--wrongly, as it turned out--that tensions between the US and Israel would cause Israelis to pressure Netanyahu to do what Obama wanted. Obama also thought--incorrectly--that the Israeli public strongly opposes the settlements. Keinon clarifies that
“...while Israelis oppose “the hard-core ideology” of some settlers and are against outposts, they are sympathetic to communities in areas like Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim and east Jerusalem with large Jewish populations.The question now is whether Obama will realize his mistake and change strategies--or insist on following the same course more forcefully.
One of the claims against Obama from the beginning has been that he lacks experience.
Now we will see if he knows how to learn from it.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.
With George Mitchell back in the Middle East, I have feeling every one is just going through the motions. Nothing Israel can or will give the Palestinians will lead the latter to compromise and make real peace with Israel. It isn't going to happen - even if Israel agrees to freeze Jewish construction throughout pre-1967 Israel! So we're not a point where the other side wants peace as much as Israel does. And the Obami will never pressure the PA to wake up from its intransigence and move along. So that is more or less where we are today.
ReplyDeleteI have feeling every one is just going through the motions.
ReplyDeleteBut the motions include periodically pressuring Israel for concessions--and though Bibi has stood strong publicly on the issue of building in Jerusalem, it is not clear that he hasn't agreed to make concessions in other areas.