Netanyahu: The Best Man Won
In the end, it does not matter all that much that Bibi Netanyahu is going to be Israel's next prime minister. I don't see much (if any) real differences between him and Ehud Barak or Tzipi Livni. In fact, in my opinion, it is Barak more than anyone else who is responsible for demise of the Oslo process. (For the facts on that, see Clayton Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David," a brilliant expose by a young ex-Marine who was there).
I also am taken by an analysis by Yossi Beilin, who was Oslo's architect. He says that it is better to have a pure right wing government than a right wing government covered by a centrist fig leaf. He says that, in the past, the worst Israeli governments have been national unity hybrids. The hybrid goes about its business building new settlements and thwarting the peace process with its moderate component (i.e., Shimon Peres, in his day) putting a pretty face on it. A pure right wing government is not nearly as good at pulling the wool over Washington's eyes.
Remember how Jimmy Carter handled Menachem Begin at Camp David? Or how the first George Bush not only used our foreign aid as leverage against Yitzhak Shamir but engineered his replacement by Yitzhak Rabin? Barak, on the other hand, ran rings around us. President Clinton recalls that Barak treated America as if Israel was the superpower and he, Clinton, was a "goddam wooden Indian" whose job was to shut up and listen.
Beilin also believes that the United States will come down harder on a right wing government than on one that appears centrist. It will be easier for President Obama to deal with Netanyahu than with the almost equally hawkish Livni because the latter seems dedicated to ending the conflict. In fact, her views on some of the critical issues are at least as hard line as Netanyahu's. But her seeming moderation is a nice cover.
A Netanyahu government would have no such cover. Any acts of sabotage to the peace process or new misery inflicted on the Palestinians would likely be strongly opposed by the United States. Israel's most slavish "friends" in Congress -- almost all Democrats -- would find it hard, although far from impossible, to choose Netanyahu (who is very close to the GOP) over Obama. The lobby will be dispirited. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not like far right governments because they are a tougher sell.
The likely result will be either a right wing government that goes out of its way not to offend the United States or one that does, and gets put in its place.
So I'm not too sad today, except about the rise of the neo-fascist Lieberman (the "neo" is there because everyone uses it. I'm not sure what's so neo about him). Here's my piece about him from today's Los Angeles Times.
ALSO, IPF HAS A NEW INTERACTIVE BLOG FOR UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS AND COMMENTARY ON THE MIDDLE EAST.
Obama might be able to negotiate more effectively with Livni.
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/02/livni-over-netanyahu-by-one-seat-so-far.html
February 11, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you're right here, MJ. Bibi scares the crap outta me.
February 11, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
He;s bad. But he caves quickly.
February 11, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: This is why I wanted Netanyahu:
"Beilin also believes that the United States will come down harder on a right wing government than on one that appears centrist. It will be easier for President Obama to deal with Netanyahu than with the almost equally hawkish Livni because the latter seems dedicated to ending the conflict. In fact, her views on some of the critical issues are at least as hard line as Netanyahu's. But her seeming moderation is a nice cover."
And so what if he "topples Hamas"? It will be harder for Israel to use food as a weapon if the occupation is re-formalized. Right now, Gaza has a remote Occupation.
February 11, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Netanyahu first became known to me when he was Prime Minister of Israel in the 90s. I got the impression he was a hard line zealot given to violence. He's a scary guy, I don't like him.
February 11, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The recent Israeli offensive shattered what little semblance of political cohesion existed on the PAL side. Similarly, Israel itself has been in a state of political decline now steady decline since Ariel walked the Mount in 2000.
To say that it is "all up to Obama" presupposes a Messiah MJ. Nothing the US can do, short perhaps of cutting aid and joining a boycott of Israel, is going to make any difference in the dark outcome that is now before us.
I just can't see how, never really could see how, the US could play a seriously constructive role where the two main stakeholders lack the political strength, will or ability to reach a meaningful settlement
February 11, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree that both sides are equally weak in terms of an ability to reach agreement. And I certainly don't believe, as John seems to imply, that Palestinian weakness is purely a function of whatever military action Israel takes.
But it almost doesn't really matter. The essential point is the same. Those who hang their hat on the idea that Obama is going to come in and kick ass, take names, knock heads, or do whatever needs to be done to get the parties to the peace table are just living in a fantasy land. The level of naivete (or is it cynicism?) displayed by the so-called peaceniks is just staggering.
The issue isn't that there is no value to having an aggressive push for peace from a third party. There probably is. It's that the orientation and mentality is still focused on an Oslo-like push for the big showy peace agreement that wins Nobel Prizes and gets you on the front page of newspapers around the world. The goals need to be more modest.
February 11, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Brad. You must mean something along the lines of the "economic peace" that Netanyahu recently suggested as an alternative to a political settlement, eh? That will work just great - the settlers certainly love the idea.
http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl241108ed42.html
MJ: I sure hope you're right that Netanyahu, as a result of his clearly rightwing views, won't be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Obama administration with this sort of nonsense. But I'm not certain that Obama will be able to do what so many before him were unable to achieve. I'm sort of sickened by the election's result...
One further note: Josh mentioned on the front page yesterday something about how extreme RW governments in Israel have, after a time, often given way to liberal governements in which real progress is made. Problem is, there's been so much illegal Israeli settlement that it may be too late for a viable Palestinian state even as we speak now. Time's up...
February 11, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree that both sides are equally weak in terms of an ability to reach agreement. And I certainly don't believe, as John seems to imply, that Palestinian weakness is purely a function of whatever military action Israel takes.
But it almost doesn't really matter. The essential point is the same. Those who hang their hat on the idea that Obama is going to come in and kick ass, take names, knock heads, or do whatever needs to be done to get the parties to the peace table are just living in a fantasy land. The level of naivete (or is it cynicism?) displayed by the so-called peaceniks is just staggering.
The issue isn't that there is no value to having an aggressive push for peace from a third party. There probably is. It's that the orientation and mentality is still focused on an Oslo-like push for the big showy peace agreement that wins Nobel Prizes and gets you on the front page of newspapers around the world. The goals need to be more modest.
February 11, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Dad:
The goals need to be more modest.
No, the goals need to be more aggressive - as in, "here's the peace plan, now both of you sign or face the wrath of the rest of the planet." Modest goals are what did the process in: lots of conferences and lots of half-assed interim measures, all of which were wiped away by the inevitable suicide bombing/ham-handed IDF op before they could become self-sustaining. Everyone knows what a fair two-state solution looks like; what we need to do is enforce it, all at once, whether the Israelis and Palestinians like it or not.
February 11, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan,
I'm surprised that someone who appears to have such a detailed knowledge of Israel could ever think that such an idea could work. And isn't "facing the wrath of the planet" kind of irrelevant at this point? That ship has already sailed. And just how is a "peace" plan that is essentially forced on the people it is ostensibly protecting supposed to work?
But I think you misunderstand my original point. I'm not saying we should go back to the incrementalism of Oslo. You're right - that approach can easily be held hostage to violent events. I'm talking about making the goal itelf more modest. What it boils down to is that I don't think a peace treaty is possible at all. At least not in any reasonable time frame. There needs to be more emphasis on Palestinian nation-building. On restored security cooperation. On improving water access. And yes, on settlement growth. Start with modest goals that yield tangible improvements in peoples' lives. Aim for long-term non-belligerence. True peace is a non-starter.
February 11, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was partly venting - I've just about had it with the fecklessness and nihilism that seem to be in fashion these days on both sides of the Green Line.
But on the other hand, it worked in Bosnia, didn't it? The international community strongarmed the parties into declaring peace and imposed a de facto two state solution that nobody liked but everyone learned to live with. And the history of mutual violence and hatred there was deeper, older and more murderous than that between Israelis and Palestinians.
Granted, the powers that be had to sit on the Bosnians and Serbs pretty hard. Israel is stronger than any of the factions in the Bosnian war, so it won't be as easy to coerce. Nukes or no nukes, though, it's a small country and can't ignore the rest of the world, and the Palestinians are of course in even less of a position to say no.
Would it be a mess? Yes. But nothing else has worked, has it?
The problem I see with economics-first or nation-building-first incrementalism is that neither solves the problem of friction. You aren't going to get sustainable economic development or a peace-seeking civil society as long as Israelis and Palestinians are right in the middle of each other and need extreme measures to protect themselves. The whole point of Oslo was to usher in a period of economic growth and nation-building, but the end result was precisely the opposite: Arafat systematically destroyed the existing Palestinian civil society, settlements and checkpoints kept growing, and the intifada destroyed any tentative progress that had been made. In the meantime, just as occupation radicalized the Palestinians, terrorism and rockets radicalized the Israelis, and both are now much less ready for peace than they were 15 years ago.
It's hard to see how new thinking will ever develop as long as the day-to-day friction continues, which is why political separation has to come first. It may be that the Israeli occupation will have to be temporarily replaced with another occupation in the form of international trusteeship, so that nation-building can occur under that aegis, but the settlers have to go first and the IDF has to withdraw behind defined borders.
February 12, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree that both sides are equally weak in terms of an ability to reach agreement. And I certainly don't believe, as John seems to imply, that Palestinian weakness is purely a function of whatever military action Israel takes.
But it almost doesn't really matter. The essential point is the same. Those who hang their hat on the idea that Obama is going to come in and kick ass, take names, knock heads, or do whatever needs to be done to get the parties to the peace table are just living in a fantasy land. The level of naivete (or is it cynicism?) displayed by the so-called peaceniks is just staggering.
The issue isn't that there is no value to having an aggressive push for peace from a third party. There probably is. It's that the orientation and mentality is still focused on an Oslo-like push for the big showy peace agreement that wins Nobel Prizes and gets you on the front page of newspapers around the world. The goals need to be more modest.
February 11, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't naivete. It is patriotism. We believe that eventually our country will do what's right for its citizens -- rather than respond to the pressure of donors.
The lobby crowd counts on that never to happen. And they may be right.
But, look at its position. with public financing of campaigns, support for the lobby drops from 400 plus to fewer than 40.
That is not going to happen anytime soon.
But public resentment toward lobbies and fatcats is growing by leaps and bounds. I'd rather be on that side of the issue, than on the side that says "don't worry about Congress. We've taken care of that."
El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.
Naive? Maybe. But right.
February 11, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not follow the logic here.
Netanyahu and Livni are more or less like Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, yet Washington will stand up to one but not the other?
When Netanyahu was Prime Minister in the 1990s, carrying out in essence the wishes of those who murdered Rabin, who in the US Congress was willing to stand up and denounce this crooked, bigoted, playboy? Why should things be significantly different this time around? Is there anyone outside of UFO Kucinich and one or two of a similar orbit who has EVER taken "offense" at anything any Israeli government has done?
Left wing, right wing, peace camp, nationalist camp, where in Israel is there a credible plan for taking on the terrorist-settlers to a degree remotely approaching what Palestinians "must do" vis-a-vis THEIR terrorists as a precondition for less oppression and negotiations?
Prime Minister Tweedledumdedee, whomever he or she may turn out to be, will feel compelled to blow things up in Gaza and/or the West Bank as soon as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, or some new group -recruited, say, from relatives of slaughtered Gazan children- attacks, as they are bound to eventually. And then, anyone in the US Congress who condemns Israeli massacres for whatever reason in or whatever way will be widely labelled a terrorist-loving anti-Semite. And George Mitchell will politely depart for shuttle irrelevancy. Such insanity in perpetuity is an AMERICAN problem, not an Israeli one.
February 11, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not follow the logic here.
Netanyahu and Livni are more or less like Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, yet Washington will stand up to one but not the other?
When Netanyahu was Prime Minister in the 1990s, carrying out in essence the wishes of those who murdered Rabin, who in the US Congress was willing to stand up and denounce this crooked, bigoted, playboy? Why should things be significantly different this time around? Is there anyone outside of UFO Kucinich and one or two of a similar orbit who has EVER taken "offense" at anything any Israeli government has done?
Left wing, right wing, peace camp, nationalist camp, where in Israel is there a credible plan for taking on the terrorist-settlers to a degree remotely approaching what Palestinians "must do" vis-a-vis THEIR terrorists as a precondition for less oppression and negotiations?
Prime Minister Tweedledumdedee, whomever he or she may turn out to be, will feel compelled to blow things up in Gaza and/or the West Bank as soon as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, or some new group -recruited, say, from relatives of slaughtered Gazan children- attacks, as they are bound to eventually. And then, anyone in the US Congress who condemns Israeli massacres for whatever reason or in whatever way will be widely labelled a terrorist-loving anti-Semite. And George Mitchell will politely depart for shuttle irrelevancy. Such insanity in perpetuity is fundamentally an AMERICAN problem, not an Israeli one.
February 11, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I commend to readers your excellent article in L.A. Times, and was so tickled by the "Israel's Lawyer" reference that I Googled the 2005 source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html , some of which is well-worth quoting:
“The "no surprises" policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel.
[… T]he emphasis should have been on assessing, coldly and objectively, what it would take to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides. If we knew the gaps were too large (and we suspected they were), we should have resisted Barak's pressure to go for a make-or-break summit and then blame the Palestinians when it failed. What we ended up doing was advocating Israel's positions before, during and after the summit.”
It was obvious that in the years leading up to Camp David, Clinton’s people were not driving the process, and what they served up was the above recipe for guaranteed failure. (The book you cited is advertised as concerning “the tragic inner workings of the Clinton Administration's negotiating mayhem, their eleventh hour blunders and miscalculations….”) This why none of the people responsible for the-foreordained disaster of Camp David should be close to U.S. policy-making now: and among those blameworthy one must centrally include (a) Clinton himself who presided over the foreseeable failure, and its architects (b) Madeleine Albright and particularly (c) Dennis Ross. If you want failure, this is the go-to team.
BTW, Wiki’s bio of Ross has him (with Scooter Libby) working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Reagan Administration, while helping AIPAC to set up right-minded think tanks. Who knew?
February 11, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend to readers your excellent article in L.A. Times, and was so struck by the "Israel's Lawyer" reference that I Googled the 2005 source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html , some of which is well-worth quoting:
“The "no surprises" policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel.
[… T]he emphasis should have been on assessing, coldly and objectively, what it would take to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides. If we knew the gaps were too large (and we suspected they were), we should have resisted Barak's pressure to go for a make-or-break summit and then blame the Palestinians when it failed. What we ended up doing was advocating Israel's positions before, during and after the summit.”
It was obvious that in the years leading up to Camp David, Clinton’s people were not driving the process, and what they served up was the above recipe for guaranteed failure. (The book you cited is advertised as concerning “the tragic inner workings of the Clinton Administration's negotiating mayhem, their eleventh hour blunders and miscalculations….”) This why none of the people responsible for the-foreordained disaster of Camp David should be close to U.S. policy-making now: and among those blameworthy one must centrally include (a) Clinton himself who presided over the foreseeable failure, and its architects (b) Madeleine Albright and particularly (c) Dennis Ross. If you want failure, this is the go-to team.
BTW, Wiki’s bio of Ross has him (with Scooter Libby) working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Reagan Administration, while helping AIPAC to set up right-minded think tanks. Who knew?
February 11, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been clear for so long. Clinton is responsible for the collapse of the Oslo peace process because of his bungling the Camp David meeting. Dennis Ross was his responsibility; he entrusted him to an important position. Dennis Ross was clearly an Israeli partisan.
It is becoming more and more clear the disaster the Clinton administration was -- from the repeal of Glass-Steagel to the collapse of the Camp David talks. What heavy prices we are paying today.
February 11, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Clinton. Wasn't showing much leadership during this period. Still dealing with his ridiculous Lewinsky misadventure even way into 2001 http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html, he couldn't even bring himself to explain to the American people that they might have bigger things to worry about than the frenzied numerology of the Y2K "problem," such as maybe Bin Laden.
He could have at least delegated Camp David to some more result-oriented people, but in the event, Albright and Ross dithered for countless months listlessly "preparing" for the slow-motion train wreck. And how any "mediator" could agree in advance not to make proposals for/during the summit? That's either sabotage or *really* gross incompetence, take your pick.
February 12, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, the so-called Dad, says: "Those who hang their hat on the idea that Obama is going to come in and kick ass, take names, knock heads, or do whatever needs to be done to get the parties to the peace table are just living in a fantasy land. The level of naivete (or is it cynicism?) displayed by the so-called peaceniks is just staggering.
"The issue isn't that there is no value to having an aggressive push for peace from a third party. There probably is. It's that the orientation and mentality is still focused on an Oslo-like push for the big showy peace agreement that wins Nobel Prizes and gets you on the front page of newspapers around the world. The goals need to be more modest."
Of course, it isn't naivete. It is patriotism. We believe that eventually our country will do what's right for its citizens -- rather than respond to the pressure of donors.
The lobby crowd counts on that never to happen. And they may be right.
But, look at its position. with public financing of campaigns, support for the lobby drops from 400 plus to fewer than 40.
That is not going to happen anytime soon.
But public resentment toward lobbies and fatcats is growing by leaps and bounds. I'd rather be on that side of the issue, than on the side that says "don't worry about Congress. We've taken care of that."
El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.
Naive? Maybe. But right.
February 11, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is wrong reasoning.
this is Netanyahus last chance.
there is no incentive for him to be anything except what he was elected to be.
expect to see a renewed determination to convince Obama to bomb Iran and absolutely no give in allowing a peace process to work.
Netanyahu would rather go down in flames at this point then work towards peace and he surly wants all the palestinians to go down in flames before he does.
Expect the middle east to be ablaze and Iran to retaliate world wide should Obama fail to stand up to the madman Netanyahu.
February 11, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is wrong reasoning.
this is Netanyahus last chance.
there is no incentive for him to be anything except what he was elected to be.
expect to see a renewed determination to convince Obama to bomb Iran and absolutely no give in allowing a peace process to work.
Netanyahu would rather go down in flames at this point then work towards peace and he surly wants all the palestinians to go down in flames before he does.
Expect the middle east to be ablaze and Iran to retaliate world wide should Obama fail to stand up to the madman Netanyahu.
February 11, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not that close to this, so I don't know. But the man is full of treachery, that's clear, and he won't hesitate to betray the howling fascists that elected him if he seems something good in it for himself.
Now, you say it's his last chance. If so, mightn't it be fun for him to score himself a Noble prize, assuming Obama gets him what he needs (including credible, energetic, agile security arrangements)? Bibi the nut-and-yahoo saves the world?
February 12, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Israeli from the progressive, peace-camp side of the map, I just wanted to say that at this point you, American progressives, are our only hope. Please, don't give up on pushing public opinion and policy makers towards the only solution that is good for both this region and the US. The next few years are going to be hard, but one of the main reasons for Netanyahu's fall in the 1990s was American hostility, and one of the reasons for the never ending violence of the last years was Bush's "supportive" policies. The Left is now finally going to opposition, after serving as the Right's servant for years, and if the US will insist in the next few years on being involved here, it might help us to suggest an alternative for the Israeli public.
February 12, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to hear that a "peace camp" still exists in Israel, Konrad. American "progressives" might be able to do more to get our government to help you if your voices were less faint. Can't you send a brave, fight-like-hell peacenik or two here to the USA to blast the lying AIPAC hypocrites that have our Congress under their thumb? And maybe light a fire underneath "progressive" American Jews to help shame/motivate/stimulate THEM tell that Congress that AIPAC and the West Bank settlers do not speak for them.
We've managed to send our Texas juvenile deliquent back to president finally, but his replacement needs to hear a groundswell from Jews and from Israelis that a brainless the Israeli-gov't-is-always-100%-right no matter mantra what is NOT what THEY want. MJ Rosenberg and some of his colleagues on this blog are strong, clear, well-informed and most welcome voices of sanity, but they are so far voices in the wilderness with minimal impact on the mainstream US media or in the halls of Congress.
Eight years of corrupt incompetence, disastrous blundering and pointless violence under Bush, Arafat, Sharon, and lately the Sharon-apes Barak and Livni, is a long time, and the task of peacemaking will be much harder for the long years of silence and cowardice from the "left" that has accompanied this lunacy, but the common sense of guaranteeing the existence and support for TWO states in Palestine, separated by a modified version of the pre-1967 line is as powerful and overwhelming as ever.
February 12, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink