Netanyahu: Here Are My Conditions Which, If Met, Would Lead Me To Consider Supporting Some Kind of Palestinian State Or Entity
"Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people."
"Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbullah and Iran. It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized. On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed."
"Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory - real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts."
Palestinians must "fight terror, strengthening governance and the rule of law, [educate] their children for peace and {stop} incitement against Israel."
"The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas."
The Palestinian leadership must rise and say that we "recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state in its own Land."
The Palestinian refugee problem must be "solved outside of the borders of the State of Israel."
Jerusalem must remain "the united capital of Jerusalem."
If the Palestinians meet ALL these conditions, Israel will "discuss permanent arrangements."
Here is a list of what Netanyahu said Israel must do for its part:
Has anyone asked him to state simply exactly where on the chart demilitarization and the ability to enforce antismuggling security measures and overcome Hamas intersect?
June 15, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a list of what Netanyahu said Israel must do for its part:
(cue: sound of crickets)
June 15, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even this is too much work: Crickets actually have to make the effort to rub their wings together.
June 15, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bibi is standing in the way of a huge wrong-side-of-history bulldozer. Unless he makes significant moves, he will be a squashed cricket.
June 15, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That bull dozer is currently being borrowed by Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i.
Bibi has doubled down on the Titanic's orchestra. Life boats are running short. Time to start rearranging the chairs on the deck?
June 15, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Khameini and Netanyahu are holding hands, reassuring each other that their world view is right. They both have a deer-in-headlight stare looking at the bulldozer of history moving towards them.
Palpitations.
June 15, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hymn "Nearer My God to Thee" has been suggested as the last tune played by the Musicians on the Titanic.
However, Khameini and Netanyahu are singing to each other, 'I'm nearer to God than you'.
June 15, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice.
June 15, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: 'I'm nearer to God than you'.
MY COMMENT: lol!
June 16, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Netanyahu did not endorse a freeze on settlements. I get it. Bad move. (Particularly bad in not even trying to differentiate between the vast majority of settlers at or close to the green line and Jerusalem suburbs and the outlying settlements in the West Bank - but given the emotional resonance of the issue, just plain bad). In this, he is doing great harm to the peace process and ultimately to Israel, confirming the world's worst suspicions to satisfy a handful of ideologues who, of course, are crucial to his coalition.
But my question to MJ is which of these conditions (which were not framed in any event as preconditions to talks - after all, the moderate Abbas has his own condition, one that has been the consistent policy of the Palestinian leadership, of an absolute right of return to Israel for all descendants of all 1948 refugees) do you disagree with?
1. De-militarized Palestinian state/no weapons smuggling/no control over airspace. Do you really expect Israel to allow the creation of an armed entity on its border, able to import advanced weaponry and field an army, given the history of violence between the two sides? Never happen. Best we could hope for would be either UN protectorate or security affiliation somehow with Jordan. Maybe after a dozen years of peace we could start talking about that. Maybe.
2. Fight terrorism, stop incitement, strengthen the rule of law. Is this problematic?
3. Establish the rule of law in Gaza. Can't have a peace agreement without Gaza, can you?
4. Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a state in their own land. In other words, we're here to stay.
5. Solving the refugee problem outside Israel's borders. This has always been the dealbreaker. But MJ, do you disagree?
6. Jerusalem as part of Israel. I certainly disagree with this.
Clearly, Netanyahu is at this point offering less than previous Israeli administrations (whose offers were all rejected by the Palestinians, in any event). That's why I'd never support him. But really, I'd like to know exactly which parts you disagree with.
June 15, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A true 2-state solution requires a modicum of equality between both sides - neither side can dominate each other, military, economically or otherwise. A "solution" that leaves Israel with one of the most powerful miltaries in the world while depriving the Palestinians of even their basic right of defending themselves is not a 2-state solution at all; rather, it is a neo-colonial arrangement where one powerful state has virtual control over the land, resources, and borders of another people.
I also don't believe that Palestinians should have to "recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land". For one thing, that basically amounts to demanding that Palestinians legitimize their own dispossession in 1948 (without which there would be no Jewish majority in Israel).
June 15, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Netanyahu knows very well that there is no possible intersection between demilitarization and the level of security control he demands.
June 15, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what about these two howlers: (1) the IDF can violate Palestinian airspace at will; and (2) the IDF can station troops in Palestine on borders!
Both are absolutely ludicrious.
June 15, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In theory, I don't see any reason for a future Palestinian state to have some kind of military and sole sovereignty over its borders, airspace, etc.
However, there is absolutely no way any Israeli government would accept that at this time. Not even the most left wing parties. There is simply too much that has happened between the two sides and let's not forget that there remains a sizable portion of Palestinian society that rejects Israel's very existence and encourages and celebrates the deaths of its citizens. For Israel to allow the Palestinian state to arm itself without restriction when the only conceivable use of those arms would be against it is not realistic. The only solution I could envision here would be for Jordan and Egypt or the US/UN, to assume responsibility for ensuring any agreement with respect to defense, borders, etc.
As for recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people, whatever the formulation, I'm in agreement with Josh Marshall on the front page. This is not the best formulation. But the reality is that in any partition along ethnic lines, the State of Israel will be a Jewish majority state. The Palestinians have demanded for themselves a Palestinian state and I don't see everyone tearing out their hair over that either. I'm not sure if these means legitimizing their own dispossession, but it definitely does mean relinquishing their demand that all 1948 refugees and their descendants are entitled to return to Israel.
June 15, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you weren't arguing Ireland's case for Home Rule.
The Palestinians ask for a state because they live under Military Occupation. Maybe if Israel had taken the demography and not just the geography in 1967, the Palestinians would have accepted being citizens of Israel.
June 15, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - Demitlitarization of the Palestinian state has been part of all previous peace attempts. Geneva and the Clinton Parameters all acknowledged a degree of demilitarization. The Palestinians have not really objected to a ban on heavy weapons (tanks, artillary, fighter planes etc).
For the purposes of their own sense of sovereignty and dignity they want a force called an "army" even though it's armed only with rifles. However, Bibi's "other security guarantees" in his speech include many unacceptable things. While control of airspace might seem like just a little thing, in the hands of the Israelis, it is not. Imagine living with the noise of the obnoxious drones overhead, 24/7/365. Consider the sonic booms that Israel is liable to show off their power. Imagine commercial air traffic to the rebuilt Palestinian airport where Israel could determine when and if it flys if they object to a passenger or airline.
One of the additional security issues both Likud and Kadima insist on is continued control of all water resources in the west bank. As you know there is a very uneven distribution of that water between Jews and Palestinians and Bibi/Livni want to maintain that.
Bibi is insisting(based on his campaign rhetoric) that Israel be able to maintain troop deployments in the new Palestinian state as a "trip wire". That is not dignity it's continued occupation.
Perhaps most important is the insistance on controlling Palestinian borders and the Jordan Valley. This means everything and everyone who enters or exits the west bank or Gaza is subject to Israel's approval. If they decide Abbas doesn't need to go to a UN meeting, he has to stay home. If Israel decides they don't want Palestinian flowers, fruits or vegtables to compete with Israel's exports then they rot on the border. In the 80's in particular I saw this technique employed literally hundreds of times -wagons of tomotaoes rotting in the sun.
Bibi has not changed his stripes at all. He will do everything in his power to prevent any semblance of a dignified Palestinian state.
June 15, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also reject the demand that "Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people". Where does that leave the 20% or so of the Israeli population that is not Jewish? It's not just an academic question: there are people like Avigdor Lieberman, the current Israeli Foreign Minister, who would like to curtail the rights of Israel's Arab population.
For that matter, I don't think it's appropriate for anybody to recognize Israel as "the state of the Jewish people". I'm Jewish, but I consider the United States to be my state, not Israel. We American Jews get (rightly) offended when we are accused of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States, so why would any of us accept Bibi Netanyahu making that canard a cornerstone of the peace process?
June 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
All serious begotiations are without preconditions. Whether I agree with some of these is irrelevant, he is establishing preconditions which Palestinians may or may not accept in the context of negotiations but not as preconditions.
Israel of course has no preconditions it has to meet.
June 15, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the speech: "I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions."
The rest is his version of what a final agreement would look like. Pretty unrealistic, if you ask me, but less unrealistic than the idea of millions of Palestinian refugees returning to their former homes in Israel, which has been the position of even the moderate Palestinians since this process began.
I can't believe I'm defending Netanyahu here, but let's stick to what he said without imposing our own preconceived notions.
Plus, I think Stan VanGundy has taken over MJ Rosenberg's page.
June 15, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say, "I can't believe I'm defending Netanyahu here..."
Your better self knows better.
June 15, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: get on message! Your IPF and J-Street coordinate their positions - you of all people should know that. Nahum Barnea, Ben Caspi, and, even Gideon Levy gave grudging approval to the speech. The White House is placated for the moment. You are now to the left of Gideon Levy?
June 15, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is delighted at the Iranian election result which is what AIPAC had been lobbying for all week. Now the preparations can be finalized and the world waits to see the extent of the coming nuclear war against Iran.
The consequences are expected to be devastating and are likely to affect not only the ME but Europe and the US in varying degrees. That Israel cares zilch for anything other than its own agenda is clear but AIPAC has yet to understand that its supporters will suffer just as massively as will the whole international community. For what exactly?
June 15, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this man smiling?
June 15, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"even Gideon Levy gave grudging approval to the speech"
The article of Levy can be summarized with words "look, there is something on the bottom of the glass".
June 15, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sleeve out of Bibi's vest
Such a deal!
June 15, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/investor-relations/
June 15, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Bibi wants to ghettoize Palestinians. What else is new?
June 15, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, now that MJ has recoverd from a fitful night of outragetaken a breath, forgiven Dwight Howard, and had his coffee:
"Israel Policy Forum issued a statement today welcoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's noteworthy steps forward in his recent speech in support of a "Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state". However, his address at Bar-llan University raised some serious concerns about necessary conditions for compromise and peace.
IPF is troubled by Mr. Netanyahu's "insistence on adding an unnecessary condition for the successful conclusion of an agreement with the Palestinians- their recognition of Israel as a Jewish state".
IPF contends that "Israel should not need others to define it" and that the "numerous obstacles facing peace and security in the region will be difficult enough", given Prime Minister Netanyahu's failure to pledge to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank, including "natural growth".
June 15, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, in my experience, that's the way pros say things if their intent is to advance a cause. Then there are others who would rather whip up outrage and dig-in-one's-heels-style endless blog debates with inflammatories (for the mouse clicks, I guess?) Thank god the latter are not directing foreign policy for any of the parties.
June 15, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current formula is presented as "two states for two peoples."
Ok. Presumably one state is for the Palestinians.
Who is other state for?
June 16, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israelis. The citizens of Israel -- 20% of whom are not Jewish.
June 16, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink