In this past week’s Baltimore Jewish Times, Dr. Robert O. Freedman analyzed the chances of peace “Beyond Winograd.”
The primary alternative to Olmert, former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is likely to freeze the peace process by not permitting further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, thus preventing the contiguous Palestinian state that Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has been demanding.
Those of us who remember when Netanyahu was Prime Minister, remember that he withdrew Israeli troops from Hebron. So to argue that he would certainly not withdraw from any territory is simple propaganda. Prof Freedman, a vocal member of Americans for Peace Now is simply promoting the view that PM Olmert is good for Israel because he’s most likely to cede territory to the Palestinians.
What’s remarkable about the article is the absence of assigning any responsibility to the Palestinians for peace. To Dr. Freedman peace can only come from acceding to the demands of the Palestinians.
Since Barak wants to return as prime minister, he cannot afford to appear weak on the Palestinian issue. This is the case because Netanyahu has argued that the withdrawals from southern Lebanon (under Barak) and Gaza have led to disasters.
Note the qualification “Netanyahu has argued.” Except it’s pretty clear that Netanyahu is correct. After Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was afforded the opportunity to build its forces in southern Lebanon eventually becoming intolerable in the summer of 2006, forcing Israel to strike back. And the continued barrage of rockets emanating from Gaza certainly suggests that the withdrawal from Gaza was not an unqualified success.
The strongest opposition to Olmert’s plan for a two-state solution will come from the so-called “Hilltop Youth,†children of the Religious Zionists who settled the West Bank in the 1970s and 1980s. The largest group of Israelis opposing further withdrawals may be called “security pragmatists,†individuals who oppose further withdrawals from the West Bank. This group forms the bedrock of Netanyahu’s support.
This is a nice way of marginalizing Netanyahu. Netanyahu is a tool of an extremist group. Well why don’t we look at recent polling from Israel. Here’s a poll from February 7.
If elections were held today how would you vote (expressed in % and mandates based on those with opinion) Actual Knesset today in [brackets] 06% 11 [29] Kadima 10% 19 [19] Labor 18% 34 [12] Likud
So then Likud, according to this poll, has more support than Labor and Kadima combined. Likud (and its leader Netanyahu) is not the fringe party that Freedman seeks to marginalize. Rather he is trying to promote his own extreme agenda by defining anyone who disagrees with it as outside the mainstream.
Surrendering territory to Fatah or Hamas has not yet brought peace. Nothing Freedman writes can change that.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
