I suppose that the article Israeli Coalition Appears Fated to Clash With U.S. isn’t nearly as bad as the title. Still it’s got some problems. For example, early on the reporter, Howard Schneider writes:
A leading contender to become defense minister once characterized the two-state solution that forms the basis of U.S. and international policy toward Israel and the Palestinians as “a story the Western world tells with Western eyes.”
At the end he identifies the candidate:
A top contender for defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, has opposed territorial concessions to the Palestinians for security reasons. As military chief of staff under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he opposed the Gaza withdrawal and lost his job.
And how exactly did the withdrawal from Gaza work out? Well elsewhere Schneider described it like this:
Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but the move did not bring the expected quiet. Rockets and mortars fall regularly into Israeli towns. The Islamist group Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections and, about a year later, forced the rival Fatah faction out of Gaza.
“Fall regularly?!?!” Does he mean like manna from heaven? For crying out loud, rockets and mortars don’t fall passively, they are fired by people with murderous intent. No matter how Schneider tries to softpedal it, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza did damage Israel’s security. It made things less peaceful. And yet he describes Gen. Yaalon’s hesitation to withdraw from territory as a liability!
And the biggest problem according to Schneider is the Prime Minster apparent.
Israel’s next government seems tailor-made for conflict with an administration in Washington that supports a Palestinian state and is expected to push for progress on drawing its borders. Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu is himself a skeptic when it comes to Palestinian statehood and has referred to U.S.-backed peace talks as a waste of time.
Of course with the recent revelations that Fatah the main constituent organization of the Palestinian Authority – as well as purported “moderates” – doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist (though this isn’t really news) or that Fatah continues to incite against Israel don’t make it onto Schneider’s radar. Also Fatah seems more inclined to reconcile with Hamas – in a move that will make peace with Israel impossible – than to come to an agreement with Israel. As Barry Rubin writes:
Despite this, the relationship between Hamas and Fatah remain quite complex. It seems bizarre that Hamas set off a civil war, murdered Fatah men in cold blood, and kicked the group out of Gaza yet still most of Fatah is ready to forgive it. There is a strong likelihood that if given the choice, Fatah leaders—though not necessarily Abbas himself—would prefer conciliation with Hamas, which would make any peace with Israel impossible—to making a diplomatic deal with Israel and getting a Palestinian state.
From Israel’s standpoint, of course, how can it negotiate any comprehensive solution with the PA when it cannot deliver half of the territory, people, and armed men who are supposed to be bound by such an agreement? Moreover, the possibility that either Hamas will overthrow Fatah at some future point or even that the two will join together in a new war against Israel rather puts a damper on Israeli willingness to make concessions.
Schneider is probably accurately portraying the Obama administration’s interest in having an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And he’s identified a likely source of contention between a Netanyahu government and the Americans. But the Israeli reticence towards further concessions or negotiations is well founded. It’s a shame that the administration (and Schneider) are dismissive about Netanyahu’s concerns.
Netanyahu might think that his refusal to utter the term “Two State Solution” is ideologically justified and logically sound. He might think that Tzipi Livni’s attempt to argue that this was the reason for which she’s refused to join his coalition is lame. No matter what he thinks, Washington – official Washington – doesn’t like this revisionist position. One official told me it was just “childish”. When Netanyahu comes for a visit, he might be asked to make a choice. The price for press availability with President Obama will be a commitment to say the words “two”, “state” and “solution” in the same sentence.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
