Comments on: Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa–Without South Africa’s ‘Solution’, Israeli Minister Warns

By: Shai

Shai — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

It's a "shelf agreement" and "academic" NOT because Israel is unwilling to sign an agreement, and NOT because Israel is negotiating only to buy time (for what?), but because the PA can't or won't enforce its agreement in its territories. The solution to that is not to insist that Israel has no legitimate interests and therefore must meet every demand of the PA, it's to demand of the PA a negotiation stance that is amenable to bridging proposals.

Further, you'll notice that Ben Ami called on "equal" pressure on the PA and on Israel. You keep acting as though pressure on Israel alone is all that's necessary, and the reason you are able to do this is you are blind to the fact that one hand can't clap.

Lastly, the rightist forces being spoken of here are primarily Shas. Liberman is not a force any longer. Shas' power can be in some measure overcome if Meretz joins the government. And, if the Arab parties weren't so anti-Zionist, they probably would have been in many governments by now. The blame for the government's current inability to break out of the current mode is in the leftist parties' inability to compromise for a larger cause, even one they hold dear. But to blame this political constellation is tendentious, when you discover the root cause of Israel's political position. It is directly caused by the rejection of the assertion that Palestinians are willing to live side by side in peace with Jews under any condition that provides Jews with a level of security they deem minimally necessary. This rejection was caused by the result of the Gaza pullout. Instead of taking the land and resources and building a proto-state in Gaza, these were all used to attack Israel. Israelis aren't anxious to repeat this elsewhere, for reasons that are perfectly reasonable, but I don't see you giving even an ounce of concern to them.

You want to force Israelis to overlook their security, or allow it to rest on "trust" in a PA (or for that matter, Egypt) that has proven time and again they can't be trusted in matters of security? Ya think they'll go along with that? Hmm.

By: emanuel appel

emanuel appel — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Dear Sir,

Israel will be an Arab-free State, not South Africa.

When the Arabs convince the majority of Israel that they neither will be pacified with a State of their own nor can they live with the idea that Israel won, they will be kicked out despite your wishes.

By: David Habakkuk

David Habakkuk — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Philip Weiss:

'Presumably, Ben-Ami is saying Israelis will never give up the Jewish state to a mixed government of Jews and Palestinians, even with 5 million Palestinians living in that state. (I wonder whether South Africans made the same vows, back when.)'

I suspect that Ben-Ami is saying more than that -- that Jews in Israel could not afford to give up the Jewish state and hope, like the South African whites, to retain a tolerable position.

This is not an unreasonable position. In a cogent attack on American support for the Likudniks back in January, Gershom Gorenberg wrote:

'Many moderate Palestinians who only recently supported a two-state solution are despairing of the possibility of partition and are talking about demanding political rights in a single state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. One reason for the Palestinian despair is that the Bush administration talks about two states, but has done close to nothing to push that program. A one-state "solution" means the end of Israel. The conflict between the two national groups within one state is likely to look more like Bosnia in the 1990s than Belgium today.'

(See http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_does_it_mean_to_be_the_proisrael_candidate.)

I think Ben-Ami may be haunted by a nightmare that the time of the two-state solution may have passed, leaving Jews in Israel with no good options.

By: emanuel appel

emanuel appel — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Dear Habakkuk

Only weaklings have nightmares.

There are many scenarios but they all require a bit of guts and no fear of foreign opinion.

1. Transfer the Arabs out into the West Bank and walk away.

2. Transfer the arabs out to lebanon, Jordan or Syria. It was done before and it can be again. It just requires the will

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Ben Ami is right.

Transfer is inhumane, theft, a mental paralysis, constructed on a fantasy.

"Torah society" without the humaneness, fighting with "Sharia society" without the humaneness.

Two shells fighting, pretending they are the nut.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

You are right about the importance of will though.

It takes courage to make peace. It takes determination, not hedging on what one is about.

By: Arie Brand

Arie Brand — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Phil asked: "So Condi Rice is the only one applying pressure to both sides right now?"

She might get a female competitor there,viz. the German Chnancellor Angela Merkel.

Israel is far from popular in Germany, yet Merkel, in her recent visit to that country, seemed to be grovelling towards it in a manner no German chancellor has done before. What are her motives? The prestigious journal “Die Zeit” attempted to answer that question. Here is my translation:

"The use of love

Germany and Israel get closer together. That is, in the first place, useful for the Chancellor. Her visit in Tel Aviv reinforces her position in Europe.
Let us start with a riddle. Why does the Chancellor fly for consultations to Israel, and well with half the cabinet? Only the usual suspects were given this privilege thus far: France, after that Poland and Russia, then Spain and Italy. But Israel? The project is all the more mysterious because she cannot get brownie points with it at home. A nationwide poll showed that the German people take, at best, a neutral attitude. Only 3 percent was clearly on the side of Israel, 91 percent wanted strict neutrality in the struggle for Palestine.

Publicised opinion? Der Spiegel sets the tone with the charged title: “Unconditional closeness”, and asks, on behalf of many papers in the country, ”whether the close solidarity with Israel is of any use in the peace process”. Why doesn’t she also go to Ramallah, to the Palestinians? grumble the commentators.

No, Israel is not popular, neither among the people nor in the media which mostly come up with critical, even disapproving comments. How unpopular is shown in a EU-wide poll of 2003 in which two thirds of the polled Germans declared that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace. Not Iran, not North Korea? There was no higher percentage anywhere in Europe.

And yet says Foreign Minister Steinmeier: “There is no country with which we are allied so inseparably”. And yet the Chancellor has been traveling to Israel for the third time. Whilst Israel has learned to appreciate the grandchildren of the evildoers – Germany comes, on this score, only after Italy and France – does the ‘friendship’ (in Germany) remain only an elite project or, even less so, a governmental project, and of the Merkel government to be sure.”

After a review of the stance various German governments took to Israel the journal concludes that Merkel’s present policy towards that country has to do with a balancing act. The former Chancellor, Schroder, was too near to Chirac, Putin and the Arab countries. The journal continues:

“The result of her first semester balancing act showed her to be right. Bush loves her, Putin respects her, therefore she can criticize both. Berlin is again in the centre of Europe, respected by all and also, because of Merkel’s supple stubbornness, a little bit feared ... And so we have arrived at the core which is overlooked by the “Why not Ramallah” brigade. When Merkel has Israel in one arm, she can grab the Palestinians with the other. Look, thus far Israel only trusted the USA, but now it also trusts me. The more solid the friendship, the more pressure it can tolerate. That is why you Palestinians should come with your concerns to Berlin. This act is called “The patron as broker” and Merkel has the direction and is in the footlights. Merkel already raised the curtain for the second act before the first, the trip to Israel. She wants to organize, still this summer, a conference about the Near East in Berlin. Of course not in competition with that of Annapolis, and also not with that of the ‘quartet’(USA, EU, UN, Russia). Only that the play will be produced in Berlin. She has already wangled a ‘yes’ out of her new friend Olmert, why would he resist when she honored him so generously in Jerusalem.? And so the love turns out to be, as ever in the life of nations, thorough ‘Realpolitik’ that has already shown its returns in the coinage of power”. Thus far “Die Zeit”.

Though Israel is, as said, far from popular in Germany, Merkel obviously thinks that she cannot damage her electoral chances much by following this lovey dovey policy. This might change when, at the proposed conference in Berlin, Israel shows its usual obstinacy and unwillingness to do something substantial about the settlements.
On the other hand when she, rather against expectations, achieves something substantial she can aspire to a bit of the position of that other would be 'honest broker' among German chancellors, Bismarck.

Arie Brand

By: Shai

Shai — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The two-state solution turning into a 1 state demand doesn't threaten me. It's more logical that that "one state" be an alliance between the PA and Jordan than it be one between the PA and Israel. Israel doesn't owe the Palestinians Israeli citizenship. THey were Jordanian citizens when the West Bank was won in the 1967 war, and that's the status they will return to if they don't negotiate a two-state solution.

By: jim byers

jim byers — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I heard Mr Ben-Ami in a discussion with Norman Finklestein when he said that Israel would have made peace with the palestinians long ago if it weren't for the jews in America. He also pointed out that Menachem Begin did not recognize that there is such a thing as palestinian people until it was "negotiated" at Camp David. I admire his point of view and wish it were more widely broadcast.

By: qt

qt — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Menachem Begin did not recognize that there is such a thing as a palestinian people until it was 'negotiated' at Camp David."

And juding by Shai's comments, it it looks like there's still people sharing Begin's view today.