Helena Cobban has published an amazing report on an interview she did with smiling senior Likud security-affairs specialist Efraim Inbar, who surely has Netanyahu's ear. Somewhat shocking. A lot of racism dignified as the "Zionist ethos." Incredible arrogance, which I (optimistically) regard as hubristic; he doesn't know what's coming in the revised American discourse.
Oh, and if you read nothing else, just read the last two sentences. It's all you need to know about Zionism. But don't tell the children:
I asked his assessment of the prospects for the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process. “The most important factor for us is not the Arabs, but
the Americans,” he said. “And honestly, no-one there really believes in
this. Even at Annapolis, in spite of all the fine rhetoric about
concluding an agreement before the end of the year, in actual fact
their only goal was a ‘shelf agreement’—that is, an agreement that
could sit on a shelf for an indefinite length of time.
“The two-state solution is passé—because the Palestinians aren’t up
to it. The only way it could work would be if two conditions were
fulfilled: that the Palestinians should support it, which they don’t;
and that the state would have a monopoly on the use of force, which the
Palestinian Authority doesn’t have.”…
Regarding the Palestinian track, he noted that Netanyahu has started
to try to sell the idea of an “economic peace.” I noted that this
approach had been mooted and even halfheartedly tried before, by
Netanyahu during his earlier premiership, 1996-99, and other Israeli
leaders, and it had always proven not to be viable in the absence of
any real progress in the diplomacy. Inbar’s immediate response was to
declare forthrightly “We don’t care if it’s viable or not!”
He then said, “We can’t give up the West Bank because it’s
too close to our heartland. Gaza—okay, because it’s further away from
the heartland. But there, anyway, we saw the chaos and violence that
ensued after we withdrew.”
“What we should do,” he argued, “is try to involve Egypt in running
Gaza and Jordan in running the West Bank.” [John Bolton and other neocons are trying to sell this rug in the U.S., too]
years in the West Bank was, “Conflict management: to lower the flames,
limit the suffering, and not anger the Americans too much.”
The other members of the international community, he said baldly,
“don’t count—even though in Europe there is now greater understanding
of the shortcomings of the Palestinians than there was before… There is
movement.”
Turning to the situation of the 1.5 million residents of Gaza, he
referred to an article he had published in early February in which he
argued that the international community should not do anything to help
the rebuild the homes and public infrastructure that were so
extensively destroyed by Israel during the recent war. In the article
he argued that the international community should “not be drawn into
sentimental escapades of rebuilding and humanitarian assistance that
undercut our paramount strategic goals.”
…[H]e then
commented with a smile that “Hamas is good for the Jews! As long as
they are there it is a gift to us!”
He added, “I wouldn’t hesitate to make a wave of refugees out of
Gaza. That would put pressure on Egypt to increase their presence
inside the Gaza Strip. They should take over the whole Strip directly,
or have their own puppet government there, be it Hamas or whoever.”
…I asked how he assessed the impact of the Israeli settlements in the
West Bank on the peace process. “The settlements act as an incentive to
the Palestinians to become more reasonable in the diplomacy,” he said.
“And you know, that worked before Oslo. But since Oslo, well, their
learning curve became very slow.”
But might not the Israeli government now start to face some pressure
from the new US administration to stop the settlement-expansion program
and to follow up on its previous undertakings to immediately remove
those settlement outposts that even previous Israeli governments have
deemed to be ‘illegal’?
He replied, “We may be pushed, yes. The Americans may push us some,
so we’ll remove one or two outposts or one or two roadblocks. We’ll
play with the Americans.”
So what were his expectations from the Obama administration, in general?
“Well, they are talking very differently from Bush. But they
have so many other things to deal with! The economy, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Iran! How much energy will they have for this issue here?
“Most Israelis, you know, see their policy towards Iran as
appeasement. So I hope Dennis Ross will come to the president after six
months and tell Obama that there’s no deal to be had with Iran, so then
Obama will be ready to get serious.”
more or less like a border… Israelis like the fence, you know. Most
believe, however wrongly, that it’s of great security value, though in
actual fact our success in preventing terrorism comes through
arresting, and detaining, and targeted killing…."
But what about the mounting chorus of concern from the international community about the level of destruction in Gaza?
“We can take it! Jews have not always been popular in the world. And
now, at the Durban review summit, we are being singled out once again.”
(A chuckle here.)
His expectations from George Mitchell?
“Organizationally, it’s a clear problem, because Hillary has too
many envoys. I don’t think he can do much good. But he’s American, so
he’ll try. But what can he do? Can he change Abu Mazen? He might end up
going along with Netanyahu’s plan an economic peace. He and the
president probably don’t want a crisis in American-Israeli relations so
soon.”
to go back in to Gaza? “Yes, there’s quite a chance that Bibi would go
back in. The security cooperation with the Palestinians didn’t work,
and we are unilateralists by nature anyway. This is the Zionist ethos.
We are no longer dependent on the Gentiles.”
He sat back and grew expansive. “I’m a student of Albert
Wohlstetter,” he said, referring to the University of Chicago strategic
studies thinker at the University of Chicago who influenced many of the
leading US neoconservatives. “But I’m not a neocon! I told Paul
Wolfowitz and Bill Cristol, both of whom are my friends, that trying to
bring democracy to the Middle East was a big mistake.
“Oh sure, yes, it was good to get rid of Saddam. He was a very bad
guy. But they didn’t need to try to democratize the country, too.”
More on Obama: “I was concerned about him at the beginning, but most
of his appointments seem to be mainstream. It’s a real tribute to the
United States that you elected a black person. So let’s wait and see.
Yes, I’m critical of some of his policies on, for example, Iran, but
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt because we need a strong
America.”
I asked his view of the emergence of hard rightwinger Avigdor
Lieberman as a major force inside Israeli politics. He had an
interesting analysis of the Lieberman phenomenon, noting—correctly—that
along with many strongly rightwing views, Lieberman supported some of
the causes of the left, including that he is not against the
establishment of a Palestinian state.
He concluded by saying that Lieberman “is accepted by Israelis, even
if he is not liked by some. Also, he has attracted some very prominent
personalities to his party… I don’t like his tone; it’s not my cup of
tea. But it’s acceptable in a democracy.”
…I asked about the prospect of resumed negotiations between Israel
and Syria. He replied, “With Hamas now in power in Gaza there is much
less pressure on our government over the peace process in general, so
what need is there for us to do anything with Syria? Sure, if we’re
under pressure from the Americans, we can negotiate. But why would Bibi
want to proactively go after a negotiation or an agreement with Syria?
… Also, we don’t have a demographic burden in Golan. It’s clean of
Arabs. It’s very beautiful."
