Israel Policy Forum has some shrewd commentary on the Netanyahu speech from Israel and the American Jewish center-left. First, Ben Caspit from Maariv:
Netanyahu spoke for half an hour yesterday. Thirty minutes of sheer right wing rhetoric aimed at concealing one small leftist statement.
Shimon Shiffer in Yediot Aharonoth:
Netanyahu refrained from making clear statements even on the subject of halting construction in the settlements. Which subjects were not mentioned at all in Netanyahu's speech? The illegal outposts, for example. The Obama administration's unequivocal demand of Israel to dismantle the outposts did not get even a trace of a mention from Netanyahu.
…The person not mentioned in the speech was Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen. Netanyahu mentioned the Palestinian Authority, but not its chairman. He did take the trouble to mention the names of the president of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan.
And Israel Policy Forum itself, while congratulating Netanyahu for the Palestinian state commitment, said he had not missed the opportunity to miss an opportunity. IPF issued a smart statement:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took some noteworthy steps forward in his speech today at Bar-Ilan University – steps which Israel Policy Forum welcomes, but his address was not the large, bold step this moment of opportunity demands, and it raised some serious concerns.
President Obama’s demonstrated commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, capped by his pledge in Cairo that he would “personally pursue” a two-state solution “with all the patience that the task requires,” offers all the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict a genuine, renewed opportunity. Seizing this opportunity requires direct, forthright words followed by courageous actions by the region’s leaders.
Israel Policy Forum strongly believes that “two-state solution” is much more than a mere slogan. The two-state solution represents the framework for achieving the goal of lasting peace and security for the State of Israel as a Jewish democracy alongside a Palestinian state. It has been accepted and promoted by previous Israeli governments and American administrations. Now that Mr. Netanyahu has seemingly accepted this premise (albeit, without using this phrase), IPF trusts that he will work diligently with President Obama to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, 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 — is troubling. After 61 years of independence as the homeland for the Jewish people, and with the “unbreakable” support of the United States, which was recently reiterated by President Obama in Cairo, Israel should not need others to define it.
Overcoming the numerous obstacles facing peace and security in the region and ultimately reaching an agreement with the Palestinians on the issues that matter – borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees – will be difficult enough, without adding pointless new ones.
Moreover, every American president of the past thirty years has recognized that settlement expansion in the West Bank is an obstacle to peace. It harms the environment for negotiations with the Palestinians, exacerbates Israel’s demographic dilemma, and places the security of Israeli citizens and soldiers at risk. While Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration that he has “no intention to build new settlements” is also welcome, his failure, however, to pledge to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank, including “natural growth,” a vague term used by Israel’s settlers and their supporters to justify expanding the number of settlers in the West Bank, is deeply worrisome.
As President Obama declared in Cairo, achieving a two-state solution and ending the conflict between Israel and its neighbors “is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest” and “it is time … to act on what everyone knows to be true.”
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously remarked that Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
Israel Policy Forum urges all of these parties – Israelis, Palestinians, Arab states – to take the bold steps, enter into negotiations without preconditions and make the necessary compromises in order to seize this opportunity to bring security to Israel and peace and stability to the Middle East.
In 1993, his would have been a breakthrough left-wing statement, comparable to Rabin's. He hasn't yet missed the opportunity. NOW is the time for Arab states to remind of the Arab League offer, for Obama to reiterate what criteria of position he regards as appropriate, and for dissenters to organize mass peaceful demonstrations in Europe and US on the combination of peace and justice, thereby reducing the hateful approach of "anti"-Zionist radical demonstrations.
This entire I-P issue has become a proxy for the larger dysfunctional, binary Left vs. Right conflict in so many ways, not the least of which is this latest argument over whether Israel will be allowed to title itself a “Jewish state” with Western backing. The hard-Left says it shouldn’t because that is racist; the Right (and most Jewish Zionists) say it should. So if the Left gets its way, even if the Palestinians get their State, the conflict will continue until Israel relents to dropping any official identity as a “Jewish state.” The Right then uses this as an excuse not to grant the Palestinians a state, because it becomes just another milestone in the dismantling of Israel, not unlike the deconstruction of French Algeria. Intractable left-wingers and right-wingers are truly the enemies of humanity, as this perpetual back and fourth demonstrates. In the end, all their “principles” ever really amount to is self-righteous posing and endless conflict. Anyone who accedes to the party line on either side is part of the problem.
I believe that Obama started using "Jewish State" to describe Israel precisely so that insistance on Palestinians and Arabs subscribing to it will not be so "existentially" essential for Israel, and he did it in full knowledge that , if forced on Palestinians, it would probably be used for justification of ethnic cleansing of Israeli citizens and refusal to deal with refugee question. On the plus side, it will buy him back a little of political capital on the AIPAC side of the pond.
No, what the Pals should do is announce a major statement from Abbas later this week. And then Abbas describes the Arab peace plan again. Until Israel gets serious about negotiations there is no point at all in making even the slightest consession.
Phil, your problem with making up headlines that avoid both tweeness & irrelevance is getting positively systemic.
Whatever his motives, Obama is on the record as supporting Israel as a "Jewish state." I disagree with the Obama administration on nearly every domestic issue, but the Mideast is the one area where he has brought some real sanity, smarts and moderation to American policy, at least so far. If his judgment is that Israel should be recognized as a Jewish state in order to turn down the heat in the Mideast overall by hastening the realization of a Palestinian state, then the left should give him some breathing room. But maybe it has bigger axes to grind and knives to sharpen…it seems it always does.
A breakthrough? What Netanyahu offered was a quasi-failed Palestinian state. How can you seriously expect the Palestinians to have a completely dimilitarised state? How can you support the creation of a Palestinian state whilst doing nothing about one of the major obstacles to a state – the settlements?
One other thought on "the Jewish state" question: the prior status-quo assumption was that Israel would be recognized as a Jewish state (as it always has been) in any final outcome status. In a reverse of Zionist tactics, the Left has retroactively turned this into a point of contention. Shrewd or underhanded? Whatever the case, Obama was doing the Zionists a favor by taking that particular question off the table, which means they can't plausibly argue he is a secret anti-semite driven by a dedication to the dismantling of Jewish self-determination.
Yes he has missed an opportunity. After the Cairo speech to the world, does Obama have to write on N's forehead with a black indelible magic marker that settlement freeze in all its forms is a core criteria for peace?
"Truman signed the letter of recognition shortly after 6 PM, giving de facto recognition to the new state and its government. In the prepared statement, written before the name of the state was announced, he crossed out the words "the Jewish State" and wrote "Israel." " http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm The reference url goes into particulars on Truman versus the US State Dept in 1948. Nothing has changed, you might conclude. USA international relations has been from the rebirth of Israel a USA domestic affair. The scholarly distinction between international versus domestic affairs has never been applicable when it comes to Zionists. Am I an anti-semite for pointing that out?
I like this headline enormously.
A militarized Pali state = another failed Islamist terrorist state – not thanks. Go to Jordan and wreak your Islamist thuggery there.
I can't grasp this argument about Israel being "Jewish". (a) that's the way Herzl promoted it; (b) that's how the League of Nations conceived it: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home…"; (c) that's how the UN described it in the 1947 Partition resolution: "The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible…The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated…Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine"; (d) and Israel's declaration of Independence reads: "WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL" What's the difficulty?