Interesting analysis of the latest statements by Daniel Levy: that a pugnacious Netanyahu has continued to overstep, and that the U.S. may be drawing the line at the ‘67 borders:
Netanyahu also repeated the totally (meaningless) commitment of no new settlements or land confiscations (meaningless because since 1993, the official policy is no new settlements yet via expansion, new neighborhoods and outposts, the West Bank settler population has grown from 111,000 then to over 300,000 today, and because although the built-up area of settlements constitutes only 2% of West Bank land, double that amount is slated for growth, and a total of 40% comes under the Settlement Regional Councils, therefore land confiscation issue is a red herring).
While it is technically true that this "restraint" is a new Israeli commitment, its practical relevance is of very limited significance – building 3000 units in ten months neatly dovetails the regular annual settlement construction rates. Moreover, Netanyahu made sure to assertively mention all these caveats in today’s announcement – in effect, poking the Obama administration, the international community, and the Palestinians in the eye…
The new language came in Secretary Clinton’s description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be – for an "independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines". Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state "based on the 67 lines."
Every conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using – avoided that is until today.
Previous administrations would speak of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (but those are interpreted differently by the Israelis and Palestinians); the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 suggested percentages on territory, but never mentioned the 67 lines; in June 2002, President Bush used the phrase, ending the "occupation that began in 1967."
That language was adopted in the 2003 Road Map and used verbatim by President Obama in his September United Nations General Assembly speech. It is language very much open to interpretation. The "1967 lines" language add a far greater degree of clarity – and, as such, is an anathema to the Greater Land of Israel, anti-peace forces (many of whom are represented in today’s Israeli government).
Related posts:
- Obama prepares to take on Netanyahu and the lobby as the battle lines come into focus
- Gideon Levy: Only Obama can save Israel
- Despairing, Gideon Levy calls on Obama to forget about the absurd peace process
- Obama seems upset, as he calls for Palestinian ‘hopes’ to come before Netanyahu’s fears
- Netanyahu thinks he’s pinned Obama on settlements
{ 23 comments }
The facts on the ground make the 67 borders difficult, for the pattern of development that would divide MANY cities right through the middle.
I’ve often thought that a relevant civil disobedience would be to paint the green line on the ground, simply.
A 100% land swap, consented, would be possible. I would recommend that Israel give give an additional .5% of the total land area, to indicate its intent to actually reconcile.
Facts on the ground can be undone far more quickly than they were constructed, if those living in them actually want a just peace where they can have some hope that their grandchildren won’t be mired in the same ugly war. The under-structure of the ‘facts on the ground are irreversible’ argument is that the Israeli political establishment is simply unwilling to punish colonial Zionist radicals when they commit crimes against ‘the Other’.
I think you are right about this Colin.
The key determinant then is to shift Israeli public opinion from desiring expansion and fortress based security, to desiring peace and reconciliation-based security.
I actually prefer a status with 10-20% minority in each, to 0% (ethnic cleansing) or 48% (tyrrany of the majority).
If the settlements were inter-racial developments rather than Jewish-only, then the only questions would be about status of title, and land-use planning.
No actually, Witty, the question would be how much land was taken by force from natives, and how this theft of land and resources can be properly reconciled. Anyway your “tyranny of the majority” bullshit continues to be nonsense — if only for the fact that you continue to give Israel a free pass for the ethnic cleansing they have already committed.
I agree with your identification of a shift in Israeli public opinion as a key determinant for a successful long-term solution, whether one or two-state. I just don’t see how it is possible for this to occur without external intervention. One prerequisite I think is that Palestinians refrain from suicide bombings of civilian targets.
A factor that will prohibit a shift in Israeli consciousness is habitual demonization.
Ali Abunimeh’s respectful answer to Q & A about the sensitivity to Israelis’ concern about being forced to being subject to violence or some subordinated status, is important as a model.
It allows the process of agreeing to disagree, and the prospect of coming up with optimally mutually successful reconciliation.
Sensitivity to the NEEDS of the other, rather than demonization of the other.
It is the reason that I seek to reframe Israel’s identity of what is Zionist from expansion and/or “perfect security” (impossible), to enough and “optimal security” based on reconciliation and treaty. It is a message of original principle (Jewish AND democratic) to clarify among dissenters that haven’t studied the history of Zionism from a Zionist perspective, and a message to Zionists that haven’t studied the history of Palestine or principles of self-governance sufficiently to realize a humane Zionism.
I don’t see though how a movement that is “anti” in origination and orientation, can remain respectful of the other. And, in reference to Abunimeh, I don’t see how ANY advocacy of single state sufficiently respects Israeli concerns and identity to realize any non-violent prospect.
At some point, “non-violent” approaches become functionally violent, as the Israeli blockade of Gaza has not been violent yet, or very very limited, a coerced isolation, but is regarded by most here as at least functionally violent.
Does repeated criticism of Israeli government policy and the actions of both its employees and members of the colonist movement, qualify as ‘habitual demonization’. I don’t see repeated remonstrances for criminal behavior as demonization when each criticism is actually accurate and justified. If they were lies, of course, it would be a different story.
Peace Now calls reforms sweeping:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259010988157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
If only the settlement freeze proposed by Netanyahu was a real freeze.
But its not for several reasons:
1) Construction in East Jerusalem will continue, and as we all know, this is where a supposed Palestinian capital is supposed to be.
2) Hundreds of construction projects have been approved, and will continue unabated despite the “freeze.”
3) The freeze does not extend to buildings currently under construction.
In effect all the “freeze” really is, is a freeze on new building permits in the occupied West Bank, with no freeze in East Jerusalem, and no halt on current building activity.
If there is no FULL freeze, there can be no negotiations, its as simple as that. However, Netanyahu is no fool, he knows that this is precisely the case, and he will then go on to use the Palestinians “unwillingness” to negotiate as a “sign” and a “proof” that the Palestinians were only using the “settlement issue” as a way of stalling negotiations.
He will then proclaim to the world that the Palestinians don’t want peace, he will then say “see, I gave them a settlement freeze and they still don’t want to negotiate!, they clearly hate us only because they can’t stand having a Jewish state in their midst!”
And the saga of bullshit continues…
Peace Now sees it as a major concession, more extensive than what Rabin had offered. Why would a respected group (in your circles) say this? They are one of the leadings opponents of settlement building, if they think this is progress why can’t you and more importantly why can’t the Palestinians?
I don’t think the PA is in the position to gamble with the lives of their people, wasting another generation of kids. BDS and the bi-national movements along with the bogus comparisions w/ SA have given the PA/Abbas a false since that these movements can change the reality on the ground.
bogus comparisions w/ SA?
Yada-yada-yada. Simpletons understand the comparison with SA. That’s why it’s going to work. Israel, as it stands today, is an anachronism. It’s as out of touch as Bush was for eight years, and even more right-wing. Abbas is an anachronism as well. He wasn’t elected, and he’s claimed he wont run for future office.
Yonira, Peace now did not call Netanyahu’s pause “sweeping” or a “major concession”. They called it a “historic step in the right direction” (a rather strange expression in itself). At http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=608&docid=4478 they have a full page of reasons why the whole business is fishy and is only one step toward negotiation – the outcome of which remains to be seen. The report then closes with the incongruous “historic step in the right direction”. Today’s unsigned editorial in Ha’aretz also explains why it’s “too little too late”, while also trying to muster up a little pathetic optimism.
All of this however, is beside the point. Israel does not have to negotiate with its own left wing or with the US (Michael Oren stressed that this move was entirely for Obama!), but with the Palestinians. A settlement freeze is not a “concession” or a “precondition”. Ongoing settlement is active sabotage of any possible agreement with the Palestinians, demonstrating total disregard for any and all Palestinian claims and contempt for its very status as a negotiating partner (not to mention Palestinian life and livelihood). Netanyahu’s current, empty (for the reasons explained by James, Haaretz, Peace Now and many others) PR offensive is thus merely one more “historic step” in the sham known as the “Middle East peace process”. It is extremely indicative that Netanahu is now focusing his attention on getting international endorsements for his “pause”, rather than on the actual negotiations it is supposed to facilitate.
Yonira,
The settlement freeze is false. Even a single day after the official announcement, Barak today announced the “exception” of 28 new buildings.
Its either done or its not done. Less than full compliance is insulting to the US, the PA, and the rest of the world.
Once in a while, Witty, you actually acknowledge facts and talk sense. I don’t expect it to last, unfortunately, since you are unwilling to see anyone except the Palestinians ever get punished for anything.
Freezing new building permits for 10 months to show good faith in peace negotiations
reminds me of some big bully letting his heel up slightly, the one pressed down hard
on the prone victim’s windpipe, and yelling to the watchers in the playground, “See?
he can breathe! His face isn’t so purple–he just don’t wanna talk, the stubborn little prick!” The schoolyard teacher’s looking on too, your Uncle Sam.
I am very encouraged by the shift in rhetoric and discussion that has taken place recently. 1967 borders are now mentioned as baseline.
talk is cheap whether in the blogsphere or with politicians…. if you want to know what a great thing this is for the palestinians just check all the opposition netanyahu is getting inside israel… nada…
Wonderful, it’s another promise the Obama Administration can break to another set of people, as soon as it is convenient for them.
Wouldn’t you like to be the proverbial fly on the wall when Obama’s gate-keeper and campaign manager discuss this amongst themselves? Before either is called into the principal’s office?
Actually, no. If only because it would be heartbreaking to literally watch the best interests of the American people go through the meat grinder in person.
Even the real freeze from Zionist-regime side (which I doubt very much) would secure a peaceful future for the coming generations of the foreign Jews occupying Palestine since 1948. They had their chance to live in peace with the Native Muslim and Christian Palestinians, which they blew-away by using their Zionazi genocide of Natives on daily basis.
The only solution for the next generations of the Arabs and the non-Arabs to live in peace – would be to dismantle the Zionist entity and build a single democratic Palestine State with equal rights for both the Arabs and the non-Arab citizens.
“Wiped Off the Map”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/wiped-off-the-map/
Rehmat, that is totally good suggestion for the Palestinians interest, doing that you will not find housing land problems for the Palestinians anymore… The ratio of population per hectare would be much great, many folds…
Or on the other hand more realistically, after attacking the Israelis, the ratio of area (say square kilometer) per Palestinian population would be much less, many folds…
Comments on this entry are closed.