I don’t really think it’s an accident that this leaked. I don’t really think Kerry’s assessment is wrong, either.
As the Occupation continues and deepens, a two state solution grows more and more imperiled. With that comes the choice: a Jewish state or a democracy. Plans to annex Area C only add to this problem, as would the “Autonomy on Steroids” Bantustan proposed by Naftali Bennett today. Given the events of the last week (Fatah-Hamas unity involving Gazan leadership, Abbas’ acceptance in Arabic of the Holocaust), I don’t see how anybody can take Bibi Netanyahu’s commitment to a 2 state solution at face value anymore. Even if you accept that there is a 2 state vision he’d get behind, it is as far removed from reality as Hamas’ unitary solution.
Andrew Sullivan (in a piece I disagree with for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) just posted this well-written bit: link to dish.andrewsullivan.com
Sullivan’s analysis isn’t out of place with anything you’d see on Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada. Probelmatically, it also ignores Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, or the desperate-for-peace Israel left led by Labour’s Bougie Herzog. I suppose, by Sullivan’s analysis, Americans were all pro-torture warmongers in 2004? Roger Cohen’s piece in the Times was essentially true: the status quo is sustainable for Israel, and however odious it may seem, most Israelis appreciate their safety and economic growth. That’s the real problem, particularly as Netanyahu pivots towards being a Russian client due to common ethos and the growing influence of the Soviet bloc.
The animosity between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations is real, visceral and clear as day. The neutral vote on the Ukraine may well have been the final straw for Obama (whereas Moshe Ya'alon's slur of Kerry and the lack of appropriate sanction by Netanyahu appears to have burnt that bridge.) The pivot towards Putin is as much a product of the Soviet segment of Israeli society as any other, but the Soviet anti-democratic culture has clearly suffused the Israeli body politic: this ain't your father's Israel with Labour as the party of Government. If it was, then the Olmert Plan would still be on the table, the Arab League proposal would be taken seriously, and the differences would be hashed out in short order.
My hope is that the Obama admin’s pressure cracks up the Netanyahu coalition, that Lapid bolts to the opposition along with Livni, and that a newly installed Prime Minister Herzog meets with the moderate new Palestinian President (al-Masri? Fayyad? Dahlen?) Even if you think that’s Utopian (and even I’m inclined to say that my hope might be…) I think the likelihood is that Michael Oren is right and there will be a unilateral disengagement in the near-future contemporaneous with PA efforts towards UN recognition that the US may well support. The moment that a two state solution is impossible and a one state solution is inevitable (which I contend is still a little ways off), the position of the Israelis will shift from immoral Occupier to apartheid governor.
One final bit: The Daily Beast (which also hosted Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart) just released the American Secretary of State saying this after Barack Obama spoke with similar frankness to Jeffrey Goldberg a mere month ago. There is no war with Iran. Apartheid is a loaded word meant to scare the Israeli public and government, a sort of step up from the mention of BDS a few months back. These are not things that puppets say. At what point can we speak frankly on this blog about the nature of the “Israel Lobby”: that it’s not some all powerful tail that wags the dog, but rather the more obvious answer that the reflexive Likudnik tendencies of most Washingtonians are dulling due to a combination of the obstinacy and shameful governance of the Netanyahu coalition and the deeper influence of realpolitik retrenchment following the neocon adventurism of the Aughties (as embodied in Obama’s foreign policy)?
No comments:
Post a Comment