May 28th 2011

Netanyahu's Stance Jeopardizes Israel's Security

by Alon Ben-Meir

A noted journalist and author, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations and Middle East studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. Ben-Meir holds a masters degree in philosophy and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University. His exceptional knowledge and insight, the result of more than 20 years of direct involvement in foreign affairs, with a focus on the Middle East, has allowed Dr. Ben-Meir to offer a uniquely invaluable perspective on the nature of world terrorism, conflict resolution and international negotiations. Fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, Ben-Meir's frequent travels to the Middle East and meetings with highly placed officials and academics in many Middle Eastern countries including Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Syria and Turkey provide him with an exceptionally nuanced level of awareness and insight into the developments surrounding breaking news. Ben-Meir often articulates

The supposed controversy over President Obama's speech on the Middle East, manufactured by Prime Minster Netanyahu and enabled by the media, is disgraceful and insincere. President Obama said nothing new about borders, just the facts: no border will ever be acceptable to the Palestinians that does not carve out a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, the two territories based on the "1967 lines," and no border will ever be acceptable to Israel that does not include the three major settlement blocs. Negotiating the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps meets both demands, which is why it has been the foundation of border negotiations in every peacemaking effort including UN Resolutions 242 and 338, to which Israel is signatory. However, by misrepresenting the President's remarks, Netanyahu irresponsibly chose to pick a fight with the one man who can safeguard Israel from near total international isolation, while ignoring the very significant steps the president took in Israel's favor.

Days before President Obama's speech, Netanyahu spoke to the Knesset and identified Israel's core demands: maintaining the settlement blocs, a united Jerusalem, opposing Palestinian refugees' return to Israel, and receiving recognition as a Jewish state. President Obama has now backed them all-but Netanyahu is choosing not to listen. Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's speech, stating that the 1967 lines are "indefensible" simply ignored Obama's call for mutually agreed land swaps, which inherently means an adjusted 1967 border, as President Obama's explained in his remarks to AIPAC. The notion of "indefensible" borders also ignores pure common sense. The width between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is a mere 44 miles-if an adjusted 1967 border is "indefensible," what is defensible? How many handfuls of acres or kilometers more are needed to maintain the balance of Israel's national security? The inconvenient truth is that expanding territory by a few more acres is not what will maintain Israel's national security. Israel's security can only be guaranteed by four elements: 1) a lasting peace agreement, 2) credible deterrence, 3) enforceable international guarantees and finally 4) a strong U.S.-Israel relationship that provides Israel with a security umbrella. This will safeguard Israel from international opprobrium by supporting its right to self-defense and working alongside it to address regional threats such as that from Iran.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, along with much of the media, and the president's critics and challengers chose to ignore the significant steps Obama took to place the onus on the Palestinians. In fact, Obama's iteration of the 1967 border discussion was geared directly for this purpose. First, it provides the Palestinians - and the Europeans - with a new consideration ahead of the planned United Nations General Assembly vote in September. That President Obama gave an exclusive interview after the speech to the BBC - addressing a European audience - and soon after embarked on a five-day trip to Europe, only underscores his commitment to ensuring that "efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure," and that "actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state." Second, the focus on borders was intended to remove the issue of a settlement freeze from continuing to serve as the primary obstacle to negotiations. It appears he has succeeded, with Palestinians now requesting Netanyahu's response to Obama's formulation on borders as a prerequisite to renewed negotiations, rather than a full freeze. Third, the president addressed Palestinian national aspirations in the context of the Arab Spring to maintain credibility for the United States in the region. But more importantly, he did so without wavering from the United States' commitment to Israel's security "as a Jewish state." In fact, his reiteration of "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people," were both endorsements of a two-state solution and a rejection of the Palestinian right of return to Israel. Fourth, not only did President Obama state that the Palestinians "walked away from talks," but with regard to the recent Fatah-Hamas unity government, he challenged the Palestinians to produce a "credible answer" to the question, "How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?"

It is one thing to establish maximalist positions knowing that negotiations will ultimately moderate these stances to achieve one's actual goals. It is entirely another matter to articulate a position that is totally and completely unacceptable to the other side, as Netanyahu has done when he addressed a joint session of Congress, and that does not allow any opportunity for negotiation. After all, both parties know very well what the contours of any peace agreement will look like.

On borders, as Obama stated, a negotiated border will be based on the 1967 border with land swaps to include the major settlement blocs. On Jerusalem, the city must remain "united" but the Palestinians must also have some presence in the Arab neighborhoods to form a capital in East Jerusalem for a Palestinian state. On security, Israel must have ironclad security guarantees with an international peacekeeping force (perhaps with some Israeli and Palestinian participation) to be stationed along the Jordan River. The force should be assembled from specific countries that have a vested interest in maintaining peace, including Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, EU nations like Britain, France and Germany, all under the command of the United States. Finally, both sides must face these hard truths: that Israel's recognition as a Jewish state requires a Jewish majority that can only be sustained through a two-state solution, and, in turn, a solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees must be a return to Palestine, not to Israel. No moderate Israeli or Palestinian could accept anything less. None of this is new, none of it should be controversial, and none of it can be achieved without the active participation, encouragement and facilitation of the United States-whether the international community, the Palestinians, or Israel likes it or not.

Still, if this solution is ever to be achieved, Israel and the Palestinians must address those who would rather perpetuate the conflict than end it. For Israel, this means not enabling settlers and other right-wing radicals to hijack the Zionist cause in ways that are weakening the United States-Israel alliance and placing Israel's future in jeopardy. It also means that instead of shielding his eyes from the truth, and pointing to obstacles to justify his inaction, Netanyahu must be pro-active in presenting real leadership and a realistic, practical path that can bring Israel toward greater peace and security, and away from its growing isolation. For the Palestinians it is a clear recognition that violence will only lead to destruction. Hamas must be disabused of the notion that Israel can be destroyed. The use of such rhetoric, and violence, will not just place Hamas at risk, it will completely annihilate it. Israel will not hesitate to respond to such threats by decapitating its leadership and inflicting a severe blow on its infrastructure, even at the expense of international condemnation. But Israel should also welcome any sign of moderation on the part of Hamas, especially if the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah holds.

Top Egyptian officials have privately conveyed this message to Hamas leaders-if they ignore the advice, they will do so at their own peril, and at the demise of the Palestinian national cause as well as the significant progress that has been made to achieve the goal of Palestinian independence. As one Palestinian recently told me, he is concerned about the unknown changes that will emanate from the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas: "Right now the Palestinians in the West Bank feel as though we are living in Switzerland-except we don't sleep," he said. "Now, we have so much to lose." The same is true of Israelis-the situation can change overnight, and time is running out. In his remarks on Sunday to AIPAC, President Obama was blunt: "If there is a controversy, then it's not based in substance. What I did on Thursday (in the speech on the Middle East) was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I've done so because we can't afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast ... The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel's security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve."

Reflecting on these remarks, Israelis must ask themselves: Are we better off today than we were more than two years ago when the Netanyahu government came to power? The question, of course, is rhetorical-but the answer is a clear, unequivocal "no." As such, Israeli leaders should be asking themselves a subsequent question: What are we prepared to do about it? If Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress is his answer, the Israelis should expect further isolation while jeopardizing rather than enhancing their national security.

*A version of this article appears in the Jerusalem Post, May 26, 2011 and is available online:http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=222338


Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Jun 25th 2020
EXTRACT: "The facts are clear: the wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50% of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10%. The world’s top 10% income earners are responsible for at least 25% and up to 43% of our environmental impact. Most people living in developed countries would fit into this category, meaning you don’t have to consider yourself rich in order to be globally affluent. Even many poorer people in wealthy countries have a disproportionately large and unsustainable resource footprint compared to the global average."
Jun 24th 2020
EXTRACT: "To be sure, the American Dream was always more aspiration than reality. Economic, social, and intergenerational mobility have always fallen short of what the myth of the self-made man or woman would lead one to expect. But with social mobility now declining as inequality rises, today’s young people are right to be angry."
Jun 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "There is only one way to repair America’s reputation, regain the trust of allies, and ensure that the US can act as an effective counterweight to China: address the root causes of the cracks that Trump’s disastrous presidency has exposed and widened. This is in line with the vision advanced in 2011 by two military strategists, Captain Wayne Porter and Colonel Mark Mykleby, using the pseudonym “Mr. Y.” Porter and Mykleby argued that national security depends not only on the capacity to respond to threats from foreign powers, but also – and perhaps more important – on the “application of credible influence and strength.” That influence, in turn, depends on America’s success in providing a “pathway of promise” for US citizens – and a model for the world."
Jun 14th 2020
EXTRACT: "The most critical question then is not how far Trump will go to promote his treasonous agenda, but for how long Republican leaders will silently accept and subserviently enable Trump to destroy the basic moral tenets and values on which this Union was founded, and which they swore to uphold and protect...............Of course, shame on us if we continue to be surprised by Republicans’ continuing silence, because as we all know, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Trump committed crimes against the American people, Trump’s Republican stooges in the Senate exonerated him following impeachment almost unanimously...................The Republican leadership, to be sure, has made its bed. It has committed moral suicide. History will judge them harshly for their treason and betrayal of the nation, including all of those who have lived and died throughout our history to foster and protect our safety, integrity, and freedom."
Jun 9th 2020
EXTRACT: " Governments can do nothing about the quotidian offenses of living as a black person in America – the empty taxis that refuse to stop, being mistaken for employees in supermarkets, the myriad intentional and unintentional insults. Many now in the streets won’t be satisfied unless the result of this national spasm is improved schools, health care, and job opportunities for minorities – a fair shake for black people. What will happen when America once again falls short of honoring its professed values?."
Jun 8th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should be apparent to most observers of international relations that the Chinese government wants the world to play by its own set of rules. Beijing appears to believe that China’s rise and its assumption of global leadership positions are an inevitable extension of earlier periods in its history, when it was the world’s most powerful country. This is often at odds with the global norms that have been established – with China’s participation, it is worth adding – since the 1940s. While this is clearly the Chinese century, few outside of China would agree that Beijing’s global leadership is either inevitable or necessarily desired – certainly not on the Chinese government’s terms."
Jun 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "Many Americans are clearly horrified by their president’s crass and incendiary words. But will their disapproval be offset by anxiety about violent social unrest? Will age-old racial prejudices, often unspoken, or even acknowledged, still make them vote for the false security of a coarse white bully?  Much will depend on how hot this summer gets. If people think rationally in November, it is hard to imagine that enough of them would vote to keep this appalling administration in power for another four years. But fear is reason’s worst enemy."
Jun 2nd 2020
EXTRACT: "For starters, many Americans have accepted that they live in a winner-takes-all society of deepening inequality. While the wealth and incomes of those at the very top continue to grow, tens of millions of Americans struggle to afford health care, childcare, and other basic goods. This story has been told many times over. But what often goes unremarked is that the responsibility for managing the social costs of this system has been offloaded onto the police."
May 27th 2020
EXTRACT: "Obamagate is the latest conspiracy theory to be pushed by US president, Donald Trump. It started on the morning of May 10, when Trump retweeted the word “OBAMAGATE!” By the next day, the Obamagate hashtag had accrued over two million tweets and another four million by the end of the week. Trump has repeatedly reused the slogan on his Twitter feed since and it has been promoted by right-wing influencers including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and many others....You are not alone if you’re confused by what Obamagate actually is or why Trump is tweeting about it."
May 23rd 2020
EXTRACT: "Not all aspects of our near and medium-term future can be foreseen at this juncture of the Covid-19 pandemic, but we now know enough to make some hypotheses about what is likely to change, based on what has already changed. The future is sure to look very different than it did before this decade began, regardless of whether a vaccine is found. If a vaccine is found, it is unlikely to be tested, approved, manufactured, and efficiently distributed to the world’s population of nearly 8 billion people for years. Bearing in mind that there is no vaccine for any coronavirus, what is likelier is that the world will be living with Covid-19 as a part of our ecosystem for many years to come – possibly permanently. That means that our new normal is probably already here."
May 21st 2020
EXTRACT: "LONDON – The new Franco-German proposal for a €500 billion ($547 billion) European recovery fund could turn out to be the most important historic consequence of the coronavirus. It is even conceivable that the deal struck between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron might one day be remembered as the European Union’s “Hamiltonian moment,” comparable to the 1790 agreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson on public borrowing, which helped to turn the United States, a confederation with little central government, into a genuine political federation."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "In April 2011, Donald Trump, then considering a run for the presidency the following year, said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to check out rumors that President Barack Obama wasn’t born there, but in Kenya, which would disqualify him for the presidency. His investigators, Trump declared, “cannot believe what they’re finding.” I can find no record of Trump being challenged on this outlandish claim at the time. In the fall of 2016, Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, was convinced by his staff that he had to abandon this “birther” nonsense. He did so reluctantly, charging – also with no evidence – that such rumors had actually been initiated by his opponent, Hillary Clinton. There, in a nutshell, is Trump’s modus operandi: he’s not just a liar but a fabulist, seemingly unconcerned with whether his fictions will be exposed. If they are, the world simply moves on as he invents fresh distractions."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "Li, a doctor, was purportedly silenced and chastised by Chinese officials for warning on December 30, 2019, about a new virus in the Wuhan hospital where he worked. When it became evident that he was on to something serious – so serious, in fact, that it ultimately killed him – the Chinese government changed its tune and celebrated Li’s bravery. If only that had happened sooner, the argument goes, the world would have avoided this horrific pandemic.................... But that’s not what happened."
May 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "Jana Winter and Hunter Walker at Yahoo News broke the story that 11 Secret Service agents have tested positive for the coronavirus. Likely some of them served in the West Wing. This week it was revealed at that a US military valet who brought Trump food came down with the virus, sending Trump into a “lava level” rage. Two aides to Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive. Some observers are afraid that the virus is circulating in the West Wing itself."
May 6th 2020
EXTRACT: "There has been much debate around the world about the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from a laboratory to Wuhan’s seafood market to some other form of animal-to-human transmission. While there is no proof (yet) that the virus may have been inadvertently released from one of the two biological research laboratories located at Wuhan, there is evidence that viral release has occurred in the past, and a host of additional data that point to a laboratory connection. "
May 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "A better bet is that nothing will be the same. Wealth will be destroyed on a catastrophic scale, and policymakers will need to find a way to ensure that, at least in some cases, creditors take part of the hit, a process that will play out over years of negotiation and litigation. For bankruptcy lawyers and lobbyists, it will be a bonanza, part of which will come from pressing taxpayers to honor bailout guarantees. Such a scenario would be an unholy mess."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "We need the twenty-first century’s two superpowers, America and China, to set the example, by burying their rivalry and uniting all of humankind around a collective response to the current crisis, and to those that await us. As COVID-19 has taught us, the old international system can no longer guarantee humankind’s safety and security. We cannot afford to be taught that lesson twice."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should come as no surprise that Trump has abused his power in orchestrating the federal response to the pandemic. For example, he made sure that Colorado received 100 much-needed ventilators, and made sure that Colorado voters knew it, in order to help re-elect troubled incumbent Republican senator Cory Gardner.  More alarming, Trump effectively threatened to wage germ warfare against US Postal Service workers by denying them congressionally approved virus-mitigation aid unless the USPS quadrupled rates on packages. Trump’s actual target was Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post."
Apr 28th 2020
EXTRACT: "These ten risks, already looming large before COVID-19 struck, now threaten to fuel a perfect storm that sweeps the entire global economy into a decade of despair. By the 2030s, technology and more competent political leadership may be able to reduce, resolve, or minimize many of these problems, giving rise to a more inclusive, cooperative, and stable international order. But any happy ending assumes that we find a way to survive the coming Greater Depression."
Apr 26th 2020
EXTRACT: "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Federal Reserve will buy unlimited quantities of Treasury bonds, the Bank of England will purchase £200 billion ($250 billion) of gilts, and the European Central Bank up to €750 billion ($815 billion) of eurozone bonds. Almost certainly, central banks will end up providing monetary finance to fund fiscal deficits. The only question is whether they should make that explicit."