World isn't buying Israel's explanations anymore
With the U.S. preoccupied and the Palestinians seething, only a turn of diplomatic events can help Israel.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Israel news"Your situation isn't good," said a high-ranking European diplomat recently. "No one believes Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] and we don't want any connection with [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman. Only a dramatic and surprising diplomatic move, like [former prime minister] Ariel Sharon's disengagement, will change the impression."
A few hours later, Time magazine published an interview with U.S. President Barack Obama, in which he expressed disappointment with Israel's unwillingness to make "bold gestures" toward the Palestinians.
In a speech at a conference not long ago, an Israeli diplomat serving in a European capital touted Israel's hoary PR line, distinguishing between "the only democracy in the Middle East" and its autocratic Arab neighbors.
"We share common values," the Israeli told the Europeans. To his surprise, a member of the audience stood up and replied to him: "What common values? We have nothing in common with you."
In diplomatic conversations, Europeans are critical of Israel because of the Gaza blockade, the construction in the Jewish settlements, the home demolitions in East Jerusalem, the pervasive loathing of the right-wing government and even the social gaps and the way Israel is moving away from the European welfare-state model.
The Netanyahu-Lieberman government is nearly always described as "hard-line" in the foreign media. This is not entirely fair: The government of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni went to war in Lebanon and Gaza and built thousands of apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement blocs - many more than did Netanyahu, who has refrained from employing military force and has declared a 10-month freeze on settlement construction. But they liked the Kadima government because Olmert and Livni made the right noises about their desire for peace and a final status agreement, whereas they don't believe Netanyahu when he talks about "two states for two peoples." The fact that Olmert and Livni achieved nothing in the negotiations makes no difference. It's the intentions that count.
Netanyahu and his aides have answers to the accusations against Israel. The blame for the Gaza blockade lies squarely with the Palestinians, who chose Hamas to reign over them and kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. "You are worrying about the humanitarian rights of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. You should be worrying about one Israeli who is being held there," Netanyahu's people tell UN representatives.
In East Jerusalem, the government is hiding behind Mayor Nir Barkat and the planning and construction institutions, which are approving building plans for Jews and home demolitions for Palestinians. And for the diplomatic stagnation, it is blaming Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is refusing to renew the talks.
There is one little problem: The world isn't buying Israel's explanations and it isn't prepared to condemn Palestinian obduracy. Obama has split the blame for the stagnation between the two sides and has also taken some of it upon himself ("We raised expectations").
American envoy George Mitchell's appeal to the members of the Quartet that they urge Abbas to return to talks, has gone unanswered. This week he completed another frustrating visit to the region, with zero results.
Obama's approach - to "park" the diplomatic process for lack of achievements and to concentrate on domestic issues - has not surprised Netanyahu. Three months ago, a senior Israeli official said the Obama administration would probably put off the Israeli-Palestinian problem to his second term, explaining: "Now they're weak, they have unemployment and the economic crisis, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and they aren't emerging from that. They don't have the strength to complete an agreement. In the meantime, the maintenance will continue."
U.S. officials are hoping talks will be renewed within six months. The main thing is that there be some negotiations. They have no expectations of more than that.
Disturbing scenario
The Palestinian Authority is conducting a campaign to isolate Israel, based on the Goldstone report and the hatred for the Netanyahu government. Political scientists Shaul Mishal and Doron Mazza are calling it "the white intifada," which is aimed at enlisting international support for a unilateral declaration of independence in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. In a document they distributed last week, they warn of Israeli complaisance and present a disturbing scenario: The Palestinians declare independence, and Israel refuses to recognize it and is faced with a boycott. Regardless of whether it yields or reacts with force, Israel cannot win, and will also lose control of the process. Therefore the two scholars recommend a preemptive diplomatic move.
Diplomatic isolation can be costly. Former Foreign Ministry director general Gideon Rafael wrote in his memoirs that in the summer of 1973, he felt that the diplomatic stagnation, which was perceived as something taken for granted, and perhaps even desirable, was liable to become "a death trap."
Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat cut Israel off from its friends in the Third World, proposed a peace initiative to the Americans and was rejected. He then raised the demand for the return of the Sinai Peninsula in the UN Security Council and came up against an American veto.
In his book, "Destination Peace: Three decades of Israeli Foreign Policy, a Personal Memoir" (published in English by Littlehampton Book Services, 1981), Rafael wrote that Israel rejoiced in the veto and did not realize that closing the diplomatic door left Egypt with only one option - war.
In the coming weeks Israel apparently will request an American veto in the Security Council again, in order to bury the Goldstone report. Netanyahu is planning a fourth meeting with Obama, concerning the nuclear security conference in Washington on April 12 and perhaps even before then. The agenda will center on Iran - or "the new Amalek," as Netanyahu called it in Auschwitz on Wednesday. The question is whether alongside his demand that Obama take action against Iran, Netanyahu will also tell him that in exchange, Israel will take some sort of initiative vis-a-vis the Palestinians. This would be in an attempt to persuade the world to believe him and ameliorate Israel's increasing diplomatic isolation.
- Print Page
- Send to a friend
- Comments
- Share
- Text Size +|-
-
This story is by:
-
Aluf Benn
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
abass is not arafat isreal his hands are clean and he's not a fantic also U.S and the brits like him isreal's party of simpathey is over
in their charters.The world is looking at the lies of the pal media campaign but the goldstone report is a lie and biased and most people know it.In a short time, the world will come to understand that the Pal people crafted together by Egyptian born Arafat and his uncle Mufti Husseni who created the final solution or the gassing of the Jews with Hitler are not wanting peace. Bibi is not the problem. Did you look at Abbas and his charter, the corruption of the PA and the evil they teach the Pal children with western money
Oh really? The "world"? Let's see: Who IS the world? Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Portugal,Greece, Belgium, Luxemburg - Israel's ETERNAL Allies in Europe? Or Erdogan's Turkey? Or "Brussels"? Or the 57 OIC states, the 22-strong Arab League included? Perhaps Ahmedinajad is the world? Who IS the "world" Mr. Benn? Thank you!
EZ: "Israel has not colonized entire continents, enslaved and eradicated entire peoples/cultures like Europeans did in N and S America and Australia." That would be a very valid comparison if we were talking about Israeli policies in the 18th and 19th century. Only, of course..... EZ: "Israel has not tried to forcibly convert or assimilate any minorities like medieval Europe did." And a medieval Israel that refused to follow the contemporary assimilation policies of Europe would, indeed, be entitled to crow. But there is no point comparing MODERN Israel with MEDIEVAL Europe. EZ: "So, indeed, nothing whatsoever in common." Indeed, true: Europeans live in the present, while zionists appear to live in a world of make-believe. You know, a world where they can compare themselves against those who have long-since vanished into the pages of history.
The Israeli reaction to the Goldstone Report says it all; They started to screech "Anti-Semitic" which is the knee jerk reaction that all Zionists use against any type of honest criticism. That propaganda ploy is getting very old for most intelligent people.
"What common values? We have nothing in common with you." Indeed, Israel shares nothing in common with Europe. Israel has not colonized entire continents, enslaved and eradicated entire peoples/cultures like Europeans did in N and S America and Australia. Israel has not tried to forcibly convert or assimilate any minorities like medieval Europe did. Israel has not committed genocide like 20th century Europe did. Israel officially promotes multiple languages and religions while France and Switzerland ban religious clothing and architecture. So, indeed, nothing whatsoever in common.
The United Nations` mediator Bernadotte explained in 1948 that the partition resolution worked only as a whole. That means an economic union with two states and not a simple two state solution. His explanation was that even then the arab state was not viable on its own. Why isn't the arab state viable on its own? It has 22 surrounding countries with a common ethnic, cultural, relgious and linguistic heritage that form natural partners with it and should be able to support it as it gets started. So why isn't it viable? Maybe for the same reason that those other 22 states are miserable neo feudal failures (except where oil can be used to prop up otherwise insolvent economies)?
When, even once, did the Arabs ever make a "bold gesture???"
Everyone seems so concerned that Israel be accepted and believed. By whom? For what? No one has a solution. Unilateral ceding of territory will accomplish what? Please, someone explain it to me because I don't accept or believe those who think Israel can only capitulate when it does not even have a partner among the Palestinians with whom to talk.
This is no longer a 1948 world and with Israel's continued illegal ex-pansion of the territories this could involve the whole Israeli shebang. Yet in reality I believe that's a remote possibility if the troops are with-drawn and the settlers are evacuated in compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and a certain number of Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes in Israel which is only just. ( I believe the last poll I saw showed this number to be around 10-12 percent. ) This will help to avoid isolating and deligitimizing Israel by the Inter-national community which is what will happen if the settler movement is allowed to grow and remain in place today. Israelis need to speak up today and realize the real threat to their ex-istence is the settler population on their doorstep not Hamas and most certainly not the Palestinian people who want to get on with their lives on their own land...Dutch
All the young Israelis and Palestinians I meet genuinely want peace. They may be the ones to force their leaders to act smart. Miracles do happen. All it would take is for someone with vision, humanity and good faith to give life to a Middle East "perestroika".
The United Nations' mediator Bernadotte explained in 1948 that the partition resolution worked only as a whole. That means an economic union with two states and not a simple two state solution. His explanation was that even then the arab state was not viable on its own.
but it's not all HIS fault; after forty-plus years of deceit, the internet and digital technology, which allow for the instantaneous capture and transmission of events from even the most remote areas, has brought an end to israel's ability to maintain its facade of victimhood by controlling the world's access to the truth. bibi and company are using strategies that predate the technology that reveals their deceitful motives; making them appear even MORE obvious and hypocritical than they ever were before. and the rapid rate of innovation and improvement in these technologies, and their ever increasing affordability/availability, will soon lead to israel's complete inability to disguise its motives, actions, and its eyewash. and to be quite frank, israel's continued reliance on trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world only serves to reinforce the diminishing perspective of israel they attempt to reverse. one can easily say that the internet and digital technology, and the revelations of truth and reality they provide, are shifting the moral advantage away from israel. it also goes without saying, that this is being highlighted with every attempt by israel to blur the truths being revealed.
Israel is the most unfavored state today despite coddling by some world leaders...It's stuff that won't be sustainable....Dutch
The single state idea won't bring peace it will bring a civil war in Israel and arabs & jews will be killing each other the same way that they started killing each other when the UN announced partition in 1947. As soon as it was announced it would spark a civil war that would even split the IDF and risks spreading to arab states like Jordan. When calm eventually came the state would resemble apartheid South Africa. Not a happy place where arab and jewish children play happily together in the streets. Jews & arabs would choose to live apart and although officially it would be illegal we would probably see violence & intimidation by communites towards any member of the other side wanting to move in. Arabs would refuse to employ jews & jews would refuse to employ arabs The economy would be destroyed and probably one of the least desirable countries to live in the region for everybody You would have a single state thats split down the middle and maybe even a threat to regional stabily
.. is two separate states for two separate peoples as both of those peoples have completely different cultures and interests. A civil war would ensue with more disaterous results than two nations at war, if they were forced to live in one state.
Israel left Gaza because we stopped paying for the occupation by providing aid. The same principal will be applied unless Israel comes to it's senses. Israel can be part of the solution or the problem. Israel's choice
Obama's administration has less than three years before it must face the american elecorate. We could easily see Bibi visiting the White House as Israel PM to talk to Obama's successor.
!s the one state for two peoples. the negotiation is on the most acceptable way to obtain it. In the meanwhile get rid of liberman and his gang and start to organize new elections which will certaily result in new composition permitting a liveable solution.
Where are the explanations for the 430,000 killed in Darfur, the 1.3 millions dead in Iraq and the 5.2 millions butchered in the DRC?
Aluf Benn, the only thing what is glaringly missing from your text is an inward look. When the population of Europe stops liking Israel it is for what Israel is doing. No need to explain things better, just stop what you are doing and start doing those things a civil land would do.
Interesting article. maybe a "pre-emptive" diplomatic move makes sense - but probably not- because there is always the " OK- whats next scenario." Europe sees the world through a different set of glasses than Asia and the US and Israel. The EU itself wipes away the concept of separate countries as a reaction to war. The EU can never appreciate reality in the ME, and in the end, will be a victim of terrorism most likely. Giving territory away does not bring peace historically. In the event of a declaration of Independence, Israel would clearly not be obligated to provide water and electricity to Gaza, and could permanently seal that border. Perhaps Egypt wouldn't like this? There are ways to work this out and avoid unilateral declarations. In the end, no one cares about the Palestinians...except Israelis.
Grand gestures resulted in 3 wars.