Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin
Netanyahu has crossed Rubicon, both ideologically and practically, and reinvented himself as a centrist.
By Ari Shavit Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Israel news Yitzhak RabinBenjamin Netanyahu made history twice. The first time was when he adopted the two-state solution in his Bar-Ilan speech, and the second was when he decided last week to freeze settlement construction. The Palestinians dismiss his steps and the Europeans say they're not enough. The skeptics are skeptical and the cynics are cynical. But the truth is that Netanyahu circa 2009 is situating himself to the left of Yitzhak Rabin circa 1995.
Unlike Rabin, Netanyahu now accepts the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state. Unlike Rabin, he is issuing orders prohibiting construction throughout the Jewish West Bank. Netanyahu has crossed the Rubicon, on both ideological and practical levels, and reinvented himself as a centrist.
At the beginning of this decade, Ariel Sharon underwent a similar process, with the road map his equivalent of Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech. The road map expressed his support for the two-state concept, while insisting that essential basic conditions be fulfilled before the establishment of a Palestinian state.
But a short time after accepting the road map, Sharon revealed that its trails led to a dead end. No Palestinians met the basic conditions, no Palestinians were capable of signing a final-status agreement, no Palestinians had the power to implement peace. When the father of the settlements finally came out in favor of dividing the land, it turned out that there were no Palestinian leaders likewise committed to dividing the land.
Thus was the disengagement born. Although Sharon was aware of its flaws, he realized that disengagement was the only plan of action a centrist Israeli leader could advance without a real partner for real peace.
Six years later, Netanyahu has reached the exact same point. He accepts the principle of two states, and receives no response. He suspends construction in the settlements, and is rejected. He courts Mahmoud Abbas, and is disparaged. The son of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's personal secretary wants a historic reconciliation with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are slamming the door. He is offering the Palestinian national movement negotiations over the establishment of a Palestinian nation-state, and has found that there's no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. Zilch. A brick wall.
Few people are close to the prime minister, but among the few who are, some say he has indeed undergone a turnabout. Israel's might, not the settlements or the settlers, is his top priority. Therefore, had there been a proposal on the table assuring Israel's security in exchange for a painful withdrawal, Netanyahu would not hesitate. The tragedy is that there is no such offer - and no such table. Negotiations haven't even begun. Abbas isn't giving Netanyahu anything he can use to put the centrist worldview he has adopted into action.
Under such circumstances, Netanyahu has two options. One is Shaul Mofaz's plan: the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. The second is Disengagement II: the evacuation of about 20 West Bank settlements and their transfer to the Fayyad government. The Mofaz plan has major advantages, but it makes Netanyahu fear unlimited and unrestrained Palestinian sovereignty. This means he might be forced to seriously consider the other option. We can't rule out that in 2010 Netanyahu will find himself pushing a limited withdrawal, just as Sharon did in 2004 and 2005.
Disengagement II will have to be completely different from its predecessor. It will have to be coordinated with the Palestinian Authority and granted European support, and it will have to turn the evacuated area into an economic prosperity zone. It will need to prevent Palestinians from smuggling in weapons and increasing their military might, and must assure Israel's right to self-defense. Such a plan would have to be part of an overall strategic outlook that pushes both peoples toward peace through measured, circumspect and coordinated unilateral steps. A second disengagement would have to be an improved version of the first, a plan with a political dimension and an economic depth that would strengthen the moderates - Palestinians as well as Israelis.
If the prime minister dares to go forward with Disengagement II, things would be easier for Israel on all fronts. It would help Netanyahu in domestic politics, just as the first disengagement helped Sharon, and it would turn the prime minister into the new leader of the Israeli center.
|
Rabin and Netanyahu. |
| Photo by: (Getty Images; David Mizrachi) |
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
Actor James Dean was killed (in a road accident). Rabin was not "killed". He was assassinated. Rabin was not "willing to give the Golan to Syria". He was willing to return the Syrian Golan back into Assad's hands, against a peace treaty. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.
"Netanyahu is positioning himself left of Rabin" makes as much sense as "Attila the Hun was a greater humanitarian than Martin Luther King" Netanyahu is playing for time and trying to avoid a dmaaging split with Obama. I do not believe he has any intention of facilitating a contiguous, viable Palaestinian state.
Suddenly, in the last fortnight Ari Shavit, and before him Aluf Benn, are praising Netanyahu for a relevant and steady change in his political strategy towards a reasonable settlement of the conflict. Unfortunately their arguments seem rather weak. But, as I consider them very serious political analysts, I suppose they know things they didn?t tell us. Please, Ari and Aluf, can you tell us anything more concrete and believable about this ?revolution? in Bibi?s mind?
"Centralism in Israel means left, secular, empty, suicidal and incomprehensible." (Paul) What can be more suicidal and incomprehensible, than claiming that Israel cannot survive without keeping forever captive a foreign and stateless population? "There is nothing more contemptible or despicable than the use of religious sanctions in conflicts between nations and states." From an Open Letter to then-PM Begin, 1980, by Jacob Talmon (1916-1980), then Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew U of Jerusalem, 1957 Israel Prize for Social Sciences. www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/a-prophetic-message-from-the-past In 1980, when our settlement adventure was still in infancy, when Hamas was a name nobody had yet heard, seven years before the outburst of the first Intifada, and 27 years before the Hamas takeover of the entire Gaza Strip, now an Islamist enclave Israel cannot live with - nor defeat. What is obvious to anyone in his right sense, no blockhead can begin to comprehend.
"A second disengagement would have to be a plan coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, with a political dimension and an economic depth that would strengthen the moderates, Palestinians as well as Israelis, and that would have to be part of an overall strategic outlook that pushes both peoples toward peace." In short, everything Sharon's disengagement was not. But then, why don't you, Ari Shavit, have the guts and honesty to tell us straight as it really was: A well-calculated deceptive ploy to further weakening the man his people had elected with a clear majority for Chairman, only six months earlier? What sense does it make to lament over the fact that "no Palestinian had the power to implement peace" ? A strong Palestinian leader with the power to do just that, strong from having a solid majority of his people behind him, would also have had the power to confront any Israeli PM and force him to evacuate all the West Bank settlements. And THAT was the last thing Sharon was interested in. And you know it, Ari Shavit, as much as I do.
"Isn't that what all other countries do in time of war?" (A. Zekaria) What other country in the world at war "in its most critical time in history" (your words) takes time to build settlements for its religious fanatics, amidst a foreign hostile stateless population, on a land outside its declared sovereignty? And keeps paying salaries to religious leaders who instruct its soldiers to publicly swear they will disobey orders that do not fit their ideology? Akram, have you hired someone to write your posts for you? Dismiss him/her. This one is all blather and balderdash.
... so far to the Left that centralist is a meaningless term" Paul. Wrong Paul ! Western Governments, including Israel has moved so far to the left and got themselves thrown down the cliff where they can never be found again. It is a wast of time to search for them; most of them are useless anyway ! To replace them is a job the populace none of them is capable of doing. And don't try to move them to the far right Paul; they are even worse. Governments of the people, by the people and for the people is already perished from the earth.
If Bibi has changed, it is only because the strategic situation has changed. With Israel at one of its lowest historical points in world public opinion, with the rise of Iran, with its deterrent factor weakened....then any politician would clearly see that moving toward an agreement is vital. What hasn't changed is that Bibi is a politician, and will do wjhat is necessary to retain power and influence. As it is, Bibi isn't going fast enough to really get anything done. The region is headed for another major crisis.
Politics can be very harmful to any nation in time of war. It can only divide the nation and weaken its resistance against its enemies ! And this is exactly what Israel is doing now ! Party above the nation's vital interests ! Who is serving his own party's ideology is all that is important ! Is Israel can serve & have the time to care about things that must sure retract the country of its war against its enemies who vowed many times to destroy it ?! What difference can it be if the palestinians have their rights curtailed and their freedom imposed upon when the country is at War and the nation is very security conscious ! Isn't that what all other country do in time of war ? Who is on the left of whom or who in on the right of what must be a silly arguments on today's Israel . "Ask what you can do for your country"; is the only question in today's Israel in its most critical time in the nation's history. Stop the political jargon of diversity, division & classification.
I actually made the same claim on ynet talk back - Bibi has turned out to be weaker than all previous PMs, including Peres, Barak, Olmert. And he is also the most dishonest - at least with peres people knew what they were getting. Bibi cannot be trusted, and he will do anything to please his masters, or his ego. If today he is keeping e. jerusalem, tomrorw he will leave it unilaterally. He should be kicked out of government. I think even Livni would be a better PM.
... but how in the heck can anyone deal with the hordes of revolting fanatics who have captured the border between Israel and the PA. and made horrendous destructive inroads into Pal territory...?! ... they are also fully armed and enjoy a rich, generous and encouraging hinterland in the USA...
1) Jerusalem will remain united and will also include Ma'aleh Adumim and Giv'at Zeev 2) The Jordan Valley, the the widest possible way of defining it, will remain in Israel's hands 3) A Palestinian state will be "less than a state" This has been the stand of Israel's political leaders from left, right and center for decades. It continues to be!
Western governments, including Israel has moved so far to the left, that centralist is a meaningless term. Centralism in Israel means left, secular, empty, suicidal and incomprehensible. Ask any drunk in any third world country and they admit that world Middle East politics is a farce, because it bends-over-backwards to deny the obvious; the land of Israel belongs to Jews, and Arabs use it as a tool to deny Jewish identity and nationalism. The world never really accepted a haven for Jewish persecution of which they participated. The left and centralist position, the manipulative leaders of Israel believe will buy them peace, but only leads to more and more pressure.
There is a serious problem with comparing Rabin to Netanyahu. Rabin was killed in 1995. That's 14 years ago. Much time has passed. Rabin was willing to give the Golan to Syria. He shook Arafat's hand, and he spoke clearly about how killing brings only sorrow, and he said, "No more killing". Though I don't think he went far enough, the general actually did make somewhat of a sincere conversion. Netanyahu made his statements to kind of deal with American and European criticism. This is not out of conviction. In the 1990s, Netanyahu also tried to play with words to foster a certain image for himself and Israel in front of the world. It's just spin. His government still builds settlements, kicks out people from East Jerusalem. I am not sure how that's to the Left of Rabin.
And Adolf Hitler positioned himself to the left of Joseph Stalin. . . Clearly Ari Shavit is either overworked of brainwashed. Netanyahu has no intent of giving up one inch of Greater Israel. Anyone who believes such is either an idiot, fool or imbecile. See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132426.html And:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132170.html And that is just what proves Ari Shavit, and Yossi Melman are nothing but pimps for Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu rules in Israel and Haaretz submits. And is there NO better proof of Netanyahu's total control than the fact that the 'newspaper' which SHOULD be most in opposition is in total submission to him?
Netanyahu the 'centrist' has 'crossed' the Rubicon to be on the 'left' of Rabin and Sharon. Ari Shavit has spread disinformation before but this one takes the proze. Netanyahu misled his audience inBar Ilan U. when he declared that he is for a 2 states 'solution'.: and he is misleading everyone when he 'is' for 'freezing' the settlements expansion. The 'freeze' is on except when it is thawed by an ongoing building and the issuance of building permits. And he wants 'disengagement' II which will be the same as 'disengagement'I that did nothing to better the life of the Palestinians in Gaza and brought them only misery. Netanyahu is not a changed man and neither is Ari Shavit.