Bibi’s Speech
Eli Lake reports for The Washington Times that Bibi Netanyahu is prepared to make major concessions toward the Palestinians. This turns out to mean that he’s willing to accept, in principle, that someday there should be a Palestinian state. But only after all kinds of conditions are met and so on and so forth. Spencer Ackerman aptly characterizes this as Bibi stepping boldly into the cutting edge thinking circa 1993.
That said, while cynicism is appropriate, it shouldn’t cloud all. Politics is a pretty cynical business, and there’s always been a lot of cynicism in Netanyahu’s hard-line approach. A cynical and nominal embrace of a two-state solution still means that there’s no longer any meaningful Israeli political space to the right of the common sense and appropriate view that the only way for Israel to enjoy long-term security is by peacefully coexisting with an independent Palestine. What will follow from that in practice is, as of yet, hard to see. But a great deal follows from that logically. In particular, on the controversy du jour regarding settlements, it’s crystal clear as a matter of logic that if you can’t have a settlement freeze then you also can’t ever have a Palestinian state. Conversely, if you believe there needs to be a Palestinian state, then no matter what you think about when or how that should happen, you’re ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the settlement project needs to be halted. Will Netanyahu embrace those conclusions? Well, I have my doubts. But the terms of the debate are nonetheless changed by him shifting his position, however much the “shift” doesn’t amount to anything beyond Israel formally accepting Israel’s responsibility for Israel’s previous diplomatic commitments.
44 Responses to “Bibi’s Speech”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
From the article:
He met with members of his center-right Likud Party in his office Wednesday to explain the speech and told them: “There are considerations you arent aware of.”
My guess would be Likud was not aware that Rahm and Obama weren’t actually kidding. And so Netanyahu either takes a stance like this or his government is on the way to collapsing. If there’s one thing you can count on a politician to do, it’s to bend his previous principles to stay in power.
Of course, we’ll see if this actually leads to anything. But it’s certainly not bad news.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The Jerusalem Post had an article on the upcoming speech:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371080630&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
June 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
For the Israelis, accepting that the Palestinian people even exist is a major concession. But I doubt Bibi will go so far as to acknowledge that they might be human. And the process goes on. The Israelis will talk until they control the entire West Bank. After that, there will be no point in talking.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The Fakestinian state is in Amman.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Time for Bibi to grow a pair and challenge President Osama to take his best shot.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
President Osama blah blah blah Fakestinians blah blah blah Hama Rules blah blah blah settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.
There you go, SLC. I’ve covered every conceivable contribution you could make to this thread. Take the rest of the afternoon off.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Perfect. Then Bibi’s government can collapse and he can go shampoo his new testicles while Israel votes again.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Dump Bibi the appeaser and replace him with Benny Begin.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/begin-no-twostage-solution-to
June 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
… it’s crystal clear as a matter of logic that if you can’t have a settlement freeze then you also can’t ever have a Palestinian state.
Well, you’re certainly not going to get Israel’s government to accept that inference, since the inference all depends on a suppressed premise about where the Palestinian state is supposed to be. Likud wingers will have no trouble holding that the future Palestinian state should occupy a 10 square mile patch somewhere between Nablus and Jenin. Meanwhile, they will say, there are lots and lots of dunums of God-given land yet to be settled by worthy Jewish settlers.
As I have tried to impress upon people for several years now, if the US and its international allies continue to kick the can down the road indefinitely, with nothing but vague and general calls for a Palestinian state somewhere, whose territory is supposed to be established by eventual final status negotiations between the militarily potent Israelis and the militarily insignificant Palestinians, then they will never be able to pull together the coercive diplomatic pressure necessary to halt the Israeli expansion.
It is necessary for the international community to give some more or less precise geographical definition to the nature of the conflict, and to the internationally acceptable shape of of the solution. Standing around waiting for Israel to tell everybody else where its border is to lie is not a rational strategy for achieving a durable solution.
One has to wonder whether the administration is serious about a Palestinian state, or only wants to be seen as supporting such a solution so that they can say “we tried” after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank is complete.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
You wouldn’t rather dig up Meir Kahane?
June 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
• Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.
• Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.
• A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state’s eastern and southern borders.
Doesn’t sound much like a “state” to me.
This is all a just a prettified way of saying that Likud will not accept a two-state solution. They will accept a continuation of the occupation status quo, but charitably allow the Palestinians to enjoy some of the formal trappings of statehood while running their own prison. Maybe. A few years down the road. If they cave on all their other demands.
The target audience for this statement are people like Eli Lake and Marty Peretz, who can wave it around and say “look how reasonable the Israelis are being! They’ve offered the Palestinians a state! Why won’t they accept this generous offer? Just goes to show you that you can’t achieve peace through negotiation. The only language those people understand is force.”
June 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
then they will never be able to pull together the coercive diplomatic pressure necessary to halt the Israeli expansion.
No such diplomatic pressure exists. The only pressure great enough to achieve such an effect is a sustained bombing campaign. Hopefully Iran gets a nuke sooner rather than later.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
People forget that Netanyahu negotiated with Arafat and King Hussein at Wye River. He’s got his pragmatic side– he’s just a hawk who is very concerned with Israeli security.
If you believe in Nixon goes to China scenarios, he may actually be the most likely to be able to deliver some sort of peace agreement with the Palestinians, because he will be seen as able to drive a tough bargain and to ensure that there are strong protections of Israel’s security in the agreement.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
In particular, on the controversy du jour regarding settlements, it’s crystal clear as a matter of logic that if you can’t have a settlement freeze then you also can’t ever have a Palestinian state. Conversely, if you believe there needs to be a Palestinian state, then no matter what you think about when or how that should happen, you’re ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the settlement project needs to be halted.
Please please please explain to me why we’re not allowed to draw a distinction between expanding within existing settlement areas and building settlements in new areas.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“If you believe in Nixon goes to China scenarios, he may actually be the most likely to be able to deliver some sort of peace agreement with the Palestinians…”
I believe in Nixon goes to China scenarios, but I’m skeptical of Cheney goes to Iran scenarios. This strikes me as the latter.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I believe in Nixon goes to China scenarios, but I’m skeptical of Cheney goes to Iran scenarios. This strikes me as the latter.
So what was Bibi doing at Wye River then?
Everyone who knows anything about Bibi– including people who admire him– think he is a cynical SOB who will sell out anyone if he can gain an advantage for it. I’d much rather have someone like that in charge than a true believer.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
No such diplomatic pressure exists. The only pressure great enough to achieve such an effect is a sustained bombing campaign. Hopefully Iran gets a nuke sooner rather than later.
Did you honestly just suggest nuking Isreal? My, I wonder why conservatives think that liberal policy is anti-Isreal.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“So what was Bibi doing at Wye River then?”
Slow-walking implementation of Rabin’s deal because he didn’t have the political capital to tear up the interim agreement, and derailing the proceedings with random, unrelated issues like the Jonathan Pollard case, by most accounts.
I hope you’re right, Dilan. But I’m deeply skeptical.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Matt is hopelessly naive.
So Bibi makes some random noises about a Palestinian state and settlements and yada, yada, yada. We’ve been through this for two decades.
When is Obama going to threaten actual SANCTIONS when Israel doesn’t follow through?
What happens if Israel just kicks the can down the road for the next three and a half years waiting for Jeb Bush to become President?
If Obama can’t actually promise Israel CONSEQUENCES in specific terms relating to US foreign and military aid and US support in any conflict with Iran, then Obama has NO leverage over Israel at all.
TALK is TALK. And Matt just doesn’t get that, despite the fact that it’s all he does.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The Israelis don’t see things your way, RSH. It won’t be sanctions, Congress won’t do it. What they CAN do, is take away the automatic veto at the Security Council. Without that, the UN will place the sanctions. Congress couldn’t say a word if we abstained from voting.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
1. I’m not impressed by the significance of this.
2. Let me add my voice to the calls for Bibi Netanyahu to bet his political future on direct political confrontation with Barack Obama. SLC is right, he should totally do that.
3.
It has something to do with the fact that “within existing settlements” has a tendency to mean “on any land the Israeli government has declared to be part of a planned settlement” plus “any area where someone has set up a trailer” plus “the areas around that trailer” plus wherever else Palestinian is not, at this immediate moment, standing.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Re Dilan Esper
Mr. Esper is absolutely correct and accurate. Bibi is a scumbag who would sell out his mother if the price was right. All President Osama has to do is find out what his price is. Just to demonstrate what a wimp Bibi is, when he and Sharon went eyeball to eyeball over the withdrawal from Gaza, Bibi, after much huffing and puffing before the confrontation eventually blinked.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“…it’s crystal clear as a matter of logic…”
Spell it out, Gottlob. You made a half-hearted (or maybe half-assed) attempt a week or so ago. Go to it.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Tear down that wall!
June 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Joe from Lowell:
Show me something that proves that within existing settlements MEANS “on any land the Israeli government has declared to be part of a planned settlement” plus “any area where someone has set up a trailer” plus “the areas around that trailer” plus wherever else Palestinian is not, at this immediate moment, standing.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
bottomfish – The municipal boundries of many of the settlements is 5-10 times the actual built up area of the existing settlement. For example the municipal boundries of Ma’ale Adumim are much larger than Tel Aviv, extending all the way from Jerusalem to Jericho.. While there are only 30,000 residents in Ma’ale Adumim there is room enough for 1 million or more settlers in that settlement alone. Ariel and other settlments having similar large municipal boundries although not of the magnitude of Ma’ale Adumim.
Without a hard settlement freeze, eventually the settlement population will grow so large as to make a mockery of the concept of a viable Palestinian state.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The issue of a too-large settlement area is something to be worked out in a land-for-peace swap.
The jurisdiction of Ma’ale Adumim is about 19 square miles and the population as of 2007 was (as you say) about 33,000. The land was state owned under both the Ottomans and Jordanian occupation. I do not see how this proves Joe from Lowell’s statement.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
My statement:within existing settlements MEANS “on any land the Israeli government has declared to be part of a planned settlement” plus “any area where someone has set up a trailer” plus “the areas around that trailer” plus wherever else Palestinian is not, at this immediate moment, standing.
The proof:The municipal boundries of many of the settlements is 5-10 times the actual built up area of the existing settlement. For example the municipal boundries of Ma’ale Adumim are much larger than Tel Aviv, extending all the way from Jerusalem to Jericho.. While there are only 30,000 residents in Ma’ale Adumim there is room enough for 1 million or more settlers in that settlement alone.
If you don’t see it, then you’re expending a lot of effort to make sure you don’t.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Lazy, Joe.
The projected population of the town over the next few years is 45,000, a long way from 1 million. Population density would then be about 2400 per square mile, usual for a lot of towns in the US.
So I still don’t get it. All my numbers and facts are from Wiki, so I’m not working very hard. The Talk page didn’t show any disagreements concerning the stuff I quote.
You haven’t even begun to defend your own statements.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Once again, my statement: It has something to do with the fact that “within existing settlements” has a tendency to mean “on any land the Israeli government has declared to be part of a planned settlement” plus “any area where someone has set up a trailer” plus “the areas around that trailer” plus wherever else Palestinian is not, at this immediate moment, standing.
My statement is about LAND. So what if somebody “projected” that most of the LAND “within the settlements” won’t be built on right away. Do you imagine it to be any less damaging to the Palestinians’ ability to make a living or create a viable state if the huge, crucial parcels of LAND that Israelis grab and forbid Palestinians from living on, farming, or crossing isn’t going to be built on right away?
Yes, you’re quite good at that.
…and none of them have any relevance to my point about the Israelis grabbing large amounts of LAND.
How would you know? By your own admission, and as you demonstrate with your irrelevant argument, you don’t even understand what my statement means.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Please please please explain to me why we’re not allowed to draw a distinction between expanding within existing settlement areas and building settlements in new areas.
It has something to do with the fact that “within existing settlements” has a tendency to mean “on any land the Israeli government has declared to be part of a planned settlement” plus “any area where someone has set up a trailer” plus “the areas around that trailer” plus wherever else Palestinian is not, at this immediate moment, standing.
But…those gigantic settlement areas will be built out at a low density! For now!
JDLedell and I answered your question about why the distinction between “within existing settlements” and “in new areas” is meaningless – because land classified as “within settlements” is often nothing of the sort, but rather, vast tracts of land outside of the built-up areas. Before going onto “Yeah, but it’s not so bad for the Israels to grab lots of land that hasn’t been built on yet,” it would have been more intellectually honest to acknowledge that your question has been addressed.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Never miss a chance to miss a chance.
That’s my advice.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
OK, the argument is about LAND, all 19 square miles of it, initially owned, as I said, by the Ottoman government, then by the Jordanian government. If the Ottoman Empire and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan can grab, why not Israel? Are the first two entities impoverished fellahin?
June 13th, 2009 at 3:58 am
I don’t know why anyone would care about any speech – but specifically Zionist speech? Do you people listen to the KKK speeches too? What are you – idiots? Jeez.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Amusing, abb1. But I had no intention of saying anything Zionist. The point is that people like joe apparently think that all of the West Bank is supposed to be held in trust (by Israel) until the Palestinians have a government that will divvy up the land among them.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:43 am
35, I wasn’t responding to you. Just commenting on the idea of this post in general.
Speeches don’t matter, details are meaningless, nothing good is going to happen as long as Zionists are in control of that country. Nuclear-armed country.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Is there a word for wingnuts of the left?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Re abb1
Zionists today, Zionists tomorrow, Zionists to the far horizon.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Right. It’s like, say, 1938-39 Germany. A whole lot of frantic diplomacy, but all in vain, obviously; completely useless. ’cause all they have is their one narrowminded racist goal, and that’s the only direction they can move to. If there is an obstacle, they get around it and proceed to the same racist/expansionist end as always.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Oh, well, that’s a relief.
I guess pretending not understand my points wasn’t interesting enough, and you’ve decided to start making up new points to assign to me as well. Who said anything about the land being held in trust by Israel? Who said anything about it being divvied up?
Anyway, since you’re obviously well-aware of the correctness of my original point, I have to wonder why you went through such efforts to pretend it was controversial.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Re abb1
Shorter abb1: Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, blah, blah, blah.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The reason why all settlement activity must be stopped, and now, is that most, if not all, existing settlements will have to be dismantled if there is to be peace.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Re Michael S @ 42
The settlements will be dismantled when Mr. Michael S sees the back of his own ear without use of a mirror.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am
SLC: The settlements will be dismantled when every settler – and preferably every Zionist – is dead.
And that ain’t too far out on the horizon, schmuck-boy!