With Benjamin Netanyahu taking the reins of power in Israel, his critics are wasting no time in making the case that his ascension to the post of prime minister is bad news for peace, and even worse news for relations with Washington.
They are wrong on both counts.
In fact, chances of arriving at a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, or at least of achieving an abatement of the conflict, may significantly improve with Netanyahu as prime minister. Netanyahu realizes that the peace process, as it currently exists, is not producing results. But that shouldn’t lead to conflict with the Obama administration.
It is self-evident that the so-called Annapolis process initiated by the Bush administration was an abject failure. Israel’s outgoing government, with the zealous participation of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, spent over a year in fruitless talks with a dithering and powerless Palestinian leadership. In spite of offering far-reaching — and, in the view of many Israelis, irresponsible — concessions, Israel’s outgoing government achieved zero results. So why should America’s new leader — who has said more than once that he intends to work actively, even “aggressively,” for Middle East peace — hitch his wagon to the failed initiative of a previous administration? That President Obama understands that a new direction is needed seems to be borne out by the fact that he sent his envoy, George Mitchell, on a fact-finding mission to the region in order to sound out local leaders for new ideas.
Policy-makers in Washington should not underestimate Netanyahu’s determination to find and explore new avenues for pursuing peace. They shouldn’t forget that Israel’s first treaty with an Arab state, the Camp David agreement with Egypt, was concluded by a Likud government, led by Menachem Begin, or that a Likud government, headed by Yitzhak Shamir, laid much of the groundwork for the eventual accord with Jordan.
True, in some important respects, the situation is different now. Islamic fundamentalism and Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and active support for Palestinian and other Arab forces that are ideologically opposed to Israel’s existence are serious challenges. These factors have lessened the ability and the motivation of even relatively moderate leaders like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to publicly acknowledge that in order to achieve peace there must be compromise on both sides. Then there’s the takeover by Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, of Gaza and Southern Lebanon. If Israel were to withdraw precipitately from the West Bank, as it did three years ago from Gaza, it would likely find Iran’s terrorist surrogates on its very threshold, just a few miles away from its only international airport and from most of its population centers.
Still, there are opportunities for progress. Netanyahu has stated publicly and made clear to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Mitchell and world leaders that he is determined to continue political talks with any Palestinian leadership that takes concrete steps against violence and terrorism. And he does not rule out, among various options, a regional approach to peace, particularly one including Egypt and Jordan.
But he is also determined to persuade both the international community and the Palestinians themselves that in order to make a political settlement a viable success, several things must happen first. Perhaps the most important of these is putting the Palestinian economy on a firm and productive footing.
This, of course, would not make Palestinians forget their political aspirations. But it might induce more of them to reject the violent and destructive ways of Hamas and its patrons — and at the same time create the necessary infrastructure and climate for future political arrangements. In other words, economic and social betterment would not take the place of political solutions but would serve as a conduit leading toward them. Mitchell, who played a leading role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, is surely aware of the importance that the promise of economic prosperity for both sides there played in his success.
Netanyahu heading the Israeli government may thus give the prospects for peace a new lease on life. And he is fully cognizant of the importance of Israel’s ties with the United Stares, not least with regard to the threats facing both of them from a quickly nuclearizing Iran. His government can be counted on to work closely with the Obama administration on peace as well as on other issues.
Zalman Shoval is a foreign policy adviser to incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 1990 to 1993 and from 1998 to 2000. Before that, he was a four-term member of the Knesset.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
The new administration in Israel is being demonized as I write.
From Abbas, who said it was a boon to the settler movement and against peace (my oh my what stupidity and chutspah), to left wing US journalists and pundits, to The Arab League which gave Israel an ultimatum to abide by the Saudi Plan (total Israel withdrawl to the 67 borders and an accommodation for the so-called refugees returning for a paper promise of Arab peace (what about Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other militants?), to Americans for Peace Now (US) and Peace Now and their ilk in Israel itself, to Olmert, Livni and Israeli politicians who are upset over the Labor Party's joining the coalition, this gov't is being challanged.
Why Bibi's coalition, which is the strongest and most unified gov't Israel has had in decades, lead by an experienced if once burned leader, a leader who KNOWS the US mindset and has no illusions about the Arabs, would do anything to undermine the prospects of a lasting peace, or undermine Israeli-US relations, is beyond me?
Simply put, what's to gain?
But Bibi will have to continue "Talking and engaging" (where have we heard this before), with the Palestinians, and maintain a plausable stance with Egypt and Jordan. Syria's acceptance of those Russian Migs won't help nor Assads recent comments about warfare or peace to achieve a return of the Golan Heights is dismaying.
Hamas and Hezbolla, always troublemakers, will have to decide whether constant warfare with Israel is preferable to a lasting peace. They know that with all their arms smuggling, they cannot defeat Israel, hurt it, yes, but not defeat it. If Hamas fires one Fajr rocket into Israel and hits, a school, synagogue, factory or chemical plant...Israel will strike back and harder. Hezbollah firing thousands of rockets cannot expect Israel to behave as it did under Olmert. Lebanon's acceptance of Hezbollah into their army will have bad consequences for them.
Iran is increasingly feeling the pressure of the world community which understands that a nuclear war in the M.E. serves no one's interests, and would directly affect the Palestinians. ( They would be under the mushroom cloud of a nuclear strike as well as the Israelis).
Israel needs however to be more unified, and get over the acrimony of their past election, for P.M. to move forward on his agenda, a 2 state solution, per UN242.
Zalman Shoval is another delusional Likud Party member. The Palestinian economy was growing when things exploded in 2000. Of course helping to advance the Palestinian economy is important, but the 2-state solution is the answer. Dar Lev hits it right on the nose - "a 2 state solution." Unfortunately, Israel's new PM rejects this, and thinks that he can dictate the future of the Palestinian people within his terms. Bibi's policies will also dictate a miserable future for Israel's citizens. Bibi is arrogant, and this will not be helpful with the Palestinians, with Obama, and not with, increasingly, the American Jewish community. Terrorism and bombs from Gaza are unacceptable, but so is an Israeli leader who thinks he can disregard the consensus of world views for a solution to the situation.
Re: Marc Paige's "two state solution" Let's see, which two-state solution would that be? Would that be the one drawn up in pre-state Palestine that the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. Or perhaps that would the 1948 partition plan that Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected. Or perhaps that would be 1967 (before which the world was not suggesting that Jordan and Egypt, as the respective "occupying powers" of the West Bank and Gaza, give it up to create a Palestinian state), when Israel offered to negotiate over the territories and the Arab world issued its famous "Three Nos." Or perhaps it was Oslo, which was designed to create two states, and by which Arafat never abided. Or maybe it was Camp David in 2000, when Barak did offer a two state solution which included 96% of the West Bank with land within the green line given to the PA to cover the remaining 4%, and which Arafat not only walked away from without a counter-offer, but launched an Intifada. Or possibly, it was in 2005, when Israel, after having tried negotiations for decades and getting nowhere, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Had the Palestinians poured half the energy into building the beginings of a state in Gaza as they did into launching rockets and digging tunnels, then they would have an unassailable case for expanding their state to the West Bank. But we all know that that didn't happen.
So along comes Netanyahu and says, "Gee, the approaches of the past don't seem to have worked so well. Maybe we should try something different, because just possibly doing the same thing may not lead to a different result. So let's not try to impose a peace treaty from the top down, but work from the bottom up to build the Palestinian economy and create real economic ties between Palestinians and Israelis. This could result in a real peace, which would have a better chance of leading to a state eventually. But since we are so clearly not there yet, let's at least try this different path with the hope of getting a different result than all the failed peace attempts of the past."
But some on the left, and much of the world, is not listening to reason. They want to just keep trying the same old thing, ignoring that rockets are coming into Israel daily, ignoring what Hamas did with Gaza instead of trying to build a state (gee, maybe it's because to this day, they still say they don't recognize Israel's existence?), ignoring that just within the past week a child was killed in cold blood, and within the past few weeks a Palestinian tried to blow up a shopping mall (well within the Green Line, in fact in Haifa, probably the best example of Jewish-Arab relations in the world).
But no, if we just evacuate every settlement (just like in Gaza, because that was so effective), and just sign on the dotted line for a two state solution, everything will change. It won't be like the two-state solutions of the past. There is no need to chart a different course. Let's keep doing the same thing, and ignore both past history and the Palestinian words and actions of today.
This is delusion of the very highest order.
Everyone knows the final solution for the IP conflict is for Israelis to return stolen Palestine and return to their true homelands-Belarus, Vegas, etc. As long as you retain any of stolen Palestine, there will be resistance