What a story! It can’t be called a “Clash of the Titans,” since Bibi Netanyahu is hardly of titanic dimension and of Barack Obama it is far too soon to know. Call it, then, a clash of agendas. When these two meet in Washington, they will bring with them different hopes, different perspectives and very different intentions.
Netanyahu’s preference is to keep all the talk centered on the Iran problem — specifically, on the need to be very clear that harsh sanctions are in the immediate offing if Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran falls through — as Bibi expects it will. But quite remarkably, and in direct contravention of the hopes of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, there is at the moment no fixed timetable for the new American diplomatic effort nor adequate congressional will to pass sanctions legislation until diplomacy has been given a full test.
Obama will not avoid conversation on Iran, but his intention is to change the subject, to talk in detail about the issue that most aggravates Netanyahu — the quick resumption of a serious peace process aimed at achieving a two-state solution.
It was, we’re told, Henry Kissinger who coined the phrase “constructive ambiguity,” meant to describe differences best swept under the rug for the time being, until their current urgency receded, or a new solution emerged, or other developments enabled their direct confrontation and resolution. (U.N. Resolution 242, the resolution adopted after the Six Day War, demanding Israel’s withdrawal “from territories occupied” during the war, is an example of such ambiguity. Did it mean from some territories or from all territories?)
Given Netanyahu’s distaste for a two-state solution, the prime minister may think his insistence on a long-term project to build a Palestinian infrastructure capable of peace is another instance of constructive ambiguity. But Obama and his people will surely see this as something quite different, as an example of what might well be called “destructive ambiguity.”
Why destructive? Let us count the ways:
Because unless there is a definite promise that at the end of the day (and a short day at that) there will be an independent Palestinian state that is territorially viable, the Palestinians are in no mood to stay bent to those they see as colonial masters.
Because no one in Washington takes seriously Israeli promises to halt settlement construction, to ease travel restrictions within the West Bank, to halt development in Jerusalem that will swallow the Palestinian presence there. (No one takes such promises seriously because Israel has long since compiled a dismal record of promises denied, promises broken, promises ignored. Written commitments and oral agreements alike have been regarded as bearable annoyances, not as binding undertakings.)
Because Washington is convinced that a successful coalition of nations opposed to Iranian nuclear capability can succeed only if and when the relevant Arab states see progress on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Because the harsh truth of the matter is that just as much of informed Israeli opinion deeply believes that at this time the Palestinians are simply not ready to be a serious partner for peace, so, too, does parallel Arab opinion think Israel is no more ready to be a serious partner — what with Netanyahu, who voted against Oslo and who chokes on the concept of a two-state solution, at the helm, and with Avigdor Lieberman, for whom “Jewish” and “democratic” are unrelated concepts, as foreign minister.
Nor, in Washington’s view, is the political past necessarily the political prologue. The Obama-Netanyahu meetings will take place in the waning shadows of the annual AIPAC Washington conference, a ritual event where half or more of all members of Congress attend and hear their names read out from the dais, where some 6,000 delegates from around the country assemble and share the cheap thrill of being pandered to.
This year’s Panderer of the Year Award goes, hands down, to Rep. Eric Cantor, who could not restrain himself in describing Israel’s vulnerability — or our own: “Israel’s security is synonymous with our own. The people who point guns at her with murder in their eyes will next turn on us. Her enemies are our enemies, and polite silence amounts to complicity in our own demise.”
Or: “When Hamas is welcomed, even celebrated in world capitals, and we avert our eyes and do not cry out, it may be too late. When the international community demands that Israel make even further compromises than the painful ones already giving for nothing in return, while at the same time — while at the same time lavishing affection on those who support terrorists, and we do not cry out, it may be too late.”
And: “Mr. Ahmadinejad dreams of finishing Hitler’s work, and killing all the world’s Jews. Each day that passes brings him closer to possession of a nuclear bomb, the ultimate weapon. When we dally and fret and wring our hands, but fail to do anything that will really stop him, how late are we then?” And why not take this tired track when it is Israel’s prime minister himself who has insisted that this is, again, 1938 and that Ahmadinejad is, again, Hitler?
It is hard to discern congressional sentiment on these matters. In the past, when American administrations have thought to lean on Israel, AIPAC and its allies have mobilized Congress to intercede, to inhibit American pressure. This time around, with a new president still in the first days of his tenure and with fragments of evidence surfacing that some stalwart defenders of Israel in Congress have grown impatient with Israeli excuses and subterfuges, the tedious and largely fruitless rituals of times past may finally be modified, if not entirely abandoned.
At stake in all this: The fading prospect of a two-state solution, the only solution that can preserve Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
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.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
You've successfully signed up!
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ~George Washington Farewell Address
"The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
The term "two-state solution" includes an element that few notice: "solution". In short, there are those who might claim that there should be "one state", and others speak of "two states". The real question is: Will there be a solution? Mr Fein - the mainstream of Israeli society - an absolute majority - wishes to end the conflict with a two-state solution. Netanyahu will also go for a solution based on two states. The problem is that the Palestinians do not envision "solution". They may be interested in the "two states", but this is not meant to be an end of conflict. I know it's almost pointless to explain this fact - no one is listening. The accepted misconception of many thinking people is that Israel has the means to bring this conflict to its end; hence, you write "that some stalwart defenders of Israel in Congress have grown impatient with Israeli excuses and subterfuges..." It's Israel that is simply making excuses and avoiding the correct decisions. Even the nuclear threat from Iran now is presented as something that only Israel can control (through making progress with the Palestinians - as if it depends only on us). That is an expression of hostility towards Israel.
The Palestinians do not see the conflict with Israel the way you do, Mr Fein. They do not believe that both sides have legitimate positions and interests that can be resolved through compromise. They believe that this is a conflict between right and wrong, good and bad. They will accept a two-state "solution", but they will not declare that the conflict is over. The two state arrangement will become the new framework of conducting animosity towards what they perceive as illegitimacy.
If one really wants peace, pressure has to be exerted on the Palestinian side. They have the key to ending the conflict: they must accept Jewish statehood as legitimate. They must accept the Jews as returning children of this land. As of right now, they are speaking of "two states" while at the same time fighting a propaganda war that is meant to define Israel as illegitimate. Even in their perceived "weakness", the Palestinian side holds the solution to the conflict in its hands. Sadly, Mr Fein is unaware of this fact. Even more sadly, the American administration is also unaware.
Leonard Fein's cynical characterization of Rep. Eric Cantor's AIPAC Policy Conference remarks as "pandering" betrays either a particular insensitivity or a short memory. It's possible that when Rep. Cantor says, Israel’s security is synonymous with our own" he is honoring the memory of his own cousin, Daniel Cantor Wultz, a 16-year-old student at the David Posnack Hebrew Day School in Plantation, FL, who was the victim of an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in April 2006.
Daniel was in Israel with his family for the Passover Holiday. He was hospitalized for almost a month after the bombing before succumbing to his injuries.
While it may be true that Israel has failed to live up to every obligation it has taken on in efforts to negotiate the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's track record is light-years better than that of her adversaries. When Israelis feel confident that their neighbors are willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State in the Middle East, and young people like Daniel can live without fear of terrorism and violence, then peace will be possible.
I would have thought that Israel, having suffered through the holocaust, would pledge that they would never standy by and see another group of people subjugated and mistreated. Obviously they learnt nothing from that horrendous experience except looking selfishly after their own self interest, with total disregard to the suffering of the palestinians who lost their land to create a Jewsih state.
Suresh - You should read the interview with Amos Oz in this edition of the Forward. Here's the part that refers to you: "I very often hear from European intellectuals roughly the following: 'You Jews, you have suffered so much, you have been through the death camps, you have been through persecution and oppression. How can you be violent after such an experience?' This is the subconscious assumption that everyone who suffers has to become Jesus Christ, has to become a saint. Of course, nobody likes saints, and very few people really believe in saints."
If you are sincere in your observations, then you should also claim that the Palestinians have suffered so much from waging war on behalf of their own self-interests; hence they should learn from their horrendous experience and stop waging war. But, obviously, you are not serious in your observations. You feel that only the one side has the legitimate right to resort to violence in order to fight for its perceived national self-interests. If you are concerned about the suffering of Palestinians, you should try to convince them to end the conflict (instead of supporting their strange position that they have the right to be hostile, but their enemy doesn't).
Jack Klein - Are you hinting that Israel should refrain from making alliances with other peoples? Well, rest assured that just as it says in Numbers 23:9, we are "a people that dwells apart..." Of course, life is a bit difficult when you must face such terrible life-and-death threats without much sympathy from others, so I don't think that Washington or Jefferson really had much advice for the complicated story of Jews.
It isn’t surprising that Dr. Fein is correct again, but it is unusual that, though their conclusions may not be correct, each commenter submits a significant peace of the present reality. Yehuda, is it possible that there is something that you don’t understand, and that Mr. Klein’s comment is the most pertinent?
It is undeniable that most Jewish Israelis and most Palestinians hate and fear each other, and each has reasons. Some people upon awaking review the injustices done them and thus energize their anger for the coming day. But, even these people next have to decide what to eat for breakfast. Difficult though it may be, the injustices of the past, including past murders and torture, are not most important. What is most important is what to do next. If most Israelis and Palestinians realize this, then President Obama’s policy is likely to succeed. And, if relations between Israel and the Palestinian state turn out to be mutually beneficial, then the fear and hatred will fade.
If the present majorities are not yet able to focus on building a better immediate future, then we must join the many Israelis and Palestinians who are promoting positive interactions between individuals, until the fear and hatred have sufficiently diminished.
Joel A. Levitt - We have debated a few times in the past, as you probably remember. Your attitude is that people are practical ("to decide what to eat for breakfast"), and that they have their best interests in mind ("...if relations between Israel and the Palestinian state turn out to be mutually beneficial, then the fear and hatred will fade"). I wish it were so. Unfortunately, this is not a normal conflict about borders or resources. This is an ideological struggle. The Jewish (Israeli) side is motivated by an ancient dream of return to the homeland, of the renaissance of a Hebrew identity. It's all quite "impractical". Look at all the millions of "practical" Jews who prefer to live in America, adopting someone else's peoplehood identity and language. The Palestinian side believes that some plot has brought "foreigners" to the country, changing its very character. Their struggle is for "justice" which means non-acceptance of this change. If you could read their literature, you would see that the whole country is "occupied", that the Jewish immigration is an "invasion", that the Jewish historic memory is "mythology". The conflict is not coming to an end any time soon. Perhaps there will be arrangements, agreements - but there will not be an acceptance of Jewish legitimacy. Hostility will continue.
There's no choice, politically speaking. Every Israeli government must cooperate with the American president. So, there will always be talks, promises, pressures, "breakthroughs", etc. However, no one really believes that there is a solution to the conflict - only conflict management. The only consolation that I can offer you in this bleak outlook is that it is a very low-intensity conflict. Life is rather normal here for both communities. Both sides have fast growing populations (soon more than half of world Jewry will be living here), indicating an overall satisfaction with life and its challenges (American Jewry, quite sadly, is shrinking). Have you ever spent time in Israel?
Regarding the comments of Jack Klein - well, I found them very much out of place. If there's one thing that I always find irrelevant in a Jewish context of debate, it's quoting American sources. Mr Klein's advice is for the USA not to have a special relations with any country. So he's giving advice to America, basing himself on American thinkers. You would think that Jews, writing in a Jewish newspaper, would have advice for other Jews or would at least bring a quote from the Jewish experience. Qol's pretending that this was advice for Jews was very nice sarcasm.
Re: Israel at a cross roads with Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde at the wheel.
The best way to destroy LIKUDNIK Israel was to elect a long time loser (and bribe taker) hard head and then 'piggy-back (excuse the pun) a Rabbi Kahanist deciple and racist zealot devil worshiper and 'transfer' addicted Avigdor Lieberman as a 'team' (and I use the word 'loosely') member.
There will be 'fireworks' between Obama and Bibi and in the end (excuse this other pun) Bibi will get the same size 12DD steel toed brogan in the arse from Obama that Bill Clinton gave him when he took Bibi behind the woodshed' at the Waye Plantation Conference and gave him absolutely nothing of what he 'demanded' - including the release of Zio/backstabber Jon Pollard.
TheAZCowBoy Tombstone, AZ.