Yesterday I wrote about certain
things that PM Netanyahu said at the National Public Diplomacy Forum of the
Foreign Ministry. Today I want to look at some other things he
said.
What I cited yesterday was what he
himself emphasized, and what I felt was most important to share. But I would be
remiss if I didn't also allude to this.
What he said was: "I want to solve
the conflict with the Palestinians because I don't want a binational
state."
What this implies is that, if the
Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not separated from our population
via a state of their own, they
will ultimately be absorbed into Israel, affecting the Jewish nature of the
state.
It is an argument used by some who
are promoting a Palestinian Arab state and it is thus disconcerting to hear
it coming from our prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I wish to emphasize is that
his position here is simplistic and not well founded. Thinking on
this issue remains frozen in that same either/or box and it's unfortunate that
he did not offer more creative or dynamic thinking.
There is, first of all, a body of
opinion regarding the demographics of the region that indicates that
even if Israel were a sovereign state across all of Judea and Samaria, its
Jewish population would remain solidly in the majority.
See Yoram Ettinger, on "Defying
demographic projections":
To begin with, the PA has
over-estimated its population by about a million (via double-counting of
population and more). And then, projections for Arab growth are based on
inflated expectations: the Arab birthrate is decreasing significantly,
just as the Jewish birthrate is increasing. Actually the two birthrates
are beginning to converge. Add to this the fact that Israeli Jewish population
is enhanced by aliyah, while Arabs are leaving the area. Ettinger sees the
possibility of an 80% Jewish majority by 2035.
~~~~~~~~~~
And there are, as well, other
potential ways to deal with the issue, and it's time we began considering the
alternatives seriously. One proposal, of many: The Palestinian Arab
population might be provided with autonomous enclaves, in which they would
determine the parameters of their own civil society -- electing mayors, running
schools, etc. These enclaves would establish significant connections
with Jordan -- which has a Palestinian Arab majority now and via which they
would be fully enfranchised.
However it might be ultimately
worked out -- and it's impossible for me to address all possibilities here --
the presence of Muslim Arabs in Judea and Samaria is not a valid reason to
surrender this area, which represents Israel's heritage.
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps what struck me as most
interesting about the prime minister's statement is that it deviates
from his Bar Ilan speech of 2009. Then he spoke about:
"...two free peoples living side
by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect,
each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its
neighbor's security and existence." (Only the violins are lacking
here.)
This is the quintessential
"two-state" vision, highly idealized and predicated on the notion that the
Palestinian Arabs deserve their own flag, their own culture, freedom in
their own state, etc. etc. It implies an obligation to the
Arabs.
Now Netanyahu talks about giving
them a state in order to divest ourselves of them -- to do it for our
sake only.
Is this because he knows how
impossible is the vision he laid out a mere three years ago? Is it because
he's tired up to the top of his head with any notion that we owe these corrupt
and terror-supporting people anything?
Whatever his rationale,
what he has done is erase any suggestion of obligation to the
Arabs. If it can be shown that his argument has holes, there is nothing
left for him to stand on.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are, without question,
people very nervous about this statement by Netanyahu. They see in this a
slide to the left -- it's a leftist argument, embraced by Livni, for example --
and are afraid that this is meant as a prelude to going to the table.
What mitigates the concern, for
me, is my expectation that Abbas is so totally allergic to any notion of
negotiating with Israel that, one way or the other, he will sabotage the
possibility. This is not exactly the same as saying I fully trust my prime
minister to do what's right for our nation. But I'll take what I can get.
Heaven works in many ways.
I refer to an article
by The Tower. It says that, while the PA assured Kerry that
they would postpone any initiatives regarding taking Israel to the International
Criminal Court or applying to UN agencies for full membership -- actions which
Kerry feared would interfere with his initiative -- they have now
reconsidered. They are telling US officials that this applies only
until June 3, and in the interim they demand (demand?) that the US pressure
Israel into accepting the 1949 armistice line as the basis for
negotiations and submitting a map verifying that understanding.
I have checked this with a
highly reliable source who tells me it is true, and that the PA stance may yet
change many more times.
We can only ponder what Kerry must
be thinking about all of this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Consider this, as well: The seven
Arab nations present as the delegation representing the Arab League in
Washington has just agreed to the possibility of minor land swaps in a "peace
deal." But there 21 nations in the Arab League and my information is that
this tentative offer still must go back to an Arab League Summit for a final
decision. And if that decision is negative, as is likely the
case, then nothing will have changed, no matter the hoopla.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, Syria. What I offer is my own brief,
tentative assessment, based on much reading,
communication with Arabic-speaking persons in the know, and my own
understanding of the situation.
It's a modest attempt to
provide a bit of clarity in a situation that is a political morass. A
horror in which there are no good guys and it's quite a trick to figure out who
is the least bad.
~~~~~~~~~~
I believe there are certain
factors that stand out as givens, all the confusion
notwithstanding:
The most obvious is that Obama is
all talk and no action. US forces are not going into Syria, his statements
about the "red line" that would be crossed if Assad's troops used gas
notwithstanding. What he's now done is to up the definition of the "red
line" -- with requirements of tangible evidence beyond intelligence -- so that
it will never be crossed.
From this, we can readily
extrapolate with regard to what Obama means when he says he will never let Iran
acquire nuclear weapons. Consider the difference of opinion between Israel
and the US with regard to how late in the process it would be possible to stop
Iran. Netanyahu says it must be during the enrichment process. Obama
says it can go longer, until the stage at which a weapon is about to be
assembled. Imagine him saying, well, we don't really know for sure yet
that they are going to assemble a weapon.
~~~~~~~~~~
While we want to imagine -- we
feel compelled to believe -- that moral considerations should play a role in how
the international community makes decisions regarding Syria, and while there
have been many calls for moral action here, the reality is something very
different. Over 70,000 Syrians, including women and children, have been
killed in the last two years, and the international community chooses not to
intervene.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israeli interests here are not the
same as US interests. This is a critical point. Israel by itself,
sitting at the border of Syria, cannot assume the position of moral arbiter
in Syria -- intervening to stop the loss of life. Whatever our own
exceedingly high moral standards in warfare, we are unable to do this and will
not do this. This is properly a US and international
responsibility.
Thus, the Israeli red line is
not Assad's use of such weapons against his people but the transfer of
non-conventional weapons to terrorist groups that might use them against
us. I cannot certify this with absolute certainty, but I do believe the
Israeli military will act in this regard if it is perceived as necessary, even
if it means going in -- and it is certainly being watched very
closely.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama's indecision regarding
whether to intervene and, if so, how -- without actually going in -- means that
he has missed an opportunity to affect the outcome of the civil war
positively. The rebel forces -- known as the Free Syria Army, actually a
coalition of groups -- that are reasonably secular and might have secured a
somewhat saner and more democratic regime -- are overwhelmed by radicals
now.
When strengthening the Free Syria
Army might have made a decisive difference, Obama dithered, providing some
intelligence via the CIA and some training outside of Syria, but withholding
arms. Now, in the face of evidence of use of gas by Assad, Obama is thinking
about -- but had not yet decided on -- providing arms to the
rebels.
There is huge concern about this,
particularly among the Israelis. If such armaments -- being referred to
as "lethal supplies" -- are provided to rebels without extreme
caution, they will likely end up in the hands of the al-Qaeda associated
radicals -- Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front --
who are fighting intensely in Syria and are often mingled with
the Free Syria group. It may be too late.
~~~~~~~~~~
My own absolute conviction is that
the fierceness, deviousness and motivation of the radical group is
such that it is likely to assume control of the anti-Assad forces, or to
push its way into control of a new regime, should Assad be toppled.
This, my friends, is what
concerns Israel the most. Assad is evil to the core with regard
to how he has conducted himself towards his own people. But he has
kept his border with Israel quiet -- actually, I'm being told, taking care
that shooting across the border is kept to an absolute minimum. I'm also
being told that it is not his intention to use his non-conventional weapons
against Israel.
The al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists
would be thrilled to do just that, and would have no compunctions about moving
across our border at the Golan to challenge us.
~~~~~~~~~~
This is also what I'm being
told: Assad is not losing the war -- such predictions
were premature.
Actually, if Obama supplies
weaponry now to the Free Syria rebels, what this may accomplish is a prolonging
of the war, with more fatalities, when, in the end they are likely to lose
anyway.
What is more, Assad is now still
in control of his cache of non-conventional weapons. There have been
rumors to the contrary, but I'm being told that Hezbollah does
not have them. Russia has a major presence in Syria, which is likely
a significant factor in assuring Assad's strength. I'm being
told that they are watching to be certain that WMD are not transferred
to the wrong hands.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment