Showing posts with label Netanyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netanyahu. Show all posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday, February 13, 2009
Washington: Bibi’s In, “Peace” Is Dead
Original article
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 13, 2009
In the wake of the Israeli elections on Tuesday, it’s reported that many U.S. officials have “privately…expressed concern that Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu might preside over a right-wing coalition.” A “Capitol Hill source” is quoted as saying that would cause “great unease.” Dennis Ross is quoted in his book as calling Netanyahu, in his first prime ministerial stint in 1996-1999, “nearly insufferable, lecturing and telling us how to deal with the Arabs.”
Or as the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, “many key [U.S. officials] have long and difficult memories of dealing with…Netanyahu…when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. It is no secret that U.S. officials would prefer to deal with [Tzipi] Livni”—Netanyahu’s relatively dovish prime-ministerial contestant whose Kadima Party, while narrowly defeating Likud in Tuesday’s elections, will likely play a subordinate role to Likud in the emergent coalition because of the overall strength of the right-wing bloc.
The Post quotes a “senior administration official” saying “The hope is that there is a government that is really committed to peace with the Palestinians”—and veteran peace processor Aaron David Miller as saying, more darkly, that the election outcome is “like hanging a ‘closed for the season’ sign on any peacemaking for the next year or so.”
Yet, if the memories of Netanyahu’s first tenure at the helm are so “difficult,” should memories of the “peace” government that preceded it, led by Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and their Labor Party, be so pleasant? Many Israelis—if their charred bodies weren’t long ago interred—don’t have such pleasant memories of those years in which 200 Israelis died in terror attacks, a total far beyond any previous comparable period in Israeli history.
But, no doubt, those were heady peace-processing years. President Clinton hosted the famous handshake on the White House lawn between Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat. In December 1994, by which time many of the hapless Israeli terror victims were already dead, bereaved, or trying to recover from injury and trauma, Rabin, Peres, and Arafat received their Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
Dennis Ross was Clinton’s point man on the “peace process” and was instrumental in reaching the 1995 Oslo 2 Agreement. Aaron David Miller was hard at work in Ross’s office as Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator. Ross and Miller—like Rabin, Peres, and Clinton—never stood up and said that, with all these innocent people being butchered, something must be wrong, perhaps this process should be stopped and the Israeli army should retake the areas from which Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat’s PLO terrorists were now staging repeated savage attacks.
Nor did they raise any objection when in October 1995 the Oslo 2 agreement was hustled through the Knesset by trickery and bribery against the will of a majority of the Israeli people.
But in 1996 a majority of Israelis did manage to elect Netanyahu as prime minister, and these good years came to an end; instead of pleasant peace processing with ever-pliant Rabin and Peres, it was time for “difficulty” and “nearly insufferable lectures.” But while Clinton, Ross, Miller et al. were suffering, Israelis were suffering a good deal less; during Netanyahu’s three years as head of state the terror fatalities went down drastically to a total of 46 or about 15 per year—the same average as in the years before “peace” when the death toll suddenly exploded. But bipartisan, official Washington, Democrat and Republican, remembers these as terrible years for the peace process.
It is easy to continue in this vein—the security calamities under Netanyahu’s successor, Laborite Ehud Barak; the eventual defeat of West Bank terror under Likudnik prime minister Ariel Sharon; Sharon’s turn to the left in 2005 with the disengagement from Gaza and the creation of the Kadima Party—leading to 6500 rockets and mortars on Israel in three years and a war against Hamas that was used to stoke the worst outbreak of world anti-Semitism since the 1930s. The fact that after all this, Israelis have elected a conservative government arouses only contempt in official Washington.
Never have the blinders to reality been so tight; the fact that Israel’s putative peace partners among the Palestinians—Fatah leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, Salaam Fayad, and Ahmed Qurei—openly negate Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state and demand its dissolution through a “return” of “refugees,” while educating their children in hatred, is systematically screened out, while an Israeli leader who is cautious and skeptical after seeing his country racked by waves of death is vilified as an obstacle to progress.
Lurking beneath it is the severest-possible calumny against the Israeli people—as if it is they who don’t want peace enough, and don’t know the cost of phony substitutes for it.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 13, 2009
In the wake of the Israeli elections on Tuesday, it’s reported that many U.S. officials have “privately…expressed concern that Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu might preside over a right-wing coalition.” A “Capitol Hill source” is quoted as saying that would cause “great unease.” Dennis Ross is quoted in his book as calling Netanyahu, in his first prime ministerial stint in 1996-1999, “nearly insufferable, lecturing and telling us how to deal with the Arabs.”
Or as the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, “many key [U.S. officials] have long and difficult memories of dealing with…Netanyahu…when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. It is no secret that U.S. officials would prefer to deal with [Tzipi] Livni”—Netanyahu’s relatively dovish prime-ministerial contestant whose Kadima Party, while narrowly defeating Likud in Tuesday’s elections, will likely play a subordinate role to Likud in the emergent coalition because of the overall strength of the right-wing bloc.
The Post quotes a “senior administration official” saying “The hope is that there is a government that is really committed to peace with the Palestinians”—and veteran peace processor Aaron David Miller as saying, more darkly, that the election outcome is “like hanging a ‘closed for the season’ sign on any peacemaking for the next year or so.”
Yet, if the memories of Netanyahu’s first tenure at the helm are so “difficult,” should memories of the “peace” government that preceded it, led by Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and their Labor Party, be so pleasant? Many Israelis—if their charred bodies weren’t long ago interred—don’t have such pleasant memories of those years in which 200 Israelis died in terror attacks, a total far beyond any previous comparable period in Israeli history.
But, no doubt, those were heady peace-processing years. President Clinton hosted the famous handshake on the White House lawn between Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat. In December 1994, by which time many of the hapless Israeli terror victims were already dead, bereaved, or trying to recover from injury and trauma, Rabin, Peres, and Arafat received their Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
Dennis Ross was Clinton’s point man on the “peace process” and was instrumental in reaching the 1995 Oslo 2 Agreement. Aaron David Miller was hard at work in Ross’s office as Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator. Ross and Miller—like Rabin, Peres, and Clinton—never stood up and said that, with all these innocent people being butchered, something must be wrong, perhaps this process should be stopped and the Israeli army should retake the areas from which Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat’s PLO terrorists were now staging repeated savage attacks.
Nor did they raise any objection when in October 1995 the Oslo 2 agreement was hustled through the Knesset by trickery and bribery against the will of a majority of the Israeli people.
But in 1996 a majority of Israelis did manage to elect Netanyahu as prime minister, and these good years came to an end; instead of pleasant peace processing with ever-pliant Rabin and Peres, it was time for “difficulty” and “nearly insufferable lectures.” But while Clinton, Ross, Miller et al. were suffering, Israelis were suffering a good deal less; during Netanyahu’s three years as head of state the terror fatalities went down drastically to a total of 46 or about 15 per year—the same average as in the years before “peace” when the death toll suddenly exploded. But bipartisan, official Washington, Democrat and Republican, remembers these as terrible years for the peace process.
It is easy to continue in this vein—the security calamities under Netanyahu’s successor, Laborite Ehud Barak; the eventual defeat of West Bank terror under Likudnik prime minister Ariel Sharon; Sharon’s turn to the left in 2005 with the disengagement from Gaza and the creation of the Kadima Party—leading to 6500 rockets and mortars on Israel in three years and a war against Hamas that was used to stoke the worst outbreak of world anti-Semitism since the 1930s. The fact that after all this, Israelis have elected a conservative government arouses only contempt in official Washington.
Never have the blinders to reality been so tight; the fact that Israel’s putative peace partners among the Palestinians—Fatah leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, Salaam Fayad, and Ahmed Qurei—openly negate Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state and demand its dissolution through a “return” of “refugees,” while educating their children in hatred, is systematically screened out, while an Israeli leader who is cautious and skeptical after seeing his country racked by waves of death is vilified as an obstacle to progress.
Lurking beneath it is the severest-possible calumny against the Israeli people—as if it is they who don’t want peace enough, and don’t know the cost of phony substitutes for it.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Bibi’s Bold Message
Original article
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Israeli papers carried reports on Monday (here, for instance) about an article in the London-based Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat claiming Egypt was warning Hamas to strike a deal with Israel before Binyamin Netanyahu forms the next government. Otherwise, the Egyptian officials are supposed to have said, Hamas stands to “lose everything.”
Rumors were flying about a ceasefire of a year to a year and a half in which Israel would open the crossings to Gaza and free 1,000 Hamas prisoners in return for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Israel’s current leaders Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and Tzipi Livni are said to be anxious to conclude a deal for Shalit before the February 10 elections.
If so, they’re badly miscalculating. Israelis want Shalit freed and are perturbed that Operation Cast Lead didn’t secure that result. The renewed terror puts the government’s claims about restored Israei deterrence in doubt as well.
Clearly Olmert, Barak, and Livni can’t boast that the war was a resounding success, gravely weakening Hamas, and then agree to abject terms of 1,000 terrorists for one Israeli soldier. Israelis would rejoice to see Shalit back home in any case—then send Livni and Barak (with Olmert finished in any case) deeper into political defeat.
That being what Egypt is reportedly warning Hamas about: the next Israeli government won’t be so pliant. Likud Member of Knesset and close Netanyahu ally Yuval Steinitz has called to “free Shalit by our own hands.” After pounding Hamas, a terrorist organization with 20,000 fighters, Israel, a developed country with a powerful army, shouldn’t have to go begging to it. It’s because of such lack of backbone that the current government is on the way out.
But if Egypt views Netanyahu as a sort of bad boy, Western foreign establishments do too—from a different angle. President Barack Obama’s hasty dispatch to Israel of Middle East envoy and veteran peace-processor George Mitchell has sowed speculation that the aim is to get photo-ops particularly with Livni and Barak—Netanyahu’s prime-ministerial contestants—and convey to the Israeli public that it’s with these leaders that Obama can work.
Livni—much closer to Netanyahu in the polls than Barak—is herself pushing that line, warning that Washington will see a Netanyahu-led government as a “peace refuser” and be at loggerheads with it. Again, it’s a miscalculation, perhaps desperate; most Israelis aren’t in the mood to hear that Israel should be bending its will to a U.S. administration that may be afflicted with quick-fix visions for the Middle East.
In any case, Netanyahu, with all this attention converging on him, also on Monday penned an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post. Bibi is not just a commentator but a candidate running for office in a country often at the eye of the storm, and his op-ed is meant to send signals. Here is an attempt to decode them:
“In foreign policy, Obama faces a wide array of difficult decisions, from how to responsibly withdraw from Iraq to how to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Bibi to Obama administration: I am not an opponent of the latter idea or an obstacle to it. Nor, though, am I in a rush; I believe peace can be advanced, incrementally and carefully, not achieved all at once.
“But…one issue will prove more important to Obama’s presidency than all others: Will his administration succeed in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?”
Bibi to Obama administration: I have, however, a strategic focus and am much more concerned about a much larger issue.
“A nuclear-armed Iran will change the world as we know it. It will pose a direct existential threat to Israel…. Iran will move quickly to dominate the world’s oil supplies and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will be rendered meaningless.
“I am convinced that Obama recognizes these dangers. When he visited Jerusalem last summer, he said that the United States cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran. I believe that Obama is working from his first day in office to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
Bibi to Obama administration and world: I am not necessarily convinced of these things, otherwise I would not be drawing attention to them. However, even if Iran is not Obama’s first priority, it is my first priority, and that is something that will not change.
“[Israel’s] security challenges are…daunting. Hamas remains in power and will try to rearm itself with an even more deadly arsenal.”
Bibi to world: I don’t believe Operation Cast Lead came anywhere near defeating or neutralizing Hamas. I am realistic about the danger Hamas continues to pose.
“Hizbullah has de facto control over Lebanon and has tripled its lethal capacity.”
Bibi to world: Ditto for the Second Lebanon War. It didn’t achieve much and I am realistic about the danger Hizbullah continues to pose.
“And advancing peace with moderate Palestinians is possible, but must be done in a way that does not sacrifice Israel’s security interests.”
Bibi to Obama administration: Again, I don’t dismiss this idea, but I’m going to be real careful about it and will not be pushed into moves I deem harmful to Israel.
“Above all else, the top priority of the next government of Israel will be to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is a regime openly pledged to our destruction, and its threats must never be dismissed lightly. Israel must immediately redouble its efforts to work with the United States and other allies to neutralize this threat.”
Bibi to Obama administration and Europeans: If you’re really intending to do something about it, I will work with you against the Iranian threat. If you’re not, take note: Israel will go it alone.
To sum up, Netanyahu’s advent evokes rational fears in those who wish Israel ill and irrational enmity in those purporting to wish it well. Netanyahu, aware of the various perceptions, wants it to be known that he is above all an Israeli nationalist concerned about his country’s survival. After three years and more of weak, obsequious leadership, Israelis—with their mixed feelings about his earlier tenure at the helm—are ready to put him there again.
____________________________________
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Israeli papers carried reports on Monday (here, for instance) about an article in the London-based Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat claiming Egypt was warning Hamas to strike a deal with Israel before Binyamin Netanyahu forms the next government. Otherwise, the Egyptian officials are supposed to have said, Hamas stands to “lose everything.”
Rumors were flying about a ceasefire of a year to a year and a half in which Israel would open the crossings to Gaza and free 1,000 Hamas prisoners in return for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Israel’s current leaders Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and Tzipi Livni are said to be anxious to conclude a deal for Shalit before the February 10 elections.
If so, they’re badly miscalculating. Israelis want Shalit freed and are perturbed that Operation Cast Lead didn’t secure that result. The renewed terror puts the government’s claims about restored Israei deterrence in doubt as well.
Clearly Olmert, Barak, and Livni can’t boast that the war was a resounding success, gravely weakening Hamas, and then agree to abject terms of 1,000 terrorists for one Israeli soldier. Israelis would rejoice to see Shalit back home in any case—then send Livni and Barak (with Olmert finished in any case) deeper into political defeat.
That being what Egypt is reportedly warning Hamas about: the next Israeli government won’t be so pliant. Likud Member of Knesset and close Netanyahu ally Yuval Steinitz has called to “free Shalit by our own hands.” After pounding Hamas, a terrorist organization with 20,000 fighters, Israel, a developed country with a powerful army, shouldn’t have to go begging to it. It’s because of such lack of backbone that the current government is on the way out.
But if Egypt views Netanyahu as a sort of bad boy, Western foreign establishments do too—from a different angle. President Barack Obama’s hasty dispatch to Israel of Middle East envoy and veteran peace-processor George Mitchell has sowed speculation that the aim is to get photo-ops particularly with Livni and Barak—Netanyahu’s prime-ministerial contestants—and convey to the Israeli public that it’s with these leaders that Obama can work.
Livni—much closer to Netanyahu in the polls than Barak—is herself pushing that line, warning that Washington will see a Netanyahu-led government as a “peace refuser” and be at loggerheads with it. Again, it’s a miscalculation, perhaps desperate; most Israelis aren’t in the mood to hear that Israel should be bending its will to a U.S. administration that may be afflicted with quick-fix visions for the Middle East.
In any case, Netanyahu, with all this attention converging on him, also on Monday penned an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post. Bibi is not just a commentator but a candidate running for office in a country often at the eye of the storm, and his op-ed is meant to send signals. Here is an attempt to decode them:
“In foreign policy, Obama faces a wide array of difficult decisions, from how to responsibly withdraw from Iraq to how to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Bibi to Obama administration: I am not an opponent of the latter idea or an obstacle to it. Nor, though, am I in a rush; I believe peace can be advanced, incrementally and carefully, not achieved all at once.
“But…one issue will prove more important to Obama’s presidency than all others: Will his administration succeed in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?”
Bibi to Obama administration: I have, however, a strategic focus and am much more concerned about a much larger issue.
“A nuclear-armed Iran will change the world as we know it. It will pose a direct existential threat to Israel…. Iran will move quickly to dominate the world’s oil supplies and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will be rendered meaningless.
“I am convinced that Obama recognizes these dangers. When he visited Jerusalem last summer, he said that the United States cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran. I believe that Obama is working from his first day in office to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
Bibi to Obama administration and world: I am not necessarily convinced of these things, otherwise I would not be drawing attention to them. However, even if Iran is not Obama’s first priority, it is my first priority, and that is something that will not change.
“[Israel’s] security challenges are…daunting. Hamas remains in power and will try to rearm itself with an even more deadly arsenal.”
Bibi to world: I don’t believe Operation Cast Lead came anywhere near defeating or neutralizing Hamas. I am realistic about the danger Hamas continues to pose.
“Hizbullah has de facto control over Lebanon and has tripled its lethal capacity.”
Bibi to world: Ditto for the Second Lebanon War. It didn’t achieve much and I am realistic about the danger Hizbullah continues to pose.
“And advancing peace with moderate Palestinians is possible, but must be done in a way that does not sacrifice Israel’s security interests.”
Bibi to Obama administration: Again, I don’t dismiss this idea, but I’m going to be real careful about it and will not be pushed into moves I deem harmful to Israel.
“Above all else, the top priority of the next government of Israel will be to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is a regime openly pledged to our destruction, and its threats must never be dismissed lightly. Israel must immediately redouble its efforts to work with the United States and other allies to neutralize this threat.”
Bibi to Obama administration and Europeans: If you’re really intending to do something about it, I will work with you against the Iranian threat. If you’re not, take note: Israel will go it alone.
To sum up, Netanyahu’s advent evokes rational fears in those who wish Israel ill and irrational enmity in those purporting to wish it well. Netanyahu, aware of the various perceptions, wants it to be known that he is above all an Israeli nationalist concerned about his country’s survival. After three years and more of weak, obsequious leadership, Israelis—with their mixed feelings about his earlier tenure at the helm—are ready to put him there again.
____________________________________
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
