This coming Wednesday will be the 14th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin at a Tel Aviv rally for the Oslo peace accords. Like the initial rally itself, the memorial--scheduled for Saturday, October 31, but postponed due to what turned out to be only light rains--was to be a highly charged political event. Except that in 1995, Israel was still stirred by hopes of bringing the decades of war with the Arabs to an end. Yet, at the same time, foreboding grew that these hopes themselves constituted a trap, a mortal trap. (I admit that, already in September 1993 during the ceremonial handshakes on the White House lawn from which Oslo emerged, I felt like a mourner at the wedding feast. And the fact is that I did not go, Al Gore's imprecations to the contrary. The New Republic editorial roughly reflected this disposition.) From the edges but mostly from the edges of the Israeli right this discord turned into hatred and vengeance. When Rabin was getting into his car to go home a young man, a self-designated emissary, calmly stepped from the crowd and shot two bullets from his Beretta semi-automatic pistol into the prime minister's body. Rabin was dead within 40 minutes.
I was in Israel, having dinner with friends at a Jerusalem restaurant, the night the assassination occurred. I remained for the funeral and stayed on for a few days thereafter to experience the aftermath. Israel went into spectral mourning, and even among the Zionist ultra-right there was some self-reproach. The left, although traumatized by the shooting of someone who was for them a very new and remote hero, did its utmost to get what it could politically from the murder. It is his killing that made him their lion.
Every year, when the yahrzeit of the killing comes around, the remaining faithful of Oslo, an ever-declining cohort, by now a pathetic cohort, tries to stir up the memories and the hopes. It is a forlorn venture. Almost nobody believes in "peace now" or, for that matter, in "peace soon." There may be a few handfuls who can still see "peace in our time." But that is not a politics; it is a disposition. Now this cosmic and concrete pessimism can change on a dime or on 10 agurot. Still, this is the public temper now and it has been the public temper for a long time.
Hard as you may have to swallow to believe this, it is Bibi Netanyahu who is keeping Israeli policy flexible enough to move when Palestinian politics opens up. In fact, he is ready to ban all new settlement construction permits which Hillary Clinton herself has dubbed "unprecedented" in the history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But, just in the last few weeks, while Bibi has been more and more accommodating, Mahmoud Abbas has been more and more negative and abrasive. (Will someone at the New York Times recognize this incontrovertible fact?) The Palestinians have fabricated a crisis over the Temple Mount during this time, threatening a new intifada in the West Bank which would, of course, abort the eased security regulations in the territory, retard the fast-growing prosperity in its cities and towns and encumber the American-trained Palestinian soldiery from doing what a domestic soldiery needs to do. Now, that would be progress, wouldn't it?
The fact is that Yitzhak Rabin, a hero from 1948 to 1967, is no longer a hero in Israel. He is a memory, a gauzy memory, to be sure; and sometimes the mention of his name brings tears to the hearer. Ariel Sharon is also no longer a hero but a memory, still breathing but not really alive. He is tended to by his sons, faithful past the end. And, by the time Moshe Dayan died, he with the one eye-patch, this daring fighter had also been passing before the critical scrutiny of historians and history. Not one of these knights matched his own legend.
Rabin was a very special case. He was not an especially gracious man, not that heroes need be gracious: he was stand-offish, remote, even impatient. But he conveyed a sense of intellectual solidity and responsibility. Alas, his last great act turned out not to be so great after all. It required of his followers that they relinquish territories that he had sworn them not to forsake at peril to the survival of the state: the Golan Heights, for example and specific parts of the West Bank where Jewish patrimony and Israeli safety are coterminous. He did not have to face fully the historical urgency of the future of Jerusalem. Still, as the years passed since his murder, his moral authority simply eroded. And it eroded due to what the Palestinians did to his trust. One post-script to the narrative: "Oslo" began as a conspiracy without but against Rabin, a conspiracy initiated by his long-time adversary, Shimon Peres, whom he despised...despised...and by the deceitful Yossi Beilin, whom Rabin called "Peres' poodle."
Who knows whether, had he lived, he would have been able to sustain the optimism that peace was on its way? Perhaps he would have somehow convinced the Palestinian polity, about which he was without illusion, to alter both its thinking and behavior. Just writing this now, however, makes me feel, well, more than a bit silly.
This was not about Rabin, this failure of the right history to happen. It was about Yassir Arafat and his minions, who had always played reckless with their own Palestinians. If you take a look at a photograph of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands at the White House on September 13, 1993 you can see the disgust in the prime minister's eyes, almost a portrait of self-reproach. He may have intuited the outcome. Not, mind you, the assassination. But the betrayal by his "peace partners."
There are other reasons for the lowering of Rabin's estimation in the eyes of his nation. And the truth is that modern nations don't revere their leaders, not certainly as they used ti. History moves too quickly. And, in a way, it sees more than it used to.
The corruption at the top of Israeli politics, now almost endemic, quite frankly started with the Rabins, Yitzhak and Leah. The previous prime ministers had been--how to say it?--well, they were actually true ascetics. David Ben Gurion, who lived out his life with his books on his Spartan kibbutz Sde Boker. The Zionist diplomat Moshe (Shertok) Sharett. Levi Eshkol who made Israel productive but not himself prosperous. Golda Meir, who had many passions (she loved music, actually cello music, and she had many lovers) but not for style or cash. And, then, of course, Menachem Begin, a true ascetic (whom Henry Rosovsky, David Landes and Michael Walzer visited in 1970 in his three-room "English basement" apartment where he had hidden from the pre-state British Mandate police and where he died.) These were austere people.
And, then, suddenly came Leah and Yitzhak, high livers who in a country still alienated from high living cut their swath. Rabin's first term as prime minister was cut short by a petty (actually utterly insignificant) banking scandal. On this count, the rest is history. No one could swear that Israel has had a pecuniarily honest p.m. since.
I've visited the Rabin Memorial twice, a beautiful structure designed by my architect friend Moshe Safdie, whose work I've written about here several times. Alas, it yearns for a theme and a narrative that could fill the gorgeous envelope. There is none.
I've taken up this space not because I wanted to write about Yitzhak Rabin. But because I wanted to write about the notion that Barack Obama and his people (these are the Obami, a word I have shamelessly stolen from the very gifted Jennifer Rubin at Contentions) have that the best way they have to getting to the people of Israel, whose alienation from them it is evident they grasp, is through linking themselves to the assassinated prime minister. Two articles in Ha'aretz--both on October 29, "Obama to tell Rabin memorial: US-Israel is unbreakable"; and "Obama sends Rabin memorial video, in bid to woo Israelis"- elaborate this point.
Beware, Barack. Beware, Rahm. Beware, David Axelrod. This merely confirms my fears that I have enunciated here before: you haven't a clue.
In fact, the notion that the ghost of Rabin can be a conduit from the president to the people Israel is only a display of the incomprehension you have shown in dealing with the Jewish state from the start. The Israelis are so far beyond Rabin's formulae and nostrums, beyond even his instinctive and healthy suspiciousness and his allergy to "feel good." You do remember that it was candidate Obama himself who drew the sharp line between himself and the Likud, a gratuitous distinction now that Israel is governed by a coalition in which the Labor leader, Ehud Barak, just about as hawkish as the Likud's Bibi, is defense minister. The few Labor doves, who sit in the Knesset back benches, were in Washington at the J Street mishap.
Indeed, the Israeli political system watched in utter (but almost comic) disbelief as the president attempted to get fundamental concessions from Jerusalem while letting the Palestinians off the hook. Which is, as you know, just how they took it. They did nothing. And suddenly the president and secretary Clinton, who had been so frosty with the Israelis and Hillary really frosty, as only she can be, had to change not only their tune but their very line to find some stasis for themselves. You are back where you started. And, by the way, did the Saudis help any?
You also sent Susan Rice to Jerusalem ten days ago to speak at President Peres' annual self-celebration. Laura Rozen writes in Politico that Peres had taken a shining to her and so was more than delighted to have her attend his fest. I wonder who thought this was a significant venue.
Anyway, it's only airfare. But she herself is also the wrong messenger because she carries the wrong message. It is Ambassador Rice, after all, who persuaded the president that U.S. membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council would, to mix a metaphor, cut its claws. This was part of the administration's great rap about "engagement." A few weeks ago we would have said: "We shall see." We've already seen.
Print
COMMENTS (26)
They are back where they started, and have Israeli public opinion about as opposed to them as possible. Those are setbacks, and Marty is right on in seeing them as such. On the other hand, they have gotten Bibi to publicly embrace a two-state solution, agree to limits on settlement expansion outside areas that would belong to Israel under any peace deal anyway and publicly buy into America's Iran policy. The latter is especially important because Israeli eagerness to act swiftly and strategically against Iran would, in my opinion, unravel the whole Middle East without actually harming Iran's nuclear capabilities or nuclear plans in any tangible way (Israel doesn't have the military capabi ... view full comment
They are back where they started, and have Israeli public opinion about as opposed to them as possible. Those are setbacks, and Marty is right on in seeing them as such. On the other hand, they have gotten Bibi to publicly embrace a two-state solution, agree to limits on settlement expansion outside areas that would belong to Israel under any peace deal anyway and publicly buy into America's Iran policy. The latter is especially important because Israeli eagerness to act swiftly and strategically against Iran would, in my opinion, unravel the whole Middle East without actually harming Iran's nuclear capabilities or nuclear plans in any tangible way (Israel doesn't have the military capability for the kind of sustained attack on Iranian facilities that would actually set back the Iranians by something more than months without active American support, which it would never have gotten from the Bush administration, much less this one). And there is no further chatter from mainstream Israeli politicians about how the Palestinians would just have to cultivate their garden until they "deserve" to have a state -- a view that would have ensured a Third Intifada by now if it had prevailed. So I would give the Obami (Obamim?) a C+ for results even if they thought their efforts would have deserved an A.
Mr. Peretz: "... while Bibi has been more and more accommodating, Mahmoud Abbas has been more and more negative and abrasive. (Will someone at the New York Times recognize this incontrovertible fact?)"
Will the NY Times recognize inconvenient, unprofitable fact? Ha !!!
Mr. Peretz: "... while Bibi has been more and more accommodating, Mahmoud Abbas has been more and more negative and abrasive. (Will someone at the New York Times recognize this incontrovertible fact?)"
Will the NY Times recognize inconvenient, unprofitable fact? Ha !!!
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added).
"Publicly" is the key word. It's only tactical, on the assumption that Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollahs will do their Persian bazaar best to haggle with Obama & co. while their centrifuges are spinning merrily away, but hopefully sooner rather than later some of the less naive among the Western leaders (probably France's Sarkozy) will persuade Obama that "tough diplomacy" (to quote JBA @ J Street) ain't going to cut it. Given that US cooperation would greatly increase the the effectiveness of an Israeli strike, should it come to that, Bibi & co. figure (correctly IMHO), th ... view full comment
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added).
"Publicly" is the key word. It's only tactical, on the assumption that Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollahs will do their Persian bazaar best to haggle with Obama & co. while their centrifuges are spinning merrily away, but hopefully sooner rather than later some of the less naive among the Western leaders (probably France's Sarkozy) will persuade Obama that "tough diplomacy" (to quote JBA @ J Street) ain't going to cut it. Given that US cooperation would greatly increase the the effectiveness of an Israeli strike, should it come to that, Bibi & co. figure (correctly IMHO), that they are more likely to gain Obama's cooperation if they play along now & stroke his overinflated ego.
But don't get me wrong. The vast majority of Israelis feel that Obama & co. is wasting valuable time that is just giving the Iranians more opportunity to enrich more uranium and solve the contamination problems reported by Jackson Diehl in the WaPo, assuming his sources are correct (they may not be). And Obama simply isn't trusted or respected by the vast majority of Israelis, across a large swath of the political spectrum. Doing the Charlie Tuna-like ritual performance at the annual Rabin Memorial will be seen for what it is -- a Charlie Tuna ritual geared to make Obama appeal to Israeli taste buds. But it's way too little, too late for that.
Although it would be far preferable and more effective for Israel to have US cooperation in an Iranian strike, I don't think anyone here really knows how much such a strike would set back the Iranian nuke program. The people who really know (and WADR Wildboy, you ain't one of them) are keeping their mouths shut.
For what I think is an accurate summary of the Israeli mood on Iran see Yossi Klein Halevi's recent WSJ piece here.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
Wildboy
Have “they gotten” Netanyahu to embrace a two state solution or did he come to this position independent of them? And don’t forget his Palestinian state will not be able to arm itself and will be under some kind Israeli military aegis, given the experience in Gaza, things the Palestinians will never accept right now even as they show every indication of generally hardening their position as fueled in some tactical part by the Cairo speech and even as Abbas tries to hold his own with Hamas.
As I understand it the American led negotiations with Iran aren’t faring well and pose Israel with a problem. As they protractedly limp along, Israel is hampered in its consideration of pro ... view full comment
Wildboy
Have “they gotten” Netanyahu to embrace a two state solution or did he come to this position independent of them? And don’t forget his Palestinian state will not be able to arm itself and will be under some kind Israeli military aegis, given the experience in Gaza, things the Palestinians will never accept right now even as they show every indication of generally hardening their position as fueled in some tactical part by the Cairo speech and even as Abbas tries to hold his own with Hamas.
As I understand it the American led negotiations with Iran aren’t faring well and pose Israel with a problem. As they protractedly limp along, Israel is hampered in its consideration of proactive defensive action in the face of them. As to what success Israeli actions would have or not have, how do you so confidently know this? I am not really asking this question argumentatively. I just don’t know how you know it? If you have some authoritative source for your assertion, I’d love to be beamed up to it. I have no expertise in such matters and generally am inclined to trust Israeli calculations as to what they can and cannot win to with proactive defense. My impression is they are agonizing terribly over such decisions.
I also don’t know what you mean about former mainstream chatter on garden cultivation. I don’t think Obama/Obami have done anything to further the peace process and have rather complicated it and set it back by, among other things and as noted, the Cairo speech, which put specific onuses on Israel—freeze all settlement construction —which Abbas seized on and still clings to, even while Obami have been forced to walk back from that—and even while putting no specific reciprocal obligations on the Palestinians.
I don’t see Obama vis a vis the Middle East having improved anything at all and see no seeds being sown for any optimism. Just the opposite, would that that weren’t true.
A common mantra among Israeli hard-line lefties, and even more so among their various fan clubs outside of Israel is that had Rabin not been assassinated, there would now be peace in the region. However that is a highly tenuous assumption at best.
The standard left-wing dogma as promulgated by Yossi Beilin & his intellectual entourage is that Bibi killed Oslo. Arafat is blameless. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, in his book on why Oslo failed (Full Disclosure: I did not read the book but I heard the following from others who did), Beilin does not even consider the possibility that Arafat might have duped Israel in general and the Oslo Accordians in particular.
But even assuming Bib ... view full comment
A common mantra among Israeli hard-line lefties, and even more so among their various fan clubs outside of Israel is that had Rabin not been assassinated, there would now be peace in the region. However that is a highly tenuous assumption at best.
The standard left-wing dogma as promulgated by Yossi Beilin & his intellectual entourage is that Bibi killed Oslo. Arafat is blameless. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, in his book on why Oslo failed (Full Disclosure: I did not read the book but I heard the following from others who did), Beilin does not even consider the possibility that Arafat might have duped Israel in general and the Oslo Accordians in particular.
But even assuming Bibi was totally at fault (an assumption totally divorced from empirical reality), he won the 1996 election against Peres (barely) not becauseRabin was assassinated, but despite Rabin's assassination. Bibi, the Likud, and Israel's political right were in extreme bad odor in the aftermath of the assassination and were regularly held responsible for "inciting" the assassin Yig'al Amir to kill Rabin. What pushed Bibi over the top against Peres was largely the continuing terrorist attacks especially those in February-March of 1996.
So what would have happened had Rabin not been killed? In the months leading up to the assassination, Rabin, the Labor Party, and the popularity of the whole Oslo project were dropping steadily in the polls, in large part because of the continuing bus, etc. bombings. These continued after the assassination as well. There is no reason to assume that Arafat's stream of terrorist attacks would have changed had Rabin not been assassinated. So in all likelihood Bibi would have been elected.
Indeed if anything, had Rabin not been assassinated, he would not have moved up the elections (Peres moved them up about 6 months to take advantage of the presumed widespread hostility against the right) and may well frozen or even canceled the Oslo Accords in response to Arafat's continued sponsorship of the terrorist attacks. Rabin did not share Peres' & Beilin's delusions about Arafat and would have been far more likely to confront him or even return him to Tunis, if for no other reason than a "Hail Mary" attempt to block Bibi's rise in the polls.
In short, by any plausible scenario, Rabin's assassination, while very significant in Israeli history, did not prevent "peace" from breaking out.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
Dear Marty,
I'll take it under advisement.
Let me remind you of something though. You see, here at the White House, I have more power in my little pinky than you have in all the blogs you'll ever write. You have access to JD and Ginzy. I have access to the President of the United States.
It must be hell to know you are absolutely right about everything that has ever happened anywhere and anytime throughout human history. And not be able to do a damned thing about it!!
Truly unbearable at times, no doubt.
Trust me: The Spine is something of a joke around here now. Teeth gnashing between snarls of distemper.
It's a Bilderberg world, my friend. You [and Israel and J Street and Iambiguous] just liv ... view full comment
Dear Marty,
I'll take it under advisement.
Let me remind you of something though. You see, here at the White House, I have more power in my little pinky than you have in all the blogs you'll ever write. You have access to JD and Ginzy. I have access to the President of the United States.
It must be hell to know you are absolutely right about everything that has ever happened anywhere and anytime throughout human history. And not be able to do a damned thing about it!!
Truly unbearable at times, no doubt.
Trust me: The Spine is something of a joke around here now. Teeth gnashing between snarls of distemper.
It's a Bilderberg world, my friend. You [and Israel and J Street and Iambiguous] just live in it.
With few regrets,
Rahm
Ginzy/Basman, I'm privy to no special information other than what I read from mainstream Israeli, American and European media, an MA in Poli Sci (FWIW, which ain't much) and an enthusiastic amateur's interest in military affairs. I'm sure that people in Israel or the US who know exactly where Iran's nuke facilities are (if they know this) aren't talking publicly about how easy or difficult it would be to knock them out. But my hunch is that, if it was militarily easy and politically palatable, Israel would have done it already with the assent of the Bush administration. The fact that they didn't -- that the Bushies even denied the Israelis specific weapons capability, if one believes rep ... view full comment
Ginzy/Basman, I'm privy to no special information other than what I read from mainstream Israeli, American and European media, an MA in Poli Sci (FWIW, which ain't much) and an enthusiastic amateur's interest in military affairs. I'm sure that people in Israel or the US who know exactly where Iran's nuke facilities are (if they know this) aren't talking publicly about how easy or difficult it would be to knock them out. But my hunch is that, if it was militarily easy and politically palatable, Israel would have done it already with the assent of the Bush administration. The fact that they didn't -- that the Bushies even denied the Israelis specific weapons capability, if one believes reports to that effect in Haaretz -- suggests that it is an extremely difficult operation beyond the realistic capabilities of the Israeli air force acting alone, a la Osirak or the Syrian reactor. Until the stars align with the Americans (which, ironically, depends in large part on the US getting most its personnel out of Iraq), I don't think the Israelis will act unilaterally. As you might agree, recent wars have made Israel ever more concerned about fighting when they know they can win rather than just fighting for the sake of deterrence.
Basman, with all due respect Netenyahu would not have made his Bar-Ilan speech when he did without the change in atmosphere from the White House. That this speech, or the other Israeli actions that I mentioned, didn't make the Arabs or the Obamas happy is not the point. The point is that they have at least steered the Israeli government away from what could have been another violent confrontation in the West Bank and further turmoil that would have diverted attention from Iran's shenanigans. This kind of stasis is not good for the prospects of peace, but it's better than what could have resulted if Bibi's government had followed through on its campaign rhetoric of freezing out the Arabs indefinitely while hoping that economic growth would have mollified their anger. It's not what Obama envisioned, but it's been a decent result so far. It also shows that the US was not ready to cause the downfall of a recently-elected Israeli government when push came to shove.
Another post from George that is a cry for help, the poor loony.
Another post from George that is a cry for help, the poor loony.
"The point is that they have at least steered the Israeli government away from what could have been another violent confrontation in the West Bank and further turmoil that would have diverted attention from Iran's shenanigans."
So Obama is to be credited with averting Intifada III? Can you back up this startling statement? For example, has any of the Middle East experts provided some in depth explanation as to how this was achieved?
"The point is that they have at least steered the Israeli government away from what could have been another violent confrontation in the West Bank and further turmoil that would have diverted attention from Iran's shenanigans."
So Obama is to be credited with averting Intifada III? Can you back up this startling statement? For example, has any of the Middle East experts provided some in depth explanation as to how this was achieved?
…Netenyahu (sic) would not have made his Bar-Ilan speech when he did without the change in atmosphere from the White House. That this speech, or the other Israeli actions that I mentioned, didn't make the Arabs or the Obamas happy is not the point. The point is that they have at least steered the Israeli government away from what could have been another violent confrontation in the West Bank and further turmoil that would have diverted attention from Iran's shenanigans. This kind of stasis is not good for the prospects of peace, but it's better than what could have resulted if Bibi's government had followed through on its campaign rhetoric of freezing out the Arabs indefinitely while hopin ... view full comment
…Netenyahu (sic) would not have made his Bar-Ilan speech when he did without the change in atmosphere from the White House. That this speech, or the other Israeli actions that I mentioned, didn't make the Arabs or the Obamas happy is not the point. The point is that they have at least steered the Israeli government away from what could have been another violent confrontation in the West Bank and further turmoil that would have diverted attention from Iran's shenanigans. This kind of stasis is not good for the prospects of peace, but it's better than what could have resulted if Bibi's government had followed through on its campaign rhetoric of freezing out the Arabs indefinitely while hoping that economic growth would have mollified their anger. It's not what Obama envisioned, but it's been a decent result so far. It also shows that the US was not ready to cause the downfall of a recently-elected Israeli government when push came to shove....
Wildboy, with all due respect indeed, this part of your last post specifically addressed to me makes not much sense. And considering the coalition Netanyahu heads, and his recent political consolidations, I don’t understand your general argument as that but for Obama we wouldn’t have Netanyahu’s limited two state vision, which represents something Obama shoud be given some thankful credit for.
After all, Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan talked mostly in his about an Israeli-Palestinian arrangement as he’d ideally want it: economic prosperity by Arab investment as the basis for peace; Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as a sine qua non for Israeli agreed to Palestinian statehood and resumed negotiations; and international guarantees to ensure that the Palestinians don't endanger Israel—all this, to reassure his coalition.
With these conditions met, he said, "we will be prepared. . . for a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. . . . two people, side by side, each with its flag and its anthem."
But then more stipulations: Jerusalem has to remain "united as the capital of Israel" and there will be no right of Palestinian return to Israel.
So Obama may have considered Netanyahu’s reference to a"Palestinian state" as some bit of progress, but he couldn’t have viewed Netanyahu's speech as likely to lead to renewed negotiations.
Netanyahu vowed to allow construction for "natural growth", never mentioned the outposts or the roadmap that demands a settlement freeze. Obama staked his prestige on a settlement freeze. So what Netanyahu said at Bar-Ilan was not in substantial part what Obama wanted to hear.
Netanyahu also said some other basic things the Palestinians don’t like to hear: the root of the issue is their irredentism; the closer agreements seem at hand, as in 2000 and 2008, the more they move away; and (to Obama as well) that Israel was not created out of the Holocaust but out of the millennia old indissoluble nexus between the Jews and their land.
Netanyahu’s was/is not a complete acceptance of the peace process. But his coalition holds; he has Israelis solidly behind him; he successfully spurned Obama on the freeze; Abbas refuses to negotiate; and while Livni--amongst others (including Wieseltier)-- may think Netanyahu is evading any real decisions, he by, talking up a two-state idea, has undercut Kadima and could bring about the return of some from it to Likud.
That Bar-Ilan did not make Obama or the Palestinians happy is not “not the point”, it is exactly the point. And, again, respectfully, it has you arguing against yourself in at least two ways: one, crediting Obama for Netanyahu’s qualified move to a two state solution, but a move so qualified that it ensures no progress with the Palestinians, as if there any to be made in any event right now; and, two, a move so roundly rejected by the Palestinians that it could well induce Intifada type behavior—although the Camp David offer sparked it as well—of which we are now seeing some nascent signs in the recent flare ups over Temple Mount, and which you oddly think Obama caused Netanyahu to act to avoid.
Sorry, but that line of reasoning just doesn't bear scrutiny.
Wildboy -- no one ever said that taking out much or most or all of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be easy or without negative consequences, least of all the Israelis. See the Yossi Klein Halevi piece (here) I referenced, which accurately captures the Israeli mood on Iran. And as I said many times, it would be far preferable and easier -- but not easy -- to pull off the mission with at least minimal US cooperation in the form of transponder codes.
For the record, Osirak wasn't "easy" either, and before Israel pulled it off was presumed by many "experts" (armchair & otherwise) to ... view full comment
Wildboy -- no one ever said that taking out much or most or all of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be easy or without negative consequences, least of all the Israelis. See the Yossi Klein Halevi piece (here) I referenced, which accurately captures the Israeli mood on Iran. And as I said many times, it would be far preferable and easier -- but not easy -- to pull off the mission with at least minimal US cooperation in the form of transponder codes.
For the record, Osirak wasn't "easy" either, and before Israel pulled it off was presumed by many "experts" (armchair & otherwise) to be beyond Israel's reach. Also, the attack was not pulled out of a hat like a rabbit; rather it was planned very very carefully and the pilots (which, BTW included Ilan Ramon of the shuttle Columbia disaster) practiced extensively over a long period of time before they were sent on their mission. But it was kept quiet, very quiet, although the concern about the Iraqi reactor was quite public.
Many, most notably Shimon Peres, opposed the mission on the grounds that it was dicey, would only delay Saddam Hussein's acquisition of nukes, and would likely make matters worse (as recently as the mid 1990's (if not more recently) Peres was still saying the attack was a mistake).
BTW, there is an interesting quirk of history involving the fall of the Shah & the Osirak mission. The F-16s used in the mission were originally designated for the Iranian Air Force (also an IAF!), but with the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeini (together with the Iranian hostage crisis) the sale was canceled. Instead the jets were sold to Israel and formed Israel's first F-16 squadron. Thus Israel acquired the mission-critical F-16's several years before they were scheduled to acquire them which in turn made the mission possible.
So why didn't Israel attack Iran during the Bush years? A combination of several reasons as I see it. First of all, there was more time on the clock then which meant there was more time to try non-military, if of dubious effectiveness, means. The EUniks & the Bushwhackers were trying to negotiate with the Iranians, offering them a variety of carrots. Sanctions, albeit rather anemic ones, were put in place. So given that some time was still available (and apparently more time was being created by US & Israeli covert actions against Iran's nuclear infrastructure), given that it would be preferable, even if improbable, to use non-military means to defang the Mad Mahmoud & co., and given the desirability of the US cooperation, Israel could afford to sit tight for a bit (albeit with concern).
What is clear is that Israel used the time to enhance its intelligence and force projection capabilities vis a vis Iran, and to practice for such a mission. Also, in the aftermath of Lebanon 2, & the realization that Hezbollah was Iran's force projection proxy, the IDF went back to "fundamentals" and also started rehabilitating the Civilian Defense infrastructure.
Another reason why Israel didn't attack during the Bush years was the belief (quite wrong as it turns out) that Bush would not leave office leaving the Iranian nuclear infrastructure intact. Reality set in with the publication of the infamous NIE on Iran at the end of 2007, and the apparent subsequent refusal by the Bushwhackers to give Israel the critical transponder codes. Also the US presidential campaign was in full swing by then, and many here hoped McCain, who shares Israel's concerns about Iran, would win the election.
So this brings us to today. The clock is running out. Iran can enrich Uranium at will. Their missile technology has advanced. And even the EUniks have finally come around to the Israeli position that Iran wants nuclear power. Military , not electrical. (The improved range of Iranian missiles (which can reach the southeastern parts of Western Europe) together with their R&D programs to produce missiles with even greater range has helped focus their attention). Actually fashioning a bomb is believed to be well within Iran's technical capabilities. It's just a matter of a decision to proceed. Also there is a growing (albeit not universal) recognition that given Iran's apocalyptic & eschatological theocracy, Israel cannot presume that Iran can be deterred or contained as was the USSR. The USA under Obama cannot be depended upon to neutralize the Iranian nukes and is unlikely to cooperate with an Israeli attack. Looming in the background is the distinct possibility that the Russians will sell their much-vaunted S-300 anti-aircraft (and anti-cruise missile) system to the Iranians, which at minimum would significantly increase Israeli losses during an attack. So Israel will have to look out for itself, even if it won't be as effective as a US led attack. Hence the mood of the country as captured in the Y.K. Halevi WSJ piece (the correct link -- the one in my previous post is incorrect-- here).
BTW, there are other respected (though not infallible) military analysts who do think Israel could mount an attack. Not easy, very risky, but doable. See, e.g., Anthony Cordesman in the WSJ (here). Cordesman's piece apparently is based on a much longer more detailed analysis he did together with Abdullah Toukan (full disclosure: I did not read the longer analysis) for the Center for Strategic and International studies here. And I suspect that there is a fair amount of info on Israel's intelligence & military capabilities to which Cordesman is not privy.
Regarding the delightfully revisionist and hagiographical statement that Obama prevented a third "Intifada", I will save my response to that for another posting, time & life permitting.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
Here is a sight for sore eyes:
"In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S."
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD262609
Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.
Sometimes clarity arises from the least expected quarters.
Here is a sight for sore eyes:
"In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S."
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD262609
Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.
Sometimes clarity arises from the least expected quarters.
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added).
"Publicly" is the key word. It's only tactical, on the assumption that Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollahs will do their Persian bazaar best to haggle with Obama & co. while their centrifuges are spinning merrily away
ginzy, this is a few posts ago, but I only just started looking at this thread, and this part struck me. Are you saying that any Israeli statement on settlement freeze is only a tactical move to confuse or derail the U.S. administration? Or do you mean in these particular circumstances only, e.g. due to disagreement over how to deal with Iran?
Either way, the reason ... view full comment
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added).
"Publicly" is the key word. It's only tactical, on the assumption that Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollahs will do their Persian bazaar best to haggle with Obama & co. while their centrifuges are spinning merrily away
ginzy, this is a few posts ago, but I only just started looking at this thread, and this part struck me. Are you saying that any Israeli statement on settlement freeze is only a tactical move to confuse or derail the U.S. administration? Or do you mean in these particular circumstances only, e.g. due to disagreement over how to deal with Iran?
Either way, the reason your comment leaped out at me is that so much of the pro-Israel argument about the I/P conflict is about the utter inability of the Palestinians to climb down off their maximalist demands for a return to 1948 and start thinking about what an actual Palestinian nation-state would look like. In general, the line take by many here -- and that I share to a large extent -- is that the Palestinians could have had an independent state a long time ago if they had really wanted one.
But if Netanyahu's statement (which is, after all, Israel's statement -- he's not speaking as a private individual) is "only tactical," how can one then argue that the issue is Palestinian untrustworthiness? If the Israeli PM's guiding statement on one of the really major issues, one that has to be tackled in good faith by both sides for a solution to emerge is nothing more than a kind of campaign trick equivalent to a misleading poster, where does that leave us in terms of the comparative credibility of the parties? Isn't an admission that N's statement is merely "tactical" a validation of Abbas's mixture of squirming and backtracking? Why should the PA do serious business with a partner whose key statements are not to be taken seriously?
". . . Barack Obama and his people (these are the Obami, a word I have shamelessly stolen from the very gifted Jennifer Rubin at Contentions) . . ."
It should be "Obamae", not "Obami". The genitive singular of first declension nouns consists of the stem and the suffix 'ae'.
". . . Barack Obama and his people (these are the Obami, a word I have shamelessly stolen from the very gifted Jennifer Rubin at Contentions) . . ."
It should be "Obamae", not "Obami". The genitive singular of first declension nouns consists of the stem and the suffix 'ae'.
irony,
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added)."
fwiw, I took the statement as referring to publicly buying into Obama's unclenched fist/open hand Iran policy, and not as relating to the settlement freeze.
I think Obama has mishandled the settlement freeze, pissing off the Israelis for apparently violating previous understandings by calling for a total freeze (including areas that are thought to be on the Israeli side of an eventual agreed border with offsetting land swap of current Israeli territory) and then pissing off the Palestinians for subsequently backing down from the total freeze. Kinda throws a wrench into America's ability to ... view full comment
irony,
"...they have gotten Bibi to ... publicly buy into America's Iran policy.." - (emphases added)."
fwiw, I took the statement as referring to publicly buying into Obama's unclenched fist/open hand Iran policy, and not as relating to the settlement freeze.
I think Obama has mishandled the settlement freeze, pissing off the Israelis for apparently violating previous understandings by calling for a total freeze (including areas that are thought to be on the Israeli side of an eventual agreed border with offsetting land swap of current Israeli territory) and then pissing off the Palestinians for subsequently backing down from the total freeze. Kinda throws a wrench into America's ability to be perceived and to act as an honest or even competent peace broker.
ironyroad:
"Are you saying that ... "
I seem to recall a few times when I addressed your comment with "Are you saying" which was met with some indignation. I always appreciated that you did not like the tone of such a form of question because it sounded too much like "gotcha" based on sheer hyperbolic speculation of what the intentions in your comment were. I frankly could not excuse myself for succumbing to the urge. Except perhaps by explaining that I was in a huff when choosing that mode of engagement. (The huff could have been exacerbated by not enough caffeine, maybe)
I don't mean to suggest anything by this comment. Just saying.
ironyroad:
"Are you saying that ... "
I seem to recall a few times when I addressed your comment with "Are you saying" which was met with some indignation. I always appreciated that you did not like the tone of such a form of question because it sounded too much like "gotcha" based on sheer hyperbolic speculation of what the intentions in your comment were. I frankly could not excuse myself for succumbing to the urge. Except perhaps by explaining that I was in a huff when choosing that mode of engagement. (The huff could have been exacerbated by not enough caffeine, maybe)
I don't mean to suggest anything by this comment. Just saying.
jpkatz,
"...It should be "Obamae", not "Obami". The genitive singular of first declension nouns consists of the stem and the suffix 'ae'."
Quite right. Blackton also noted that the plural should be "Obamae" in the thread where "Obami" first appeared. Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!
jpkatz,
"...It should be "Obamae", not "Obami". The genitive singular of first declension nouns consists of the stem and the suffix 'ae'."
Quite right. Blackton also noted that the plural should be "Obamae" in the thread where "Obami" first appeared. Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!
"Obamae" would also be the first declension nominative plural...
"Obamae" would also be the first declension nominative plural...
"Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!'
Well, he did speak of clenched and unclenched fists.
"Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!'
Well, he did speak of clenched and unclenched fists.
noga,
""Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!'
Well, he did speak of clenched and unclenched fists."
It's all beginning to make sense...
noga,
""Mirabile dictu that Obama is a Latin first declension noun!'
Well, he did speak of clenched and unclenched fists."
It's all beginning to make sense...
Noga, are you saying . . . are you saying that I casually ignore, in respect of my own comments, exactly those rhetorical principles and considerations that I so rigorously apply to others?
!!!???
If there was an emoticon for indignation, I'd insert it right here.
Noga, are you saying . . . are you saying that I casually ignore, in respect of my own comments, exactly those rhetorical principles and considerations that I so rigorously apply to others?
!!!???
If there was an emoticon for indignation, I'd insert it right here.
Irony -- I though my context should have been eminently clear that I was referring to the Obama's "engagement" etc. of Iran. There is a very broad consensus in Israel that Obama's policy is merely giving Iran more time to enrich uranium and solve any problems of contamination assuming the stories reporting said contamination is correct. Indeed Mad Mahmoud has shown himself to be a masterful cloth merchant (I believe that was the meaning of his original family name) and is playing Obama like an oud (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). Then again Obama's naivete and hubris make him an easy victim, has been amply demonstrated in the international arena (for James Kirchick's summary and ... view full comment
Irony -- I though my context should have been eminently clear that I was referring to the Obama's "engagement" etc. of Iran. There is a very broad consensus in Israel that Obama's policy is merely giving Iran more time to enrich uranium and solve any problems of contamination assuming the stories reporting said contamination is correct. Indeed Mad Mahmoud has shown himself to be a masterful cloth merchant (I believe that was the meaning of his original family name) and is playing Obama like an oud (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). Then again Obama's naivete and hubris make him an easy victim, has been amply demonstrated in the international arena (for James Kirchick's summary and incisive analysis of the results of Obama's "Let's be friends" approach to foreign policy see here).
Regarding Netanyahu's speech, other than uttering the words "Palestinian State" I don't think he said much, if anything, new. And I based on comments & polls & my perception of the mood of the country, his speech more or less reflects the current views of a significant, if not overwhelming, majority of Israelis, probably even more so in the months since the speech.
Side note: Recent polls show the Likud clearly in the lead were the elections held now: Likud in the low to mid-30's seats (up from 27 seats since the election); Kadima 24-28 seats (28 seats in the election); Labor down to 7 seats (13 in the election); Meretz up to 6 seats (3 in the election) and Yisra'el Beiteinu (A. Leiberman & co.) about 11-13 seats (16 in the election). I know this doesn't add up to 120 seats but I don't remember the rest of the parties' results. Interestingly, Ehud Barak is very popular as Defense Minister, with something like 60-65% thinking he is doing a good job; it's the Labor party which is down in the dumps.
Back to Netanyahu & settlements. The far right, including Likud's own right wing, is not happy with his offer of a partial and time limited freeze on construction in the communities over the Green Line (a friend who's views are far to the right of mine now calls him Booboo instead of Bibi). Keep in mind that "construction" is not only of housing, but also of schools, synagogues, clinics, public buildings etc.. Using real estate prices as a gauge of housing supply in relation to demand, prices are way up and real estate agents report that there is a housing shortage, especially in those communities inside or just over the fence (Yossi Beilin likes to say that there is plenty of empty housing in the "settlements" but he generally exempts himself from the need to prop his pronouncements with empirical data).
But Bibi's (or Booboo's if you share my friend's views) offer is quite real, if the Palestinians would sit down & negotiate. By virtue of the fact that the offer was excruciatingly negotiated means that it will be honored if the Pals accept it and come to the table to negotiate. To be honest I don't think Bibi offered it out of the goodness of his heart or because he though it was necessary (there was no such provision during the P.A. negotiations with Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, or Olmert & Livni) but rather to play along with Obama & Co. even though both he and most Israelis feel double-crossed over Obama reneging on Bush's letter to Sharon. Iran is considered the number one threat (across the political spectrum) and Bibi seems to believe that if Israel has to swallow a bitter (if temporary) pill to assuage Obama's overinflated ego to get US cooperation on Iran, well so be it. But the time-limited suspension offer is real and would be honored.
BTW, it does seem that most if not close to all housing construction has already ground to a halt (or close to a halt) even in the "settlement bloc" communities inside the fence. Efrat has a bad housing shortage (my daughter who recently became engaged (in the marital sense) is having trouble finding a small, affordable rental apartment in Efrat).
There is however a paradox I should note. On the one hand more and more Israelis, probably a significant majority recognize that in principle establishing a Palestinian state (with Bibi's caveats & conditions) is probably the least bad of the options at this point. This recognition includes having to evacuate those Israel communities that will become part of "Palestine" (on the assumption that "Palestine" of necessity (at least according to the "progressive" elements in the "International Community") is to be Judenrein). Many in the Likud, including in the leadership, recognize and accept this as an inevitable reality. Ditto for many many Likud voters.
On the other hand few Israelis think that Abu Mazen & co., are dependable, reliable, peace partners that won't get toppled by Hamas with rather negative consequences (see Gaza Strip for more info). This has been exacerbated by Abu Mazen's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Indeed the official P.A. line, which their institutions continuously and deeply inculcate into the Palestinian consciousness the idea that Israel is illegitimate and that Jews have no historical connection to the Land of Israel (for example, see PMW's recent report (here) on PATV's interview with an official PA historian who asserts that Jews never had any connection to "Palestine" while Palestinians have been living there for 4000-5000 years; video clips are included). I might add that Obama's Cairo speech did not help the matter. Also it is far from clear that the Pals will agree to an explicit "end of conflict" provision which would also end any and all claims against Israel. Indeed at the recent al-Fatah conference in Bethlehem I believe that they explicitly ruled out such a provision. So for these and other reasons Israelis are skeptical that a real, stable, and permanent peace agreement can be reached.
And if someone here suggests that an agreement with the P.A. would entail "International Guaranties" that will ensure Israeli security etc. (one of Beilin's favorite arguments), please don't make me laugh.
Which brings me to another point (also raised by Bibi). One of the arguments in made in favor of Israel reaching a peace agreement with the P.A. is that Israel is strong and will be able to take whatever military action is needed to defend itself and hence can afford to take a "risk" for peace (another one of Beilin's nostrums). However the "International Community's" reaction to Operation Cast Lead and the subsequent scandalously distorted, biased, and often fictional Goldstone Report together with the demands being placed on Israel as a result has pulled the rug out from that argument.
Another reason why Israelis are very skeptical is that the Pals have turned down multiple opportunities for a state. Our host Marty Peretz is fond of writing that Barak made unprecedented, far-reaching, arguably irresponsible, offers to Arafat in 2,000 at Camp David (which is factually correct despite what Robert Malley says) which won't be repeated. Not true. Not only were they repeated but they were exceeded by Olmert in his negotiations with Abu Mazen, who nonetheless turned them down and made no counter-offer. Abu Mazen confirmed the story of Olmert's offer in his Washington Post interview. When asked by the interviewer (Jackson Diehl?) why he did not make a counteroffer, Abu Mazen responded that the sides were just too far apart.
So when Israelis hear this the common consensus is that there is no partner on the Palestinian side. This is reflected in the total of Knessset seats won by Meretz & Labor, the parties most identified with the Oslo debacle.
Enough for now. More than enough. I really do have to earn a living.
Hershel Ginsburg
Jerusalem / Efrata
But Bibi's (or Booboo's if you share my friend's views) offer is quite real,
ginzy, I love that. You sound like you got a great friend. anyway, nice post.
But Bibi's (or Booboo's if you share my friend's views) offer is quite real,
ginzy, I love that. You sound like you got a great friend. anyway, nice post.
Blackie,
Thanx for your kind words... my friend is a very very bright & very interesting fellow and very much in the far to extreme right wing on the Israeli political spectrum. He considers me a "Wooss" because of my moderate right wing views.
hg
Blackie,
Thanx for your kind words... my friend is a very very bright & very interesting fellow and very much in the far to extreme right wing on the Israeli political spectrum. He considers me a "Wooss" because of my moderate right wing views.
hg
Ginzy, that was a nice post, and thanks for the helpful links to the WSJ articles. You should be a blogger in your spare time with your hyperlinking skills. Although you and I don't see eye to eye on many Israeli issues, you are always thorough and fair in your points and are a great debater. I also concur with your analysis of the general views of the Israeli public on the Palestinians, Iran and other things. And, for the record, my views of the conflict are probably closest to Kadima's and definitely not Meretz or the Yossi Beilin wing of Labor -- though I would take steps now to close down settlements that would be ceded to the Palestinians anyway but without relinquishing military co ... view full comment
Ginzy, that was a nice post, and thanks for the helpful links to the WSJ articles. You should be a blogger in your spare time with your hyperlinking skills. Although you and I don't see eye to eye on many Israeli issues, you are always thorough and fair in your points and are a great debater. I also concur with your analysis of the general views of the Israeli public on the Palestinians, Iran and other things. And, for the record, my views of the conflict are probably closest to Kadima's and definitely not Meretz or the Yossi Beilin wing of Labor -- though I would take steps now to close down settlements that would be ceded to the Palestinians anyway but without relinquishing military control of the West Bank.
One thing I would like to note is that the Cordesman article to which you link, and the longer paper he published, really do not support the optimistic view that Israel can realistically degrade Iran's nuclear program or missile forces by acting alone. Cordesman's conclusion is that for Israel the better thing to do would be to improve its missile defense and second strike capability and basically hold Tehran to a MAD scenario, bad as that may be. I fully agree with him on this point, as well as the point that it does do Israel some good now to act as if it is willing to attack Iran even if Israel can't realistically hope to prevail so as to keep the Iranians off balance.
ginzy, I wasn't sure what you meant, hence I asked. The ellipsis made it look as if you were quoting all of wildboy's comment included therein.
That said, thanks for the clarification on multiple levels. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the settlement issue and thus feel significantly less than competent to say anything about it.
I agree with your assessment of the Palestinian history of turning down opportunities, as I noted in my original comment.
ginzy, I wasn't sure what you meant, hence I asked. The ellipsis made it look as if you were quoting all of wildboy's comment included therein.
That said, thanks for the clarification on multiple levels. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the settlement issue and thus feel significantly less than competent to say anything about it.
I agree with your assessment of the Palestinian history of turning down opportunities, as I noted in my original comment.