Bibi's SpeechMike Rappaport

My initial reaction is to agree with John Hinderaker that Prime Minister Netanyahu took the proper line in his speech on Sunday.  He laid out the facts that cannot be denied: that the Palestinians have never accepted Israel, that this is the principal obstacle to peace in the region, and that a Palestinian state without the conditions he outlined would inevitably turn into another Gaza, that is, a Hamastan. 

It is also true that this position diverges from that of President Obama and that of the Palestinians.  But these views are recipes for turning the West Bank into another Hamastan.  And that just shows how wrong their views are.

The hard part for Netanyahu will be maintaining this line in the face of opposition and attack.  The withdrawal from Gaza was a questionable call that I supported (although not the way it was implemented).  But the big advantage of the withdrawal is that it shows anyone who is willing to look what could be expected from the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. 

If I were a White House Reporter, I would ask President Obama, if he disagrees with Netanyahu's speech, what he can do to prevent any new Palestinian state from becoming a Hamastan.  It is clear that there is nothing he could do short of imposing something like Netanyahu's conditions.  Hope and change, smoke and mirrors, just won't cut it as an answer.

Comments

[Matt]

I don't see anything viable in his speech. How can there be a 'state' if it has no control over its borders, no right to a military, no control over its airspace, and no promise from Israel to remove the settlements that are in the West Bank. That's just rediculous. Its a non-starter and not a real peace offer. Essentially, he is setting up the peace process to fail, because no Palestinian leader, or any leader of any people, would accept a 'sovereign' state on such terms.

Regarding the fact that Palestinians 'have never accepted Israel,' this is a pretty weak statement. After all, the Israelis have never accepted a Palestinian state either. So to say that that is the principal obstacle to peace in the region is misleading.

[The Masked Defender]

During the 20th Century, Israel was unfairly foisted upon Arabs; the UN partition plan of 1948 gave 50% of the land to Israel when they, even then, had only 3% of the legally present population (the actual size of the Jewish population was still only 20%, 85% of whom had immigrated illegally in violation of the British Mandate. (cf. "Exodus"). That the Arabs have heroically fought this injustice and lost again and again does not the diminish what happened to them.

However, the victorious powers of WW I and WW II had the power to commit this injustice by force of arms just as all territory is ultimately won and held.

The permanent solution is to create a UN World Heritage Zone comprising greater Israel-Palestine and govern it like a international park. Otherwise, the Jews will to continue the illegal occupation that has afforded them land in the past; and the Arabs will continue to fight for justice. Only now, the Iranians will give the Israelis a real fight. Note: Israel is not our ally; we serve them thus far via AIPAC. Were they our ally they'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan, dying along side us.

TMD

[Jonathan]

Great ideas in the comments. While we're at it let's undo the Indian partition. Let the UN administer the resulting paradise. It does such a good job elsewhere.

The Arabs are losers here because they were on the losing side of the First World War, then they rejected the initial UN Palestine partition deal, then they started multiple wars against Israel and lost, then they were offered an insanely generous settlement by the Israelis in 2000 and rejected it, and started another war that they lost... Could there be a pattern here? But never mind, it's more fun to blame the Jews/Israelis/Americans/Europeans.

Jewish nationalism is the real problem. We can't have those Jews living as a majority in their own country. That would deprive one of the approximately thirty glorious Arab countries that were created arbitrarily since WW2 of a small part of its territory. For that matter we can't allow the Jews to live as a minority in a Palestinian Arab state. That just isn't done. Hebron must be judenrein. But if the Jews object that this attitude raises questions about whether the Arabs really want peace, well, we should summarily dismiss their concerns and call them imperialists or something.

[Floridan]

Jonathan: "The Arabs are losers here because they were on the losing side of the First World War . . . "

Actually, many Arabs supported the Allies in World War I as a way to overthrow Turkish domination (remember Lawrence of Arabia?). The Arab expectations of a national state(s) were dashed by the Sikes-Picot Agreement, under which France and Great Britain took direct control of what is today Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories, among other areas in the Middle East.

[Jonathan]

Yes, you are right. That was a cheap shot and inaccurate. The Ottomans lost and many Arabs sided with the victors. However, I think that my argument, so corrected, still stands.