9
GO easy on Benjamin Netanyahu, folks. Does he really deserve all the calumny that has been heaped on him in recent days for plainly admitting that a Palestinian state was unimaginable under his administration? Did anyone suspect otherwise? Seriously?
Netanyahu’s rare foray into honesty seems to have caught too many people off-guard. How could he have said such a thing, depriving the peace process of the last vestiges of a crutch?
It would be far more pertinent to ask: what peace process, exactly? Nothing of the kind has been in evidence for years. What were the grounds for assuming that beneath Bibi’s indubitable belligerence there lurked the soul of a peacemaker? Throughout the period that he has wielded power, his actions have made it abundantly clear that he had no intention whatsoever of ceding an inch of occupied territory.
No peace process has been in evidence for years.
The only surprise his pronouncement could possibly have caused related to a quality rare among Israeli (and, for that matter, most other) politicians: truthfulness.
Having acquired as much electoral mileage as possible out of that pronouncement, Netanyahu has backtracked, reverting to his previous public position of being geared to achieving a two-state solution when the conditions are conducive. Which, as far as he is concerned, translates as never.
The alternative of a one-state solution is equally unpalatable to the likes of Netanyahu. After all, that would entail either a non-Jewish state or an apartheid regime unrepresentative of almost half the population. The only alternative acceptable to his ilk is the status quo.
Except that the status quo is clearly not static: it is constantly being undermined by the expansion of Jewish settlements, also known as facts on the ground.
The Israeli prime minister went even further on election day by invoking the fear of Arab voters in order to drive his own supporters to the polling booth. But then again, what’s really new in this racist ploy? Has there ever been any doubt about what he thinks of Arabs?
The issue is not what Netanyahu says or doesn’t say. The issue is what Israel does. It’s been a very long time, in this respect, since the concept of ‘land for peace’ made any sense.
The United Nations has not been able to make a fuss about it for nearly 50 years because one particular Security Council member has Israel’s back. When President Barack Obama belatedly congratulated Netanyahu on retaining power, he is believed to have raised objections about the prime minister’s comments while reassuring the culprit of uninterrupted American support in cash and kind.
That, in effect, guarantees that nothing will change. Netanyahu was counting on this. Had there been any real prospect of the US suddenly refusing to bankroll Israeli intransigence, he might have toyed with a different tune.
There have been hints that the US could drop its resistance to token recognition of a Palestinian state. But what are the chances of such an outcome? The best that can be hoped for is that more European nations will live up to their ideals. And that the boycott, divestment and sanctions — BDS — campaign will gather pace. But even if expectations in this regard were to be met, would anything really change?
There is much to be said for a single-state solution, provided it is genuinely democratic. In which case it obviously can’t be a Jewish state. Many of those who have lately been berating Netanyahu understand this, and oppose it on the grounds that a state all Jews can call their own is a precious entity that ought not to be undermined by extremism.
It’s not difficult to understand where they are coming from. But the idea of a separate Palestinian state, ‘demilitarised’ or otherwise, is considerably more remote today than it seemed back in 1993. And the unexpected margin of Netanyahu’s victory has served merely to underline what already seemed obvious.
Likud’s triumph, admittedly, isn’t all that it has been made out to seem. Sure, it enhanced its Knesset seats from 18 to 30, which looks like a huge achievement, but almost all of that advantage can be accounted for by the seats it pinched from fellow travellers on the far right, confessional or otherwise.
Would it have made a huge difference had the Labour-led Zionist Union — the significance of its nomenclature is impossible to ignore — been able to position itself as the leading entity in a supposedly moderate coalition? In what respect do the two sides substantially differ, barring their rhetoric? Would an Israeli government that went to greater lengths to disguise its callous intentions have in any way been a better bet?
It’s hard to see how. Netanyahu’s ascendancy says it all. Whether Israel’s traditional allies will appreciate what last week’s election hath wrought, and accordingly adjust their tack, is a different question. Palestinians, however, could hardly have wished for a clearer demonstration of what they are up against.
Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
