Where There's Will, There's a Way

September 01, 2010

Nicholas Berry

George Will, that is.

And the way is the use of Will by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to let the Obama administration and the American people know what to expect from the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations beginning August 2. Will, a compliant sycophant, has faithfully carried out his assignment in a series of Washington Post op-eds sent from Jerusalem.

They began on August 12 with “Israel’s Anti-Obama,” followed on the 15th with “Israel’s Best Defense,” the 19th with “Skip the Lectures on Israel’s ‘Risks for Peace,’” the 22nd with “The Two State Delusion,” and finally the “The Mideast Mirage” on the 26th.

Netanyahu’s purpose seems to be that Israel has good reasons not to make peace with the Palestinians, and he wants Washington and the American people to understand and accept its reasons. His messages via Will, have certainly lowered expectations that a final settlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state is in the cards.

However, it is just possible that spreading gloom is a set-up for a dramatic Israeli proposal to change the dynamic between Israel and the two Palestinian entities – Gaza and the West Bank. More on this later.

For now, the messages propagated by Will, while clearly propaganda, do present accurately the policy positions of the Israeli government regardless of the historical accuracy supporting them.

• Contrary to what President Obama said in his Cairo speech, Palestinians do not suffer what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust, are not victims, and Israel is not the “victimizer.”
• Israel believes there is a campaign to “deligitimize” it so that it cannot defend itself; all Israeli action in its conflicts with Arabs have been in self-defense.
• Israelis have never known an hour of real peace in its 62 years since its founding. “Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.”
• “Rhetoric about a ‘two-state solution’ is de rigueur. It is also delusional …”
• Israel will take military action if Iran’s nuclear program is not stopped. Washington has been “warned.”
• There will be no Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Such a withdrawal “would bring Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion Airport within range of the short-range rockets fired by persons overlooking the runways.” West Bank television is “incessantly inculcating anti-Semitism and denial of Israel’ right to exist.” Israel doesn’t need another Gaza.
• Obama and Gen. David Petraeus are wrong when they say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is having a negative effect on the U.S. strategic context. “The Obama administration may yet make matters worse by presenting its own plan for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.”
• The peace process is a fraud. “The biggest threat to peace might be the peace process – or more precisely, the illusion of one” if all Washington does is “extorting concessions from Israel. The 10-month moratorium on settlement construction will end September 27 and “Jerusalem is outside the discussion.”

There is a “but.”

Although Netanyahu from all his years in politics sees Obama as the least compliant president to Israeli interests, he cannot so brazenly oppose the American leader and the peace process. He knows that he is the key player – not Abbas, Obama, or anyone else – in determining the future of Arab-Israeli relations. So he can make a gesture that has the appearance of an Israeli-Palestinian accord. Netanyahu has told his cabinet that he will “surprise” the skeptics and pursue the core elements of a deal.

My guess is this: he will offer to make the West Bank, in effect, a principality of Israel. Not a state but rather an internally self-governing entity, with borders and external relations under the firm control of Israel. The West Bank, under Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has brought a measure of security and economic development to the area that seems poised to run itself, thus Netanyahu’s proposal would appear a step forward.

Of course, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority would have to reject the offer, for these reasons. For Abbas, it would be a continuation of Israel’s traditional strategy of dividing the Palestinians, which began over three decades ago when Israel provided material support to Hamas in order to split it from Fatah and thus weaken the Palestinian enemy. The proposal, by dividing the Palestinians, would appear to be a sell-out if accepted, and the Palestinian street would shift dramatically toward Hamas. Finally, a dependent principality is not a state and would be no substitute for a state.

Of course, Netanyahu knows his proposal would be a non-starter. He is setting up the Palestinians to do his bidding.

Propaganda in Israel and the United States would then place the onus for failure squarely on the recalcitrant and militant Palestinian Authority, supposedly the more moderate of the Palestinian divide.

Settlement activity would resume. Washington would cease its senseless peace initiative. Palestinian radicalism would soar, setting the stage for what some experts believe will lead to a civil war in which Israel can transfer the defeated Palestinians across the Jordan. The conflict is all about land, it must be remembered, and a militarily robust and oriented Israel has the power to take it.

I could be dead wrong about all this. Then again, my reading of the historic course of the conflict tells me I could very well be right.

Nicholas Berry is Director of Foreign Policy Forum