Britannia Radio

Fundamentally Freund: The Right's knuckleheaded response

Jun. 16, 2009
Michael Freund , THE JERUSALEM POST

Even for a leadership well-versed in rejecting Israel's outstretched hand of peace, the Palestinians wasted little time Sunday night in denouncing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's bold diplomatic address.

Just moments after the conclusion of the speech, in which Netanyahu offered conditional support for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state, various Palestinian leaders made a mad dash for the microphones, seemingly competing with one another to scale new heights of vitriol and hyperbole.

Indeed, while it may have taken the premier 25 minutes to deliver his remarks, it took chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat barely five minutes to get on Al-Jazeera right afterward and declare that "in a thousand years no Palestinian leader will accept this." How nice to see that Israel's new proposals were given such careful and thoughtful consideration.

Shortly thereafter, PLO executive committee secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo decided to join the fray, maligning the prime minister as "a swindler, a fraud and a liar" and labeling his speech "a zero." Others, such as legislator Mustafa Barghouti and spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh, hammered away at the speech, insisting that it proved that Israel was not serious about peace.

Given the haste and harshness of the reaction, one would assume that Israel's Right would have looked on this turn of events with glee. After all, if Ramallah reacted with such wrath, then certainly the people in Ofra and Otniel should be overjoyed, don't you think? Yet that is clearly not the case, as a number of right-wing figures have come out solidly against the speech, invoking terms such as "betrayal."

WHICH IS WHY I cannot help but ask: How is it that some on the Right just don't seem to get it? Take, for example, National Union MK Arye Eldad, who made the rather obtuse accusation that Netanyahu's speech proved that he was "converting from his own religion."

"With the expression 'a demilitarized Palestinian state,' Netanyahu is trying to eat a pig butchered in a kosher way," Eldad helpfully added.

Putting aside this rather odd choice of culinary metaphors, Eldad seems to have missed the point entirely. The fact is that Netanyahu's speech was masterfully crafted, not only in terms of style and structure, but especially in terms of content. It was the perfect rejoinder to the pressure from Washington, essentially turning the tables on the Palestinians and immediately transforming them into the rejectionists.

ANY FAIR-MINDED OBSERVER who listened to the speech, or merely read it afterward, could not help but come away impressed by two main themes: A sincere desire for peace, alongside the undeniable historical rights which underpin the existence of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu made a compelling case against territorial withdrawals, wryly noting that the assertion they will bring peace "has up till now not stood the test of reality." Moreover, he offered his listeners a concise yet crucial historical survey of modern Arab opposition to the very existence of a Jewish presence in this region.

And when was the last time that a prime minister offered such a compelling defense of the Jewish people's right to be here? With regard to the issue of a Palestinian state, Netanyahu succeeded in outwitting US President Barack Obama at his own game, using his considerable rhetorical skills to marshal an unprecedented consensus among the public.

Think about it: Netanyahu's speech was essentially an intellectual frontal assault on the most cherished of the Left's beliefs. For years, it has been trying to convince the public of the wisdom of establishing an unchecked sovereign Palestinian entity, in the process blaming Israel for much of the conflict because of its failure to do just that.

And, unfortunately, it has had a great deal of success.

UNTIL NOW, that is. For what Netanyahu has done is to seize the reins of the argument, and inject a healthy dose of realism into the debate. By conditioning the creation of a Palestinian state on comprehensive demilitarization, he has shown just how utterly utopian, and unrealistic, the Left's dream truly is.

And by insisting on a set of entirely reasonable demands, such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the nation state of the Jewish people," and the negation of a Palestinian state's ability to forge military pacts or to control its airspace, he has recast the definition of "statehood" in such a way as to reduce the danger it would pose to our existence.

Only a knucklehead could fail to see this, but that is precisely what some on the Right so excel at doing. For all their ideological savvy, many seem to lack an equal level of political skill and sophistication.

I say this as a card-carrying member of the Right, and a proud proponent and firm believer in the divine promise of a Greater Israel.

As uncomfortable as they - and I - are with any talk of a possible Palestinian state, Netanyahu's critics need to recognize his speech as a great achievement, rather than view it as a source for concern. For the first time in a long time, the battle of ideas has been joined. So instead of attacking the prime minister, it is time for the Right to strengthen and defend him.

His speech on Sunday represents a subtle, yet seismic, shift in the country's stance, one that clearly places the burden on the Palestinian side to put up or shut up. And, as we know quite well from recent history, it won't be too hard to guess just which of those two paths it is likely to choose.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371115888&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

The pleasant-sounding myth of demilitarization

by Daniel Pinner

 

Well, Mr Netanyahu, you’ve finally done it. You’ve finally spoken the magic words, “a Palestinian state”. Of course you added the rider that “we cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without receiving guarantees that it will be demilitarized”.

            Powerful words, to be sure. Just a few questions spring to mind, chief among them: How you think you will enforce demilitarisation? You see, I remember that when you withdrew from Hebron back in January ’97, the agreement that you reached with Yasser Arafat (remember him?) stipulated that the Arab “policemen” who took over Hebron would be armed with nothing heavier than submachine-guns. The reason was obvious – submachine-guns would not threaten the Jews of Hebron (which in itself shows how much you yourself trusted your own peace partners). And I also remember that the very first uniformed terrorists who marched into Hebron that winter’s morning were armed with Galil assault rifles. But what were you going to do about it? – Cancel the hard-won Wye River Accord and invade Palestinian territory just because they were carrying the wrong weapons? Threaten to destroy the entire peace process just because of a technicality? – Of course not. So they got away with that violation, and just over four years later the 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass (Hy”d) paid the price when an Arab sniper, in the uniform that you authorised and the rifle that you could not prevent him from deploying, fired his fatal bullet into her tiny body from the area that you gave away.

            But what was the Israeli government going to do about it then? – Invade Hebron just because of one maverick? What are we – fanatics? Expansionists? Peace-haters?

            But of course, you have learned this lesson, which is why you added that “we ask the international community for an express commitment that the Palestinian state’s area will be demilitarized with effective measures – not like the ones in Gaza ”.

            Now this sounds good. “Effective measures” – like, say, an international agreement, guaranteed by Britain , France and the USA ? Do you remember the Sinai War (the Kadesh Campaign) back in 1956? At the end of October of that year, in 100 hours, Israel captured the entire Sinai Desert , including the Gaza Strip, from Egypt . Less than half a year later, in March 1957, we withdrew, and there was an internationally guaranteed agreement with Egypt that Gaza would remain demilitarised. Well, that agreement held up…for almost two complete days.

            But what was Israel going to do? – Start a whole new war against Egypt just because a few soldiers took up positions in Gaza City ? What are we – militarists?

            So we will have an agreement – solemn, internationally agreed, with “an express commitment” for “effective measures” – that Palestine will remain demilitarised. And what are we going to do when the first battalion of Palestinian soldiers take up their position in Hebron ? – Invade Palestine because 50 soldiers have marched into the Kasbah? What are we – ruthless occupiers?

            So when do we respond? When Palestine takes delivery of five T-74 tanks from Iraq ? Are you serious? Five obsolescent tanks hardly threaten Israel , so how are we ever going to justify this brutal death-blow to regional peace?

            And then Palestine will revive Atarot Airport in Jerusalem, which, of course, they will call Kalandia – the old Jordanian name (well, really an old Roman name, but let’s not quibble – one foreign occupier is much like another). Well, Israel cannot really object to a civilian airport, can she? After all, Palestine will be land-locked (the “West Bank” part, that is – Gaza is another story), so a civilian airport will be essential. True, the runway is barely 800 metres ( 2,600 feet , or under half a mile) from French Hill – but how can a small, provincial, civilian airport possibly threaten the country that boasts of having the most powerful air force in the Middle East ?

            And obviously, in this age of global terrorism, every airport in the world needs military protection. After all, even Heathrow Airport in London has military troops protecting it, and even tanks are deployed there on occasion. So how will Israel react when the first tanks and APCs are deployed in Kalandia Airport ? Will thatbe the time to invade Palestine ? Because of reasonable counter-terrorism security measures?

            And how will Israel respond when the Palestinian Air Force deploys its first Mig 23 in Kalandia? By invading the nascent Palestine ? What are we – expansionists? Brutal occupiers? Does Palestine not have the right to protect its sole international airport?

            And obviously, it is eminently reasonable that a modern airport – facing, as anywhere in the world, threats of terrorism, of a 9/11-style attack – needs anti-aircraft artillery to defend it. So how will Israel respond to Palestinian defensive measures against terrorists? – By invading? That hardly seems reasonable.

            And then, when the first Palestinian (or Syrian, or Iranian, or Hezbollah, or Jordanian, or Iraqi, or Saudi, or pan-Arab) artillery and anti-aircraft division moves into position on the mountain ridges overlooking Ben Gurion Airport – will that be the time to invade? When Saudi, Jordanian, and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Judea and Samaria back in 1967, Israel was able to launch first strike. Today that is impossible. Not any more: after all, when Jordanian and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Syria in 1973 to reinforce the attack on Yom Kippur of that year, Israel was not able to launch a first strike.

            Or will we wait until Egyptian tank brigades, reinforced by artillery and infantry, are deployed in the Gaza Strip? Then do we invade? And risk war against Egypt , Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Iraq , and the rest of the Arab League? Or do we sit quiet, and rely on the UN and diplomacy to protect us?

            Mr Prime Minister, the people of Israel really have a right to know how you intend to achieve something that no one in history has ever managed before. No demilitarisation agreement has ever held up when the intended demilitarised side has not wanted it to. From Germany which was demilitarised by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, to the Bosniaks who were theoretically demilitarised in the 1990’s; from the Tanggu Truce which established a demilitarized zone between Japan and China in Manchukuo in 1933, to the Iraqi/Saudi neutral zone; from the Korean demilitarized zone, created by the UN in 1953 to separate North Korea from South Korea, to the demilitarized zone between North and South Vietnam established in 1954 by the Geneva Conference – every single demilitarization agreement was guaranteed by an “express commitment” that the area in question would be “demilitarized with effective measures”.

            These were all guaranteed by the most powerful forces that the international community could muster – Great Britain , the USA , the UN, and the Soviet Union . So again, Mr Netanyahu, the people of Israel have a right to know: How do you plan to achieve an enforceable demilitarization for the first time ever in world history?

            And more to the point: How do you propose that Israel react when the other side violates the demilitarization agreement? Will you, or any other Israeli prime minister, ever dare to authorise a full-scale military invasion of Palestine just because of a technical violation? Or will you, or some future Israeli prime minister, have to wait for it to be too late before responding, as invariably happened in the past?

            Or will you simply ignore these issues, and instead use the awesome power of the Supreme Court and the police to forcibly silence anyone who dares ask these questions?