A biweekly feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.
1.) As an ongoing corruption investigation puts Ehud Olmert at great risk, there is increasing discussion in the Israeli press as to who might be the next prime minister. Although Tzipi Livni, the current foreign minister, has often been mentioned as the favorite, some opposition figures have hinted that her gender makes her unfit to deal with a fractured and violent Palestinian leadership, a rising Hezbollah power, and a lurking Iranian threat. Writing in Ynet News, columnist Emmanuel Rosen suggests that it’s an idea that is “being whispered behind closed doors or conveyed in anonymous briefings with journalists.” Nonetheless, he concludes, such rumors are unlikely to undercut Livni’s prominence as an up-and-coming leader, particularly given that the “men around her do not quite arouse any appetite or a sense of security among potential voters.”
2.) Palestinian negotiators have rejected an Israeli plan to hand over all but 8.5% of the West Bank. According to an article by the Associated Press (and reprinted in Haaretz), the previous offer involved Israeli control over 12% of the territory. Interestingly, the AP article, with the headline “Palestinians Reject Israeli Offer to Hand Over 91.5% of West Bank,” seems to suggest that the Palestinian negotiators turned down a very generous proposal; only near the bottom, however, is it reported that such a deal would not even have included the return of East Jerusalem, a central demand of the Palestinians.
3.) There are indications of efforts to mend fences between Fatah and Hamas leaders, as Abbas met today with a high-level Hamas delegation in Ramallah. “The Hamas officials who met with Abbas on Monday told him that they were keen on mending fences with his Fatah faction in the same way the warring Lebanese factions solved their differences earlier this week in Qatar.” (Jerusalem Post)
4.) As debate in this country takes place over the legitimacy of negotiating with Iran, Israel is having a similar discussion about recent peace overtures towards Damascus. Political analyst MJ Rosenberg, writing in the Jerusalem Post, makes a compelling case for dialogue with the Syrians:
There are those (and they have been quite vocal lately) who say that engaging in negotiations is a gift to the other side and that negotiating is a form of surrender. What hogwash! In 1971, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt told the Israelis that if Israel would pull back two miles from the Suez Canal, Egypt would open negotiations on a full peace treaty. President Richard Nixon told Prime Minister Golda Meir to explore the offer and that if she didn’t, Egypt would probably go to war. Meir said “no,” Israel was strong and didn’t fear Egypt. So Sadat prepared for war.
Two years later Egypt attacked. Israel lost 3,000 soldiers and almost the state itself. Only then did it agree to negotiations that ultimately led to the Camp David agreement, which has saved countless Israeli and Egyptian lives over three decades. It also led Israel to a situation where it relinquished not a few miles of Sinai but every last inch. In other words, it is not diplomacy that rewards aggressors and would be aggressors. It is the absence of diplomacy or inept diplomacy.
…Ehud Olmert understands that. He is negotiating with the Syrians to achieve a verifiable agreement that will compel Syria to get out of Lebanon, end its support for Hizbullah and its role as Iranian proxy on Israel’s border. The strategic value of the Golan would be replaced by early warning systems, demilitarized zones, and international monitors.
5.) Responding to critics, Jeremy Ben-Ami, the director of J Street, suggests that the dovish Israel lobby actually represents mainstream Jewish-American opinion.
Making clear the diversity of views among American Jews and their friends who care about Israel is the point of J Street. No one has a monopoly on speaking for this community when it comes to Israel – certainly not the neoconservatives who’ve driven American foreign policy into the ground for seven and a half years…Let’s remember, as a starting point, that mainstream American Jews are, by and large, progressive Democrats – despite the best efforts of the Republican Jewish Coalition and their allies at the New Republic. They voted twice – and by increasing margins – against George W. Bush, the man some on the right would call “Israel’s best friend.” When it comes to Iraq, American Jews have consistently opposed the war (by 60-70% depending on the poll….
Now, American Jews oppose military action against Iran even to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons (57%-35%, according to the 2007 American Jewish Committee Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion). And, contrary to anecdotal news coverage from diners on Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, American Jews are favoring Obama over McCain by two to one (Gallup poll, May 7, 2008).
This strong progressive streak among American Jews in politics generally and Middle East policy in particular carries over into the sensible views that a large percentage of the community holds when it comes to Israel as well. The 2007 American Jewish Committee survey finds that a plurality (46% – 43%) of American Jews favor establishment of a Palestinian state “in the current situation” using the words of the survey. Other polls which put the two-state solution in a more positive context, say as part of a negotiated final status agreement, find support can run as high as 80 percent.
6.) Barry Rubin, writing in the Jerusalem Post, has a fascinating op-ed in which he argues that regardless of whether or not Israeli-Syrian negotiations should be encouraged, they are certain not to succeed. The Israelis, he writes, have several reasons for engaging in such peace overtures: amongst them is an effort by Olmert to make himself continue to appear relevant, provide Syria with a reason to show restraint in its support for militant groups, and strengthen relations with Turkey (which is playing an intermediary role). On the Syrian side, according to Rubin, Damascus is willing to flirt with such talks because it will undercut international support for its continued isolation and divert attention from Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Neither party, however, is fundamentally serious about achieving an agreement.