They may not be your style, but it is worth considering the words, if not the tone of two items.
One is a video clip being passed around about Jerusalem. It makes the point that worthies of the world did not exercise any of their might, or even much of their voice when Arabs denied access for Jews to the Western Wall, shot at civilians, and desecrated Jewish holy sites in the Old City between 1948 and 1967. Only when Israel governed Jerusalem in a more humane way after 1967 did those same worthies cry foul and demand Israel's withdrawal. The clip is not of high quality technically, and its style is higher on the scale of shrill than might be preferred. Nevertheless, it makes the point of demands that are two headed or even worse. Not only do the world powers insist on change disproportionately for Israel, but whatever violations of decent behavior Israel has committed are substantially less than those committed by the Arabs.
The second item is Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech in response to President Obama. Again, the style is not one that may appeal to all those who think of themselves as supporters of Israel. The tone was confrontational and the demands he associated with a Palestinian state likely to dissuade Arabs from entering negotiations. The response even from Arabs thought to be moderate was rejection, and recitation of postures sure to dissuade Israelis from trying to reach an agreement. Like the video clip, however, the details of Netanyahu's speech make sense. They emphasize the violence Israel has experienced, and concern for what would happen if it agreed to a Palestinian state without severe conditions. Even the Palestinians in nominal control of the West Bank (being propped up by Israel) continue anti-Jewish incitement, while the stronger political force of Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction.
The response of the Economist to Netanyahu's speech repeats the double standard described in the video clip about Jerusalem. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13862529&source=hptextfeature
Its article treats the prime minister with scorn.
"Binyamin Netanyahu spat out the required pair of words. They were welcome; but unless he shows a greater readiness to negotiate in good faith, his belated move will turn out to be pointless.
Mr Netanyahu hedged his acceptance of two states with conditions, promises and evasions. He turned a deaf ear to Mr Obama's demand that the building and expansion of Jewish settlements on the land that must become part of that Palestinian state must stop. Despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel make up a fifth of the population, he demanded, as a new precondition for negotiations, that the Palestinians must acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, which is code for their renouncing in advance the right of any Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. He insisted on a series of curbs and limitations on a putative Palestinian state that would deprive it of sovereignty. He said that Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want to be a shared city and capital of their new state, must stay united under Israeli control. Mr Netanyahu, who opposed the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip four years ago, made no hint that he would hand back any Palestinian territory that might make Israel's border less 'defensible'"
.
Like President Obama in Cairo, the Economist also noted the need for the Palestinians and other Arabs to carry part of the load toward peace. This is a significant difference from the comparison in the video clip between the world's treatment of Arab behavior before 1967 and Israeli behavior after 1967. The progress is welcome, but Israelis may be forgiven the concern that the pressure on them will be greater than on the Palestinians, despite the persistence of threats and violence from Palestinians more heinous than Israeli efforts at defense.
Hosni Mubarak's has weighed in with editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He praises President Obama for presenting a unique opportunity, and says that he expects flexibility from the Arab side to match that of Israel. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536741783129309.html
Israelis will be hoping to hear something equivalent in Arabic, directed to those who do not read the Wall Street Journal.
The results of the recent Israeli election will not make it easy for those who are certain that pushing the Israelis to be accommodating will bring the Palestinians along. If Netanyahu's comments about settlements were not clear enough in response to Americans' demands for a total freeze, Foreign Minister Lieberman spoke like the Russian that he is. "We are not prepared to strangle our own people" was his way of responding to Secretary of State Clinton while standing next to her.
Perhaps the American response to all this is what George Mitchell said, i.e., that he wants the "prompt resumption and early conclusion" of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The comment came after his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, and may be nothing more than verbal fluff meant to mask failure trying to speak with Israelis and Palestinians mutually deaf to American overtures.
Even those who are not comfortable with the prime minister's style must admit that he is speaking for a sizable constituency. A month ago, the tilt of Israeli public opinion was to view Barack Obama as pro-Israel. A poll taken after the speeches of the two leaders finds 6 percent thinking the American administration is pro-Israel, and 50 percent thinking it is pro-Palestinian. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/poll-israelis-obama-pro-palestinian/
For those hoping that Israel can be pushed without pushing back, it is wise to consider the country's strength, and how the one democracy in the Middle East voted in the recent election.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il