Today's borders are the 'indefensible' ones

 

Editorial Staff - May 23, 2011

Lots of high-sounding words were uttered over the weekend. There was U.S. President Barack Obama's speech, in which he welcomed the civil revolutions in the Middle East and sketched the outlines of the best diplomatic plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then came the unabashed longing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for peace on his terms. But the cascades of verbiage did not produce concord between Israel and the United States - to the point where it's hard to decide which disagreement is greater, between Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and the United States. Continue Reading here >>>



DECONSTRUCTION:
The latest anti-Netanyahu editorial to come out of Haaretz bases it’s argument on the empty juvenile logic “I know you are but what am I”. The misgivings the editors of Haaretz import on the Israeli Prime Minister is more a knee jerk response that inverts the arguments then offering any fresh perspective on the momentous happenings in Washington or the wider Palestinian conflict.

1.The article opens with characterizing Netanyahu’s desire for peace narrowly, being on “his terms.” He is the only elected leader in the Middle East, so one would expect, that yes, “his terms” does carry more weight then most persons on the subject. But doesn’t Abbas have “his terms” as well, return of refugee’s to Israel, unity government with Hamas, and the refusal to accept Israel as the Jewish State. Even Obama has “his terms” which he happened to deliver while the Israeli PM was on route to meet with him.

2. The article’s hyperbole becomes clear with the claim that Netanyahu’s disagreements in diplomacy with Obama are somehow greater then an implacable Palestinian Authority who delegitimizes Israel by day and terrorizes by night. “It's hard to decide which disagreement is greater, between Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and the United States.” A patently absurd statement given the reality meant only to evoke an emotional response, certainly not an intellectual one.

3.The editorial falsely posits that Netanyahu instigated the clash, “Netanyahu's decision to have Israel clash with Obama.” Even Obama stated that this clash was his doing. In his speech to AIPAC the very next day, he admitted as much, saying that his remarks on Israeli borders was expected to illicit a blowback. The paragraph ends by more of the editorials scare-mongering, claiming that this clash “remove the only protective wall Israel has left and sacrifice the country's future.” Israel has many layers of defense and though US support is very important, Haaretz makes Israel sound like a banana republic, not a first world democracy with one of the strongest militaries in the world. Charging Netanyahu as sacrificing Israeli security for ideology, this is quite a stretch. The left for the past two decades has surrendered security for deluded peace ideology; from oslo that led to an empowered 2nd intifada to a Gaza retreat that led to Hamastan. We see who are the insensible ideologues that disregards security that has pushed this conflict to the brink. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is trying to restore security to the dialogue, neglected by previous Israeli governments.

4. Again the opinion smacks itself in the face where it writes, “control of the Jordan Valley or the construction of thousands of homes in East Jerusalem do not remove the Iranian threat, prevent the firing of Qassam rockets or end Hezbollah's willingness to fire missiles at Israel.” The lack of enquiry is clear, Israeli retreats have brought Iran to Gaza, and rockets on Ashkelon (100,000 civilian pop.) and further retreat brought Hezbollah to Israel’s northern border. Whereas having strategic ground (the Golan Heights) has prevented Syria from attempting hostilities against Israel for over 38 years, Israel’s presence in the West Bank has prevented the palestinians from duplicating Gaza and its presence in the Jordan Valley has fostered a peaceful border with its neighbor Jordan.

5. The opinion then seeks to establish Israel’s security and borders as dependent on international validation. A spurious logic that defeats its previous point of ideology over security, putting international popularity in place of actual borders, recognized or not. Though it would be great to have recognized borders, having those defensible borders cannot be traded for paper and promise. Israel would be inviting greater aggression if it had undefensible borders, not if the borders are not recognized.

6. As for “occupation as a means for defense”, Israel has offered Palestinian’s on more then 5 occasions Palestinian self-rule only to be rejected with increased demands, duplicitous diplomacy and greater terror. Israel has made it more then clear its desire for Palestinians autonomy, the Palestinian on the other hand, have shown nothing, but rejection, implacability and violence. Of course none of this is mentioned in Haaretz’s snapshot journalism.
7.The opinion ends in a violent flurry calling Netanyahu a nationalist set upon “deception” of the U.S. and Israel. This ad hominem attack is made in spite of Netanyahu’s clear desire for peace manifested in word and deed (Bar Ilan speech, 10 month moratorium, and de facto building freeze in E. Jerusalem). This attack engineers the pre-fab conclusion at the heart of this rant; that Israel’s elected leader is the real threat to Israel. Not a near nuclear Iran, not a rocket wielding Hezbollah, or the rocket launching Hamas, but Netanyahu is the threat because he refuses the over simplified ivory tower equation that sacrifices its security for the hope of an illusive peace.