The Skeptic الشكاك

69 Bye-bye, Bibi

While we’re on the subject of The Entity, I should note what strikes me as the first good news to come out of that neck of the woods in as long as I can remember: Kadima and Labor trounced Likud, Netanyahu and the rest of the Greater Israel gang in the elections.

I hate talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hate thinking about it. I decided long ago that the less I think about it, the healthier I will be.

But I grudgingly recognize it’s important. I’ll even recognize that it’s important to understand Israeli politics. So from time to time I talk to an American Zionist, neocon reporter I know here and try to pump him for insights into Israeli politics. He portrayed the election results as the final political death of the notion of a Greater Israel. Israeli voters, he said, emphatically sent the message that they want the settlements dismantled. Yes, the disengagement would be unilateral, but the “peace process” wasn’t working, and Israeli voters said the current situation could not continue while politicians (and now Hamas politicians) tried or didn’t try to get it back on track. He further said that he expects Netanyahu’s paper tiger to be crumpled now. Previously, he represented the right-wing of the ruling Likud party, and it wasn’t clear (in Washington, anyway) if Israeli voters shared his views. Now his hand has been tipped, and he’s got nothing.

You know what? He’s right. True, the disengagement plan cannot be a final solution. True, it’s not a state. True, life will still be miserable for the Palestinians. But it’s a step in the right direction. Negotiate the next steps. How can any sane person see the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank as a bad thing? Let’s be realistic: a fair, negotiated peace deal wasn’t on the horizon. Perhaps it’s still not. But it may be closer now.

[tags]Israel, elections, Netanyahu[/tags]

2 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I read you’re blog quite regularly and although I don’t always agree, I usually find you’re arguments sound.

   But here I think you’re more or less off the mark. The unilateral “withdrawal” in West Bank, will, unlike that off Gaza, be a withdrawal to secure the main pieces of settled land, more or less in co-ordinance with the wall. So de facto even more of Palestine than already today will be made “Israel”.

   Best, Lars.

   Comment by Lars A. — March 30, 2006 #

2. Thanks for reading, Lars, and thanks for the comment. You’re absolutely right: it would be an outrage and a tragedy if the Israeli government succeeded in unilaterally annexing the best land of the West Bank, leaving the Palestinians surrounded and unable to lift a finger without Israeli say-so.

   I don’t think the Gaza disengagement is a model. If this is what Israel has in mind for the West Bank, and if they think it will work, they’re wrong.

   But I still think that if this means Palestinians who previously had to deal with settlers and soldiers no longer do, that’s a step in the right direction. I still think the mature response to the unilateral disengagement plan is “We applaud this as a first step, and we look forward to negotiating the next steps.” Refuse to recognize even the possibility that this is an acceptable final solution. Outright rejection of real gains just alows the Israelis to complain that the Palestinians are irridentist and not interested in negotiating a peace.

   Comment by Administrator — March 30, 2006 #

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

I'm Reading: