by Rabbi Alan Silverstein

July 9, 2009

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been denigrated by the international media as “hard line” and “hawkish.” His policies have not received impartial treatment. People aspire to drive him from office on the assumption that a more dovish Tzippi Livni is waiting in the wings.

Yet as Israel’s democratically elected leader, Benjamin Netanyahu is entitled to be heard, certainly by American Jews. His public statements and actions should be considered within context.

Netanyahu’s call for a demilitarized Palestinian state has been dismissed as outrageous, unprecedented, and a deal-breaker. In reality, however, a “demilitarized” Palestine was a cornerstone throughout the highly acclaimed Oslo Peace Process. In describing a final-status peace agreement, Bill Clinton wrote: “The new state of Palestine was to be `non-militarized,’ but would have a strong security force… [and] an international force for border security and deterrence.”

The Prime Minister’s insistence upon Israel as “a Jewish State” is belittled as “unprecedented” and “radical.” Yet the basic premise of Oslo was Jews and Palestinians accepting one another, both as “a people” and as deserving of independent states. The motto of “two states for two people” continued to be operative post-Oslo. In June 2003, standing alongside an applauding President George H.W. Bush, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affirmed the goal of “a democratic Palestinian state full at peace with… Israel as a Jewish state.”

So, too, Yossi Beilin and other dovish Israeli participants in the 2003 Geneva Initiative insisted upon Israel as a “bayit leumi,” a national home for the Jewish people.

So, too, Mr. Netanyahu’s approach toward West Bank settlements has been dismissed as “unyielding” and “expansionist.” In fact, to the dismay of members of his coalition, he has compromised: committing to dismantle many illegal West Bank outposts, to remove some checkpoints, and to hand over control of four additional West Bank towns to Palestinian security. Mr. Netanyahu also outraged Israeli hawks by asserting that during this period of negotiations “we have no intention of building new settlements [in the West Bank] or expropriating additional land for existing settlements.”

Netanyahu also aroused global disdain by refusing to forbid “natural increases” within existing settlements. Yet, he knows that ending “natural increases” without an agreed upon list of which settlements are in question would cause his government to fall. Why? An unspecified commitment would be applied not only to the West Bank but also to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, and to all Jewish neighborhoods inside the former Jordanian sector of Jerusalem.

His coalition partners point instead to the Bush/Sharon agreements of 2004, endorsed by both houses of the US Congress. President Bush affirmed that, “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

Additionally, Netanyahu detractors claim that he is ignoring international obligations. Most notably, the Saudi Peace Plan’s insistence upon Israel’s unilateral return to the precise borders of June 4, 1967 claims to be based on UN Resolution 242. However, Eugene Rostow, one of the resolution’s key framers, has written that 242 indicates that “when peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day Way — not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories…leaving the issue of dividing the occupied areas…entirely to the agreement of the parties.”

Furthermore, Netanyahu is criticized for asserting that the full solution to the Palestinian refugee issue not be fulfilled “inside the State of Israel.” The Arab nations incorrectly demand that all Palestinian refugees of 1948 be “repatriated” within pre-1967 Israel, citing UN Resolution 194. Yet, in 1949 the Arab League originally opposed 194. Why? They were alarmed that it applied both to Arab refugees and to Jewish refugees (from Arab lands), and that it did not exclusively mandate refugee “repatriation” into previous places of residence. Instead, UN 194 offered a range: “repatriation [to original homes], resettlement [elsewhere] and payments of compensation.”

In sum, Prime Minister Netanyahu has offered an Israeli centrist starting-point for peace talks.

Excessive U.S. pressure for additional unilateral concessions might lead to new elections, but to charges of “tampering” as well. With only 6 percent of Israelis regarding President Obama as “pro-Israel,” according to a Jerusalem Post poll, disgruntled voters might turn not to Ms. Livni but further to the Right. The policies of the Israeli Prime Minister merit the benefit of the doubt.

Rabbi Alan Silverstein, religious leader of Congregation Agudath Israel of West Essex in Caldwell, is also chair of the Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel.

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--