Israel's former failed prime minister and current defense minister, Ehud Barak, is now saying that PM Netanyahu
will present the U.S. administration a diplomatic plan in line with the principle of "two states for two nations" during his upcoming visit to Washington.
Until now, Netanyahu has refused to commit himself to agreeing with the Obama administration that statehood for the Palestinians is the way forward for peace. So now, Barak is indicating Netanyahu may be a bit "flexible" on the statehood issue. (Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, however, remains strongly opposed. Oops.)But here's the thing. It is not the word "state" that's important, regarding the outcome. South Africa's Bantustans were also called "states", remember.
It is the content of the sovereignty and decision-making powers, the independence of the decision-making process, and the territorial and economic foundations that support this independence that are important.
So people should not get hung up on the word "state"-- and certainly, they shouldn't suddenly rush to crown Netanyahu with a peacemaker's laurels if he should deign to say the Palestinians might be able to have one.
Look at the content of any proposal made, not just its name.
A couple other things to bear in mind:
1. Past PM Olmert also said he believed in a Palestinian "state." His concept of it was very restrictive, including of course territorially. The fact that he accepted the notion of a Palestinian state did not mean his proposals regarding the final settlement were in any way acceptable.
2. Ten years ago, Barak won a strong victory in the polls against Netanyahu, and replaced him as PM. On that occasion, Barak won by promising Israelis that he was the man who could conclude a final peace with the Palestinians "within six to nine months." Eighteen months later his premiership collapsed into chaos with that pledge still unfulfilled.
Worse than that, the peremptory and bullying way he conducted his peace "diplomacy" with the Palestinians ensured that the Camp David II summit was a disaster. Barak then loudly blamed PA leader Yasser Arafat for the failure and said Israel "had no partner for peace." (Clinton, quite shamefully, completely backed him up on that.)
Leaders and activists in the real Israeli peace movement say that Barak's behavior at that time was a stab in the heart for their movement, from which it has still, nine years later, not recovered.
This time, Barak is "promising" that the Netanyahu government will have peace with the Palestinians "within three years." He has no credibility.
-mr
No comments:
Post a Comment