The attitude of the Israeli government toward the United States in the last months of this American administration, with the outcome of the November elections in question, is an interesting phenomenon to watch. ADVERTISING The attitude of the Israeli government
The attitude of the Israeli government toward the United States in the last months of this American administration, with the outcome of the November elections in question, is an interesting phenomenon to watch.
It is basically a “free throw” period, in that Tel Aviv will face after November either another Democratic administration (not likely to be very different in its approach than that of the current one) or a different, Republican administration with at least a possibility of a more sympathetic approach but still an unknown.
In this lull, untrammeled by any reliable estimate of what Washington’s intentions toward it will be starting in January, Israel might be signaling what its real long-term intentions are. And the current actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government do not indicate favorable prospects for long-term peace in the Middle East — nor for an Israel living in safety and security in itself, or in the region.
The most disturbing element in Netanyahu’s government policies is the approval and financing it continues to grant settler construction in the West Bank.
There are already a half-million Israeli settlers in the occupied territory. If the Netanyahu government or any other Israeli government were to agree to a two-state resolution of the problem, with a homeland for the Palestinians, most of the land Netanyahu’s government is so readily providing settlers would have to go back to the Palestinians.
Israel should see such a two-state agreement — toward which it ended progress earlier this year, slamming the door on the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama — as a desirable long-term resolution of its basic problem.
Netanyahu, supported in his efforts by a small majority of Israelis in the parliament and in general, does not seem to grasp the likely results of not reaching such an accord, in Israel and in the world.
In Israel, the results of no resolution include continued violence between Israelis and Palestinians, what is now, in effect, a third intifada.
In the world, in spite of the only very gradual momentum building among Israel’s critics in Europe and America of the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement, there is no reason to think it will go away. White South Africa thought the anti-apartheid movement would fade away. It didn’t.
Israel can also simply only await action by the Islamic State against it, inside it.
Thirdly, there is the question of what happens to Israel as a democratic, Jewish state if it continues to seek to absorb the West Bank into a greater Israel by way of the tentacles of the expanding settlements. The demographics of that prospect suggest that such a state would no longer have a Jewish majority, nor, given that fact, could it continue to be as much of a democracy as it is now.
Israel should take advantage of this relative pause in U.S. policy involvement to reflect long and hard on its future. No one in America wants Israel’s situation to deteriorate toward more violence, with little or no prospect of long-term stability or peace with its neighbors. But that is the likely result of its government’s approach to its situation.
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
