In an editorial on 26 March The New York Times declared that it is “even more sceptical now” of Netanyahu’s professed commitment to peacemaking and a two-state solution. A sign that Zionism’s freedom to muzzle the mainstream American media is no longer without limit? Perhaps.
But refreshing though this NYT editorial stance was – broadly pro Obama and anti Netanyahu – it missed, by default or design, a major point; but we’ll come to that in a moment.
The editorial’s opening paragraph was this:
“After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were sceptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more sceptical now.”
It went on to say that the Obama administration should “insist” that proximity talks, once started, should grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, “not incidentals”.
It then said:
“Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.
“Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel’s security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?”
The point the editorial missed is that Netanyahu is not a complete liar. He is merely thoroughly disingenuous, as Zionism by nature is, was and always will be. Netanyahu did indeed pay lip-service to a “two-state” solution. The question is – Why did he and what two-state solution did he have in mind?
The answer to the first part of the question is not a mystery to those who are informed by more than Zionist propaganda. Netanyahu understands, as Sharon understood, that if Israel remains in occupation of all the West Bank, it will have three options.
OPTION 1: formally annexing the West Bank and granting all of its citizens equal rights, to enable Israel to go on claiming that it was a democracy. The problem is that this would bring about the end of the Jewish state by political means because, in due course, the Arab citizens of Greater Israel would outnumber and outvote its Jewish citizens.
OPTION 2: formally annexing the West Bank but denying Greater Israel’s Arab citizens (the majority in-the-making) equal rights. In this scenario Greater Israel would have to treat its Arab citizens even worse than the black majority in South Africa was treated by the apartheid regime. And that would not be acceptable to most Jews of the world and, probably, at least some of the Jews of Israel. It would also present the organised international community with no choice, at some point, but to declare Greater Israel a pariah state and impose sanctions on it.
OPTION 3: to resort to another and final round of ethnic cleansing – provoking an all-out confrontation with the Palestinians to give the IDF and the armed settlers the pretext for driving the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever, in the name of self defence, of course. If the Palestinians refused to flee, there would be a bloodbath. A Zionist holocaust.
It was thinking about those three options if Israel stayed in occupation of all of the West Bank, that led Sharon to conclude that he had no choice but to impose his own two-state solution on the Palestinians. His unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was not a step on the road to peace. It was about defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation. Sharon was not therefore turning his back on his Zionist past as his right wing critics and former soul-mates claimed, and many in the mainstream Western media believed. He was being practical to an extent. He was saying, in effect, “If we don’t give the Palestinians something, our Zionist enterprise might well be doomed.”
The two-state solution Sharon was intending to offer the Palestinians on a take or it leave it basis was two or three Bantustans, on between 40 to 50 percent of the West Bank, which the Palestinians could call a state if they wished.
The Netanyahu plan is more or less the Sharon plan, and that’s what the NYT’s editorial writers either don’t understand or don’t yet want to acknowledge.
The question arising is this: What is most likely to happen when Israel’s leaders come to the conclusion that the occupied and oppressed Palestinians will not accept crumbs from Zionism’ table (even if a puppet Palestinian leadership is urging them to do so)?
My guess is that Zionism’s in-Israel leaders will go for OPTION 3 as identified by Sharon.
Message to the NYT’s editorial writers - please think about that.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
[...] By Alan Hart [...]
[...] Even The New York Times doesn’t believe Netanyahu. [...]
You're right, Alan. Every action the Israelis have taken in the last several weeks has been so blatantly provocative that one is forced to think that they are hoping to trigger a Third Intifada, or worse, as a ruse to take the focus off the massive settlement project in East Jerusalem and to clear the Palestinians out of the West Bank. This is why Netanyahu has flipped off Clinton and Obama, has directed very aggressive and violent actions against protesters in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and is now engaged in renewed military attacks in Gaza (and starting rumors of an intention to re-occupy).
It might look as though both Israel and America are successfully deceiving the world of politics into believing they really are committed to a 2-state solution. But that cannot be true. Politicians and leaders, smart as they are in exposing political lies (when it suits them) must be aware that neither the U.S. nor Israel are serious in their alleged commitment to a viable and just solution. But our western leaders will never challenge the Israeli lie – not in the near future, not as long as the U.S. ostensibly gives credit to the 2-state lie. If the U.S. were serious about the issue, they would have long ago challenged their beloved Zionist ally to lay-out a concrete plan for a 2-state solution, meaning a blue print, on paper, that lines-out borders. But that is exactly what the U.S. is afraid of demanding – for political reasons that Alan has very clearly analyzed in some of his articles, and because Palestinian land is shrinking by the day, so that imposing the pre-’67 borders would imply nothing short of a world conflict. So the big lie about a “Palestinian State” and an alleged “peace process” goes on and our governments comply, knowing they can count on the media and on western citizens’ gullibility.
For the time being, Zionists know there is no political will to stop them in their criminal tracks. So what would keep them from choosing the above OPTION 3. The Gaza massacre is the ominous proof that Israel would (again) pull it off. And because of the shrewd way they operate, the Zionists will be successful in blaming it on the Palestinians.
That’s the way it might look right now. Yet for those who watch events closely, signs show that pressure is mounting in the western world. Before too long, governments will face peoples’ anger – it is inevitable. We can only hope it will not come too late for the People of Palestine. It is imperative for each one of us to build awareness.
And American Jews who believe in U.S.'s and Israel's good faith should challenge the J-Street lobby to lay-out their own specific plan for a 2-state solution, given that is what they declare to support.
It's too late for a two-state solution. There isn't enough of the West Bank left to make a Palestinian state out of. The Zionists will not relinquish any of the illegal settlements they have built, and their frenzy to build more indicates clearly that they have no interest in peace. This is all in keeping with the Zionist agenda irrespective of who is in power in Israel.
Israel is not afraid of the US or of Obama. No reason to be, with all those members of Congress on AIPAC's payroll.
If you read Gilad Atzmon's latest post you will see that Netanyahu is being forced by his extremist partners, who care not at all for the US or anyone outside their narrow ideas, to go for option 3, quickly before Iran gets the bomb. Nasty if true.
Martina, in your comment you state what the Zionists should do, what Obama should do, even what J Street should do - but not a word about what the Palestinians should do. Have you forgotten them?
The time for a two-state solution is done. The Zionists, aided and abetted by the US, the EU and the Arab states, have advanced their agenda to the point where it's too late. As Alan has said in his book and in his articles, it's time to stop the Zionist juggernaut before the middle east explodes. The one-state solution is the only viable choice except that the Israelis have no intention of losing their "Jewish State" by making Arab Muslims and Christians into citizens and giving them equal rights. At this point it appears that the Zionists are gearing up for a violent conflagration with the objective of killing as many Palestinians as possible, and driving the rest into Jordan and Gaza. They're pushing for a war with Iran to keep Iran busy and disengaged from any possibility of helping the Palestinians. The Zionists are getting quite close to persuading the US to do the dirty work of starting this proxy war so that they can get down to business and finish their annexation of "eretz Israel."
Hello Mary, thanks for reading my comment.
The point I was making (or trying to make) is this. Western citizens and Diaspora Jews have been deceived into believing that: A) a 2-state solution is a fair solution for all concerned and the only possible one; B) that the 2-state solution is viable; C) that there is a political will to implement it. All three points are a lie. And political leaders are aware of it. But the collective western political body publicly chooses to support this “fair solution” – and that solution only - because it is the one Israel officially declares to support so it can show its good will for a “peace process”.
To expose the big lie would really be quite simple, to my mind.
Israel – as well as the J-Street lobby (officially in favor of a 2-state solution) should be challenged to draft a plan with a map that outlines borders to accommodate 2 separate and sovereign political entities within the land of Palestine. Of course the U.S. never could and never will demand any such “proof” of their viciously imposed ally, knowing there is no viable plan to be shown, as there is no contiguous Palestinian territory left for an independent state. Neither will any other major power ever publicly challenge Israel’s good faith. Israel’s politicians know they can count on going unchallenged by the world’s leaders, because of political interests. And they know that for the time being they can count on the overall public opinion to believe in the alleged fairness and willingness for a 2-state solution, as most citizens have no idea to what lengths Israel is prepared to go in order to avoid a pre-’67 borders arrangement (which would be the end of Zionism). For all these reasons, and because Zionists are pathologically reckless to the point of jeopardizing their own (criminal) mission, they will ultimately behave according to OPTION 3 as from Alan’s article.
Of course there is ONLY 1 possible fair solution that would account for justice: the one all Palestinians rightfully claim and many support, though it is never publicly expressed, for it is a taboo. Unless there will be clear signs of public opinion shifting in favor of the Palestinians’ cause, no Palestinian authority will dare to publicly state their view for what is the only just arrangement, lest they face public rage for wishing away “helpless Jewish Israel”.
I’m sure, no regular reader of Alan’s posts will ever support a 2-state solution, unless that is the wish of the People of Palestine.
P.S. I enjoyed your evocative expression “I can only hope that this latest spectacle (AIPAC) is the equivalent of the band playing on the Titanic as the ship sunk”.
"Israel – as well as the J-Street lobby (officially in favor of a 2-state solution) should be challenged to draft a plan with a map that outlines borders to accommodate 2 separate and sovereign political entities within the land of Palestine"
Good heavens, why should Israel and J Street (An American Jewish lobby) be in charge of that? Are you serious??? Where, I ask again, is the Palestinian input on this?
If only this "Titanic" would hit a second iceberg!
Yes, Mary, I’m very serious about what I said. Any official entity publicly suggesting that an independent Palestinian state can be implemented “next” to Israel has to be exposed as a dangerous and irresponsible liar. Because what they are hiding from public view is the fact that Israel is not willing, and will not be persuaded, to peacefully withdraw from occupied land. And that Israel has acquired nuclear power to avoid being pushed in a corner.
Anyone officially supporting a 2-state solution deliberately ignores Israel’s ruthless determination to pursue the Zionist conquest scheme AT ANY COST. Israel will never give-up stolen land without a violent fight – one that would result in devastating consequences for all, including Jews. This is one of the reasons why a political stalemate has been going on for long in the Palestine dispute, meant to stave-off a dangerous confrontation.
The way I see it, the U.S. is currently preoccupied that Israel keep up the pretence for a commitment to the alleged peace-process. The U.S. has no other choice but to play the zero-sum game – for now. And I suspect Obama may secretly wish for American citizens to wake-up and pressure lawmakers to stop acting in the interest of an “ally” with very questionable motives.
On the one hand, most Jews do not feel the heat as they have been shielded from public confrontation ever since the end of WW2. Yet they would be well advised to take a stance, as in the long run their safety and standing in the world depend on a concrete and just solution for the Palestinian People. I’m sure, many are aware of it.
On the other hand, most of our western citizens, though genuinely concerned about the Palestinian People’s fate, are too distracted or un-informed to be aware of the 2-state illusion they have been deceitfully led to support. It is imperative for lies to be publicly exposed, so that the Palestinian People will be able to tell the world what solution they wish for themselves, without fear of being met with public scorn.
Perhaps Israel’s expansionist agenda can be neutralized only by implementing serious BDS actions. But that won’t happen unless relentless pressure is put on all institutional levels, by all concerned.
Martina, you are not answering my question. Where is the Palestinian input in this? You would hand over their fate to J Street and the Zionists to decide without them? Excuse me, but this is nonsense. I wish you could simply answer my question and clarify. Thanks.
The day that Israel will accept a 'two state solution', hell will freeze over.
Let us pray for a well place 6oz of 'frontier justice' for Messer Natantayahu. It was Rabbi Meir Kahane who made it fashionable to shoot rabid Jewish dogs on the streets of NYC. Let us hope the young enterprising Egyptain man that killed Kahane, might have a cousin still living close by.
TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.