http://www.luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-arch ... 250714.pdf
Netanyahu finally speaks his mind
At his Friday press conference, the prime minister ruled out full Palestinian sover
-
eignty, derided the US approach to Israeli security, and set out his Middle East over
-
view with unprecedented candor. His remarks were not widely reported; they should
be
By David Horovitz
July 13, 2014
Does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu really support a two-state solution, or is his rhe
-
toric to this effect disingenuous? Did he genuinely seek an accommodation with the Pales
-
tinians during the nine months of US-brokered negotiations that collapsed in April, or was
he just stringing the Americans and the Palestinians along, while his heart is truly with the
settlement enterprise?
These are fundamental questions — questions you’d think Israelis and the watching world
would long since have been able to answer, especially given that Netanyahu is Israel’s se
-
cond-longest serving prime minister ever. In fact, though, while many pundits claim to have
definitive answers, most Israelis would acknowledge that they’ve never been entirely sure
how Netanyahu sees a potential resolution of the Palestinian conflict, which concessions
he’s truly ready to make, what his long-term vision looks like.
But now we know.
The uncertainties were swept aside on Friday afternoon, when the prime minister, for the
first time in ages, gave a press conference on Day Four of Operation Protective Edge.
He spoke only in Hebrew, and we are in the middle of a mini-war, so his non-directly war-
related remarks didn’t get widely reported. But those remarks should not be overlooked
even in the midst of a bitter conflict with Gaza’s Islamist rulers; especially in the midst of a
bitter conflict with Gaza’s Islamist rulers. The prime minister spoke his mind as rarely, if
ever, before. He set out his worldview with the confidence of a leader who sees vindication
in the chaos all around. He answered those fundamental questions.
Netanyahu began his appearance, typically, by reading some prepared remarks. But then,
most atypically, he took a series of questions. And while he initially stuck to responses tied
to the war against Hamas, its goals, and the terms under which it might be halted, he then
moved — unasked — into territory he does not usually chart in public, and certainly not
with such candor.
For some, his overall outlook will seem bleak and depressing; for others, savvy and prag
-
matic. One thing’s for sure: Nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that he didn’t tell
us what he really thinks.
4
/
6
He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestini
-
an state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the
frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its
best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers
the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.
Perhaps most reporters switched off after he’d delivered his headlines, making plain that
“no international pressure will prevent us from acting with all force against a terrorist orga
-
nization (Hamas) that seeks to destroy us,” and that Operation Protective Edge would go
on until guaranteed calm was restored to Israel. If they did, they shouldn’t have.
Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binatio
-
nal state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from
the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestini
-
an sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle
East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately
to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan,
and the West Bank and Jordan.
The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider les
-
son of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza
in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people
understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement,
in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not
giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Ab
-
bas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands.
This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli
security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply,
spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian
state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians
or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.
He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s im
-
possible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a
new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.
Naming both US Secretary of State John Kerry and his security adviser Gen. John Allen —
who was charged by the secretary to draw up security proposals that the US argued could
enable Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley — Ne
-
tanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I
told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know
what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”
Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when
he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the pa
-
per they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.
Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some
lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.” He scof
-
fed at those many experts who have argued that holding onto territory for security purpo
-
ses is less critical in the modern technological era, and argued by contrast that the closer
