Soccer Dad

Defensible borders and workable peace

Bret Stephens offers an interview with Israel's once and possibly future PM, Binyamin Netanyahu. He offers Netanyahu's vision of peace:

Mr. Netanyahu's own prescriptions for a settlement with the Palestinians -- what he calls a "workable peace" -- differ markedly from the approaches of the 1990s. He talks about "the development of capable law enforcement and security capabilities" for the Palestinians, adding that the new National Security Adviser Jim Jones had worked on the problem for the Bush administration. He stresses the need for rapid economic development in the West Bank, promising to remove "all sorts of impediments to economic growth" faced by Palestinians.

As for the political front, Mr. Netanyahu promises a gradual, "bottom-up process that will facilitate political solutions, not replace them."

"Most of the approaches to peace between Israel and the Palestinians," he says, "have been directed at trying to resolve the most complex problems, like refugees and Jerusalem, which is akin to building the pyramid from the top down. It's much better to build it layer by layer, in a deliberate, purposeful pattern that changes the reality for both Palestinians and Israelis."

Stephens observes, though:

Whether this approach will work remains to be seen: Palestinian economic development was also a priority in the 1990s, until it became clear that billions in foreign aid were being siphoned off by corrupt Palestinian officials, and after various joint economic projects with Israel were violently sabotaged.

But that failure was actually because the Clinton administration didn't emphasize economic development as much as it promoted the new, improved moderate Arafat. Of course that was a chimera for the very reasons Stephens mentioned. Keeping Arafat happy meant turning a blind eye to his corruption and continued support for terror. However during that time Netanyahu did emphasize economic development and succeeded as long as he was in office.

Of course Netanyahu didn't play ball the way Clinton wanted and the president worked to undermine him as much as possible. Still for all of his faults terrorism was less of a problem during his tenure, and the Palestinians were better off.

However this claim:

This brings Mr. Netanyahu to the political pitch he's making -- so far successfully -- to Israelis ahead of next month's election. When elections were held three years ago, bringing Mr. Olmert to power, "we [his Likud Party] were mocked" for warning that Gaza would become Hamastan, and that Hamastan would become a staging ground for missiles fired at major Israeli cities such as Ashkelon and Ashdod.

"I think we've shown the ability to see the problems in advance," he says. "Peace is purchased from strength. It's not purchased from weakness or unilateral retreats. It just doesn't happen that way. That perhaps is the greatest lesson that has been impressed on the mind of the Israeli public in the last few years."

is debatable or, perhaps, more accurately, dubious. Likud might have been mocked and its opposition to disengagement has been vindicated by history but Netanyahu didn't resign in protest until disengagement was set in stone.

And I'll take issue with Stephens's conclusion:

The dovish parties of yore, particularly Meretz, barely exist as political entities anymore. Whether they'll ever be back will be a testament, one way or another, to the kind of prime minister Mr. Netanyahu will be this time around.

Meretz was pretty much killed by Israel's shift to the left. Even in the ten years since the last time Netanyahu served as PM, the center of Israeli politics has shifted. What were once extreme positions espoused by the Left are now part of Israel's mainstream. There was no need for Meretz. And many of those who stuck with Meretz, took positions that were unpalatable to Israel's electorate. (Barry Rubin would disagree with this.)

If elected how will Netanyhau govern? What he says about "workable peace" suggests that he understands that peace is pretty much out of Israel's hands and that it is a long term goal not an immediate one. It's not as uplifting as visions of peace and coexistence, but it's the best possible approach right now.