Soccer Dad

The "bash israel" security blanket

The first paragraph of Thomas Friedman's column today, Just Knock it off, makes sense:

Some of Israel's worst critics are fond of saying that Israel behaves like America's spoiled child. I've always found that analogy excessive. Say what you want about Israel's obstinacy at times, it remains the only country in the United Nations that another U.N. member, Iran, has openly expressed the hope that it be wiped off the map. And that same country, Iran, is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Israel is the only country I know of in the Middle East that has unilaterally withdrawn from territory conquered in war -- in Lebanon and Gaza -- only to be greeted with unprovoked rocket attacks in return. Indeed, if you want to talk about spoiled children, there is no group more spoiled by Iran and Syria than Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia. Hezbollah started a war against Israel in 2006 that brought death, injury and destruction to thousands of Lebanese -- and Hezbollah's punishment was to be rewarded with thousands more missiles and millions more dollars to do it again. These are stubborn facts.

Unfortunately, he continued writing. What's bugging Thomas is Prime Minister Netanyahu's refusal to agree to extend a moratorium on building in Judea and Samaria for another two months.

After being pressured by President Obama, Netanyahu agreed late last year to a ten month moratorium on building in Judea and Samaria in order to facilitate direct negotiations. Sure enough, two weeks before the moratorium was set to expire, Abbas finally agreed to engage in direct talks. After being given a window of ten months, Abbas waited until the very end to start negotiating. Of course nothing would happen in two weeks and it didn't. But why should Netanyahu have to make another concession to entice Abbas to return to the negotiating table?

A few weeks ago, President Abbas said at the White House:

Excellencies, the time has come for us to make peace and it is time to end the occupation that started in 1967, and for the Palestinian people to get freedom, justice, and independence. It is time that a independent Palestinian state be established with sovereignty side by side with the state of Israel.

If it's time for an independent Palestinian state, why doesn't Abbas simply negotiate? Why does he insist on an Israeli concession to talk with Netanyahu? As I noted yesterday, Jackson Diehl puts the blame for this on President Obama.

So why does Abbas stubbornly persist in his self-defeating position? In an interview with Israeli television Sunday night, he offered a remarkably candid explanation: "When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped," he said. "If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?"

The statement confirmed something that many Mideast watchers have suspected for a long time: that the settlement impasse originated not with Netanyahu or Abbas, but with Obama -- who by insisting on an Israeli freeze has created a near-insuperable obstacle to the peace process he is trying to promote.

Simply put, there should be no reason for Netanyahu to agree to another freeze. The first one did not motivate Abbas to negotiate in good faith for a state he supposedly wants.

After calling Israel "spoiled" for refusing President Obama's request to give into Abbas's tantrum, Friedman concludes:

But the fact is that the team of Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have built a government that is the best the Palestinians have ever had, and, more importantly, a Palestinian security apparatus that the Israeli military respects and is acting as a real partner. Given this, Israel has an overwhelming interest to really test -- that is all we can ask -- whether this Palestinian leadership is ready for a fair and mutually secure two-state solution.

That test is something the U.S. should not have to beg or bribe Israel to generate. This moment is not about Obama. He's doing his job. It is about whether the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are up to theirs. Abbas is weak and acts weaker. Netanyahu is strong and acts weak. It is time for both to step it up. And it is time for all the outsiders who spoil them to find another hobby.

There's something self contradictory about this argument. On the one hand Friedman argues that Abbas has been a great leader and in the next paragraph he calls him weak. He's weak for a number of reasons. One is that his term is long expired. Another is that he's weak - in his ability to make peace - because he presides over a government that discourages the idea of peaceful coexistence.

Given his first paragraph acknowledging that Israel's past concessions for peace have encouraged terror, Friedman suffers from a disconnect. He believes that Israel ought to "test" Abbas, as if there's no possible damage that could result from further Israeli concessions. Netanyahu is acting cautiously. It is Friedman who can't get away from his bashing Israel security blanket, who is acting childishly.

Crossposted on Yourish.