Mahir Ali :
Go easy on Benjamin Netanyahu, folks. Does he really deserve all the calumny that has been heaped on him in recent days for plainly admitting that a Palestinian state was unimaginable under his administration? Did anyone suspect otherwise? Seriously?
Netanyahu’s rare foray into honesty seems to have caught too many people off-guard. How could he have said such a thing, depriving the peace process of the last vestiges of a crutch?
It would be far more pertinent to ask: What peace process, exactly? Nothing of the kind has been in evidence for years. What were the grounds for assuming that beneath Bibi’s indubitable belligerence there lurked the soul of a peacemaker? Throughout the period that he has wielded power, his actions have made it abundantly clear that he had no intention whatsoever of ceding an inch of occupied territory.
The only surprise his pronouncement could possibly have caused related to a quality rare among Israeli (and, for that matter, most other) politicians: truthfulness.
The alternative of a one-state solution is equally unpalatable to the likes of Netanyahu. After all, that would entail either a non-Jewish state or an apartheid regime unrepresentative of almost half the population. The only alternative acceptable to his ilk is the status quo. Except that the status quo is clearly not static: it is constantly being undermined by the expansion of Jewish settlements across the West Bank, evidently in the hope that before long there will be so many Jewish enclaves across Judea and Samaria that the question of turning over the territory to those to whom it rightfully belongs will not even arise.
The Israeli prime minister went even further on election day by invoking the fear of Arab voters – about 20 per cent of Israel’s population, not counting the dispossessed in the occupied territories – in order to drive his own supporters to the polling booth. Any number of commentators, including Jews both within and outside Israel, have derided this particular ploy as clearly racist.
But then again, what’s really new here? Sure, Netanyahu has generally resisted the temptation to be as blatantly discriminatory in his public comments as, say, his foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. But has there ever been any doubt about what he thinks of Arabs? Seriously?
The issue is not what Netanyahu says or doesn’t say. The issue is what Israel does. It’s been a very long time, in this respect, since the concept of “land for peace” made any sense. And even when it kind of did, the dimension often missing from the debate was the fact that the land in question is not Israel’s to bargain over. It is illegally occupied territory.
The United Nations has not been able to make a fuss about it for nearly 50 years because one particular Security Council member has Israel’s back, as Susan Rice appropriately put it in an appearance before AIPAC, the single most powerful Israeli lobby group in the USA. And when President Barack Obama belatedly congratulated Netanyahu on retaining power, he is believed to have raised objections about the prime minister’s comments while reassuring the culprit of uninterrupted American support in cash and kind.
That, in effect, guarantees that nothing will change. Netanyahu was counting on this. Had there been any real prospect of the US suddenly refusing to bankroll Israeli intransigence, he might have toyed with a different tune. But he knew that no matter how much he irritated the White House, the funds would keep flowing, as would the political sustenance. Obama may indeed be livid about Netanyahu’s behaviour and utterances, but, like any other president, there’s precious little he can do about it. There have been hints that the US could drop its resistance to token recognition of a Palestinian state. But what are the chances of such an outcome? The best that can be hoped for is that more European nations will live up to their ideals. And that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign will gather pace. But even if expectations in this regard were to be met, would anything really change?
There is much to be said for the concept of a single-state solution, provided it is genuinely democratic. In which case it obviously can’t be a Jewish state. Many of those who have lately been berating Netanyahu understand this, and oppose it on the grounds that a state all Jews can call their own is a precious entity that ought not to be undermined by extremism.
It’s not difficult to understand where they are coming from. But given the “facts on the ground”, isn’t the idea of a separate Palestinian state – “demilitarised” or otherwise – considerably more remote today than it seemed two decades or so ago? And has not the unexpected margin of Netanyahu’s victory served merely to underline what already seemed obvious?
Netanyahu’s ascendancy says it all. Whether Israel’s traditional allies will appreciate what last week’s election hath wrought, and accordingly adjust their tack, is a different question. Palestinians, however, could hardly have wished for a clearer demonstration of what they are up against.
(Mahir Ali is a Sydney-based writer)
