Zionism for the Palestinians: Netanyahu’s Speech Receives the Perfect Reaction

posted at 1:10 pm on June 15, 2009 by CK MacLeod
[ Israel ]   

Over at Commentary‘s Contentions blog, you’ll find a selection of very well-informed responses to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech yesterday, billed as a response to the Obama Administration’s Middle East initiatives, which, in a post contrasting candidate Obama’s pronouncements to those of President Obama, Jennifer Rubin characterizes as “the most antagonistic approach to Israel and the most timid toward Iran of any president in recent memory.”

In a separate post, the one you may wish to read for the gist of Netanyahu’s remarks and their political meaning, Rubin analyzes the speech in detail. In reply to Rubin, David Hazony explains why in his opinion Netanyahu’s speech deserves to be considered “great.”  Rick Richman takes something of a step back to assess the peace process as a whole, and happens upon a telling parallel:

The peace process is currently less a diplomatic effort than a bankruptcy proceeding for a failed enterprise that continues only because it is too big to fail.  Israel thought it would be a secured creditor in the proceeding, since it holds written promises from the U.S. (issued in 1997, 2004 and 2009) that the process must result in defensible borders for Israel.  But the Palestinians are the UAW of the peace process, making extraordinary demands because they believe the new U.S. government will ultimately hand them ownership of the enterprise.

A number of Contentions commenters also chime in to effect.  “Adam,” known to be a fearlessly logical analyst of political affairs, takes a step back even further than Richman, summarizing the underlying political and historical argument clearly:

In a sense, both Obama’s speech (and the left-wing platitudes it reiterated) and Netanyahu’s historical account acknowledge that there is something unique about Israel. That is, whether it is the result of, and gains its legitimacy from, the world’s commitment to address unique suffering; or it is the astonishing story of a nation restoring itself after 2,000 years in exile, we are not talking about a normal state here. This is part of the reason why the Arabs and Palestinians have never found a way to address Israel effectively or rationally–they thought that the same rules applied as to other “colonial” situations. Israelis themselves are uncomfortable with their “abnormality”–it may be easier for Americans, especially but not only Christians, to grasp. I think that an Israeli commitment, in general terms, to help the Palestinians found a state, is necessary in order to buffer this specialness, or “chosenness,” if you like–but the flip side is that Palestinians must find a way to buy into it as well in order to get there.

Adam’s analysis also points to what I found to be the most revelatory of all reactions, one that came from a typically and predictably enraged and appalled Palestinian spokesperson, PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo (also quoted in a Rubin round-up post):

Netanyahu spoke of a Palestinian state while emptying it of any substance by excluding a stop to settlements.  By demanding the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character, he wants the Palestinians to become part of the global Zionist movement.

My reaction was, yes, of course, Mr. Rabbo:  Palestine is your Zion, and you should consider yourself lucky that the world won’t be poring through the history books, archaeological record, and human genome for proof you deserve it. If accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation-state amounts to Zionism, then, yes, it’s time for the Palestinians to become Zionists. Either we all become Zionists, and, secure in our defensible intellectual and emotional as well as geographical borders, can consent to becoming Palestine-ists as well, or there will be no peace prior to the extinction of at least one of the two national movements, most likely at the hands of the other.  Continuing our typical Contentions colloquoy, Adam concludes, “When the Palestinians come to see that the Israelis are their best hope for prosperity and protection, even, from the surrounding Arab world, we will have arrived.”

The main political effect of Netanyahu’s address may be to freeze the Obama initiatives, or even to force an overhaul, especially as events in Iran, on Sunday providing an overwhelming orchestral counterpoint for the Prime Minister’s rhetorical concerto, continue to unfold.  As for the Palestinians and their supporters, they have responded to their cue with familiar percussive rumblings.  They can play themselves into the theme, or, if they rest on the responses of Rabbo and others, they can look forward to another generation of violence and despair.

Blowback