ISRAELI Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech Sunday “accepting” the creation of a Palestinian state was very much like taking another man’s hand in welcome but refusing to greet the rest of his body. Coming from a politician who has always rejected a two-state solution, this was supposed to be a concession and a brave one at that, because far right members of the Likud coalition immediately protested angrily.
Such objections are, of course, hokum. Netanyahu and all the rest of his government knew perfectly well that everything else he said Sunday — that Palestine should be demilitarized, would not control its airspace, that East Jerusalem would not be returned, settlements would remain and continue to be expanded and that there would be no negotiation over the return of refugees, were all custom-made to cause the Palestinian Authority to reject his “initiative”, as almost immediately it did. As if to avoid any embarrassment, Washington, of course, welcomed this single concession as key. Now the issue is what the Obama administration will do to capitalize on what is in reality a very small coin. The US president is too smart and too subtle a politician to decry immediately the unacceptable limitations with which Netanyahu has circumscribed his climb down. Obama cannot afford to lose even this small leverage at this early stage.
A tangential approach beckons. Obama can very publicly abandon the blatant double standards that characterized the Bush administration and so many of its predecessors. Washington froze Hamas, a democratically elected Palestinian government out of existence because it refused to recognize Israel. Now Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal has said that the 1967 borders are acceptable for a Palestinian state, a statement which de facto, if not yet de jure actually recognizes Israel. If Hamas can also rein in attacks by radicals, the two excuses for its isolation by Washington will disappear. Obama could then start talking to Hamas along with Fatah about the formation of a new national unity government and/or perhaps a fresh election. Meanwhile, US aid to the Palestinians could take concrete and substantial form in reward for their return to the letter of the peace process.
By the same token, Israel’s refusal to stop new settlements and its refusal to recognize the principle of a fully-sovereign Palestinian state, would open it up to some sort of US sanction, although it cannot be expected that Washington would ever brand Israel a terror state.
History should have taught Obama that whenever Israel has sensed the danger of peace breaking out, it has always set out to provoke the Palestinians into some violent response and then announced it cannot deal with “terrorists”. Nor is it above mounting such outrages against its own people. At present, however, the most profitable option would be to stoke internal Palestinian divisions, probably assassinating top Fatah people in the hope that Hamas will be blamed.
Therefore, if Obama is sincere about a Palestinian settlement, America’s “unbreakable bond” with Israel is about to be hard tested as Netanyahu seeks to slither from the renewed grip of the peace process. Netanyahu has acted on predictable lines. The people in the Arab world want to know whether Washington too would act on all too predictable lines.
US should fear new problems
RECENT comments by Chinese, Japanese and Russian officials hint at a growing global unease about Washington’s ability to get its fiscal house in order, said the LA Times in an editorial yesterday. Excerpts:
The US economy has shown sparks of life lately, with hopeful signs in the statistics about consumer spending, the housing market, new unemployment filings and the banking industry. The House Appropriations Committee released its spending road map for the fiscal year that starts in October, calling for a 7.4 percent increase over fiscal 2009 — or more, if the full cost of the war effort is included.
Fiscal discipline means making choices about the smaller stuff too. The same day, President Obama called on Congress to pass “pay-go” legislation that would require new tax cuts or entitlement increases to be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. A true pay-go rule might help curb the worst instincts of lawmakers, but the one Obama backed is so riddled with exceptions, it’s practically worthless. Nor does it compel legislators to address the relentless spending growth in the existing benefit programs. The risk posed by the growing debt load isn’t that the United States will default, but that its lenders will lose confidence in its ability to repay.
If that happens, lenders will demand higher interest payments from Uncle Sam, vacuuming up money that could have been put to more productive use. Recent comments by Chinese, Japanese and Russian officials hint at a growing global unease about Washington’s ability to get its fiscal house in order. This is a long-term problem; in the near term, there’s the danger that excessive and prolonged stimulus will lead to another economic bubble like the one that led to the current mess. For all these reasons, Washington needs to heed Bernanke’s warning.
