“Ideologically committed to a two-state solution”

"Netanyahu, Once Hawkish, Now Touts Pragmatism"
A1, Saturday 2/21/09,
By Isabel Kershner

A “flexible opportunist” can do what’s “necessary,” (establish a Palestinian state), according to Yaron Ezrahi, a poly-sci professor at Hebrew University. That the two-state solution has become an “ideology,” as opposed to what it should be - pragmatism and realpolitik - is revealing, and not an idea normally found in the Times. Yet Mr. Ezrahi let slip this notion, which hopefully was picked up by astute readers: ideological commitment tends to obscure unpleasant and inconvenient realities.

There’s an assumption that Netanyahu is the “flexible opportunist” and thus would perhaps not pursue a two-state solution if it was realistic. Again, Netanyahu, and the incoming Israeli government is cast as a major question mark when it comes to peace, while the Palestinian commitment to reaching to compromise with the Jewish state is off radar.

The six-decade regional war against Israel is rendered somewhat of a conspiracy, or at the very least Jewish paranoia, when Kershner writes that “Mr. Netanyahu remains a deep skeptic about the Muslim world’s intentions toward Israel and tends to highlight fears more than hopes for the region.” If asked to elaborate on the fears - as opposed to dark realities - on which Netanyahu plays, Kershner may be hard-pressed for an answer. Fortunately, at this point in the article, Netanyahu had already been labeled a hawk, so Netanyahu's "fear over hope" shtik is no surprise.

Kershner writes that Netanyahu “says stopping Iran from going nuclear is a much more important issue than whether a Palestinian state is established. He has made clear that the Iranian challenge is an existential one that could well lead to military action.”

Yet Kershner doesn’t connect the concern over Iran to Netanyahu’s drive to form as broad a coalition as possible. Only a unified Israel can meet head on this challenge. This is a message consistently heard throughout Israel over the past few months. Instead the Times juxtaposes the Iranian issue with Palestinian statehood – which are apples and oranges in the current reality - at least where Israel's foreign policy is concerned.

Netanyahu “wants to refocus [negotiations] on building the Palestinian economy and its institutions in the West Bank rather than on signing a comprehensive deal. The Palestinian leadership has openly disdained that approach.”

Since this policy disagreement is not so slight, this warrants more attention. Why exactly is Netanyahu’s approach “disdained”? Waiting over 60 years for a peace deal, what’s so “disdainful” about waiting a few more as a stable, peaceful Palestinian society and economy is built, together with a new approach towards Israel’s permanence?”

Improving life in the West Bank is so often touted by the Times as a vital step on the road to peace, but here it's shoved aside because it came from Netanyahu. The Palestinians want the whole package deal - one that can serve as smokescreen for failed negotiations, as opposed to incremental stages, which better reveal bad intentions.

Kershner writes of a two-state possibility under Netanyahu:

“much of the West Bank will be part of a future Palestinian state, but with Israel keeping control of the borders, airspace and electromagnetic frequencies,” and will be de-militarized. “Whether such a deal would ever be acceptable to the Palestinians is far from clear.”

Kershner obviously does not, and would never, opine whether this sort of deal “should” be acceptable to the Palestinians. Readers are just left to conclude this set of obscure-sounding Israeli demands prevents peace - another screwball thrown at the Palestinians.

What’s most egregious here is that these basic defense fundamentals have served as the outline of a prospective Palestinian state since the beginning of the peace process. Kershner should know this.

What Times readers need to know is that these Israeli security requirements will be used by the Palestinians as a pretext for failed negotiations, something to mold into "Israeli intransigence".
Readers need to be made more aware of the deep-rootedness and popularity of rejectionism and the difficult path in defeating it. Instead, Israeli security is cast as possibly bullshit and readers get no sense of the PA's well-documented political resistance against Israel.

Ideology trumps reality.