Advertisement
September 9, 2009
Rosh Hashana is the time when Jews take an inventory of all that has transpired during the past year. They reflect gratefully on the good and bemoan the bad as they consider how to improve themselves and increase the positive experiences in the forthcoming year. It is also a time to consider the condition of the Jewish people and, in particular, the State of Israel as 5769 draws to a close.
For Israel, this past year has produced some changes, but no major confrontations since the end of the war in January. The Gaza War appears not to have resolved very much, although the indiscriminate shelling of Sderot and southern Israel has clearly decreased. On the other hand, Israel has suffered significant political damage as a result of some of its questionable tactics during the war. Worldwide condemnation and the rise in global anti-Semitism are attributable, at least in part, to a backlash against Israel following the Gaza War. This certainly has contributed to the slow progress in moving ahead on a peace arrangement with the Palestinians.
At the same time, the new Netanyahu government, after some internal and public confrontations, has given more conciliatory signals towards the Palestinians and the West than had been expected. If an apparent modus operandi continues to evolve with the U.S. on a hiatus on settlement expansion, and Bibi can keep the rancorous forces on his political right under control, Israel may be in a far better position to negotiate this coming year than many had expected.
Unfortunately, it is unclear if there is a viable partner for negotiation, or even any negotiating terms. Fatah, led by Mahmoud Abbas, which won a vote of confidence in its most recent party election, still has no control of Gaza. There does appear to be some successful institution building in some of the West Bank Palestinian cities. Until elections are held next year, however, it will remain unclear how popular Fatah is on the West Bank streets, or whether Hamas, as some have suggested, has made significant inroads there.
All of this is met by a classical Arab position that emerged more strongly than ever this year, championed, encouraged, and fostered most aggressively by the Saudis. According to this position, the West’s notions of negotiations have been rejected categorically, compromises have been deemed unacceptable, and progress will only be achieved on dictated terms. Essentially the existence, viability, and future of the State of Israel has been placed front and center by Israel’s foes. The rhetoric among Jew-haters the world over has now returned as a subject of “diplomatic” negotiations: the very existence and legitimacy of a national home (State) for the Jews.
Reports from President Obama’s meeting with Saudi King Abdullah sounded virtually identical to reports of FDR’s meeting with Saudi King Ibn-Saud in February 1945. Like his ancestor, King Abdullah apparently demonstrated no interest in truly accepting the existence of a Jewish state in the region. Confidence-building measures were not even to be open for consideration. And if the Saudis have no desire or interest in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, then freezing and dismantling settlements are, in their view, strictly the first stage in the inevitable dissolution of the Jewish state.
The continuing nuclear saber-rattling in Iran and the ravings of Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Chavez may be, for the moment, no more than the voices of lunatics. The behavior of the Saudis, however, presented the Obama forces with a quick reality check. It forced them to second guess the likelihood for a relatively quick resolution to the Palestinian-Israel crisis. The Obama team now saw what General Norman Schwarzkopf and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell saw in 1991 during the 100 hours of the Gulf War (Desert Storm), and what the world saw last month when the Scots and the British returned the Lockerbie bomber to Libya. It is the Saudis who will determine how much the Western infidels can “beat up” on the Arabs. It will be the oil-producing countries who will determine and define human rights limits for their own people.
For Israel, therefore, the coming year — barring major surprises — may not offer much hope for peace. Any confidence-building measures it takes, including at least a freeze on settlement construction, must be framed in the context of a process that explicitly defines quid pro quos. If successful, perhaps some Palestinian leaders will begin to separate themselves from the powerful potentates in the Gulf. Alternatively, given the specter of Iran hanging over their head, Israel may once again find itself with a year of continued anxiety coupled with the ever looming existential threat.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union (gkahn@kean.edu).
Reader Discussion
Comment on this article
--TOP--
