Rael Jean Isaac

The many plaudits it received to the contrary, Netanyahu’s June 14 speech at Bar Ilan University was appalling from beginning to end. The normally astute Caroline Glick called it “an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel…a breath of fresh air.” The usually perspicacious Daniel Pipes called it “a fine speech, making many needed points” which failed “on the critical point of prematurely accepting a Palestinian state.”

But the speech failed on many more counts than that. Netanyahu stood before not just Israel, but a world audience, an emperor who has no clothes, elaborating the details of his finely wrought costume. For although he emphasizes the need to “be firmly connected to reality, to the truth,” the speech is built upon a lie—the lie that peace with Palestinian Arabs and the broader Arab world is achievable and potentially at hand. Sounding like Israel’s chief-fantasizer Shimon Peres, Netanyahu spins his vision of peace (“in my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side by side, in amity and mutual respect”) and waxes lyrical over the potential glories of regional economic cooperation. In doing this, in buying into the never-never land of the peace-processors, Netanyahu undercut the ground upon which he needed to stand firm if he were to face down Obama’s existential threat to the state.

What should Netanyahu have said? He could have kept his first sentence “Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire.” But instead of burbling on about our prophets who gave the world the vision of peace, the need to advance peace and “a new era of reconciliation in our region,” he should have said bluntly that despite this desire, the people of Israel must listen to the prophet who warned of those who say peace, peace, when there is no peace. An unreformed Islam, he should have said, will simply not tolerate a non-Islamic state in what it considers its heartland. We have pretended too long that our territorial concessions could produce peace, with devastating results to our security and internal morale, our retreat from Gaza being only the last such disastrous experiment, and we are not going to pursue policies that have consistently led and can only lead to failure.

If Netanyahu had been what he pretended to be, “firmly connected to reality, to the truth,” instead of lauding the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, he would have said that almost all their provisions had been violated from the outset by the other side. To take only one example, he could have pointed out that one of the provisions of the treaty with Egypt was that it would proscribe anti-Jewish incitement yet its government controlled media spew hatred to the extent that Egypt vies with Iran for the unenviable title of world center of anti-Semitism. Even now, he should have continued, President Mubarak says our demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people “scuttles the chances for peace.” If that is the case, what is the nature of the peace Mubarak has in mind? A peace without a Jewish state? That is not a “peace” this Prime Minister of Israel has any interest in negotiating.

The much-applauded history lesson Netanyahu was clearly addressing to Obama in response to the latter’s speech in Cairo—that Israel was not a response to the Holocaust and Arab hostility did not begin with post 1967 “settlements” nor did it lessen with Israeli concessions—was totally vitiated by the speech’s conclusion which contradicted all that went before. Abruptly he argues that another massive Israeli territorial concession, in the form of a Palestinian state (with vastly more Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria implicitly uprooted) is the “solution” by universal consensus. Netanyahu should have concluded by declaring flatly that the two state solution was no solution: the phrase merely masked Arab determination to achieve a one state solution.

He could have ended by throwing the ball into Obama’s court. Obama believed that the Arab world was prepared to make peace with Israel. All right then, Obama should put pressure on the Arabs to live up to the commitments already made. He should demand that Egypt dust off the 50 detailed agreements on cultural and economic cooperation it made with Israel in 1979 (which were buried no sooner than signed) and abide by them. He should demand that both the governments of Gaza and the so-called “West Bank” eliminate all incitement from their schools and media, end all terror and acts of war, and embrace in all the forums under their control the idea of living at peace with the Jewish state. He should insist all the Arab states lift their various boycotts and show by word and deed they accepted Israel into the region.

Yes, Netanyahu could have said, the Prime Minister of Israel did not believe that the Arabs were capable of making these changes. Since Obama did, let him try. And if he, Netanyahu turned out to be right, there was no peace to process. The United States would have to join with Israel in accepting that another way to manage the conflict had to be found.

Instead the speech showed that it had taken only one browbeating by Obama in their meeting a month earlier to whip Netanyahu into shape on the key issue. As Knesset member for the National Union Party Arieh Eldad noted caustically: “He was elected to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and now he declares that there is a consensus on two states for two peoples. But Netanyahu knows that the only consensus now is that he is a weak leader who crumbles under pressure.”

Yet if his supporters were taken aback, Netanyahu’s behavior was all too predictable. The online Frontpage Magazine conducted a symposium over two years ago, in March 2007, exploring the threats Israel then faced. Since all the participants-- myself, Caroline Glick, terrorism specialist David Keyes, psychiatrist Kenneth Levin and free lance writer P. David Hornik—agreed that the Olmert government was incompetent and delusional, we wound up debating the changes that could be expected once it was replaced, with Netanyahu, as we all presumed, the new Prime Minister. I found myself alone in predicting what has in fact happened. I based my prediction on Netanyahu’s previous performance as Prime Minister, when he was elected in 1996. Netanyahu, I pointed out, “admittedly understands the Middle East and world politics far better than Mr. Olmert, but nonetheless, as Prime Minister, held out the same delusional promise of ‘peace’ and furthered the Oslo process (through more concessions at the Wye conference).”

The other symposium participants all believed that Netanyahu had learned from previous experience and “this time would be different.” I countered that “character is fate, and Netanyahu simply lacks the character necessary for the role of Prime Minister; he lacks political courage and resolve, the willingness to abide by bedrock principles and commitments, even when the going is tough.” I observed that as Prime Minister Netanyahu had sought to return the Golan Heights to Syria (the only dispute is whether he was prepared to go back to the pre-1967 war line or held out for a few kilometers beyond it). I noted that subsequently, as a member of the Sharon cabinet, he had backed the morally and strategically culpable destruction of Gaza’s Jewish communities, cynically resigning just before the actual pullout so that “on the model of John Kerry he could then say ‘I actually voted against the Gaza withdrawal after I voted for it.’” I insisted that to expect anything different from Netanyahu now was folly, that “he has always talked the talk, but never been able to walk the walk.”

One of the most disconcerting aspects of Netanyahu’s character, I observed, was the split between his understanding and his practice. And indeed this was dramatized in his recent speech by his insistence on demilitarization of the new Palestinian state “with ironclad security provisions” lest it “become another terrorist base against the Jewish state.” In his speech Netanyahu elaborated what he meant by demilitarization: no army, no control of its airspace, security measures to prevent weapons smuggling, no ability to forge military pacts.

No one knows better than Netanyahu how idiotic this is. He clearly explained why in a May 12, 2002 speech to the Likud Central Committee, arguing against then Prime Minister Sharon’s implied support for a demilitarized Palestinian state. Said Netanyahu: “[I]t [the Palestinian state] will demand all the powers of a state, such as controlling borders, bringing in weapons, control of airspace and the ability to knock down any Israeli plane that enters its area, the ability to sign peace treaties and military alliances with other countries. Once you give them a state, you give them all these things, even if there is an agreement to the contrary, for within a short time they will demand all these things, and they will assume these powers, and the world will stand by and do nothing but it will stop us from trying to stop them…We will thus have created with our own hands a threat to our very existence. What will happen if the Palestinians do what the Germans did after World War I, when they nullified the demilitarized zone? The world did nothing then, and the world will do nothing now as well.”

The absurdity is compounded in that U.S. Lt. General Keith Dayton is already training a PA army and the Netanyahu government this July approved the transfer of 1,000 AK-47 rifles to them. Defending these soldiers, whom Hamas mockingly calls “Dayton Forces” former PA Minister of Prisoners Ashraf al-Ajrami counters that they constituted the backbone of Palestinian operations [i.e. terror attacks on Israel] during the five year intifada. As they would doubtless be the backbone of future attacks from any Palestinian state. All that Netanyahu has achieved with his “demilitarization” gimmick is to open Pandora’s box. Ten days after Netanyahu’s speech Haaretz reported that the Obama administration was examining an Israeli-Syrian peace plan based on demilitarizing a returned-to-Syria Golan Heights and transforming it into a nature preserve or “peace park.”

It is the task of a leader to withstand pressures deeply harmful to his country’s welfare. As Israeli journalist Israel Harel has aptly pointed out, Israel is treated like a doormat because it acts like a doormat. Who would have thought that small, impoverished Honduras would put Israel to shame? Yet, after ousting its President Zelaya, who had defied the Constitution and the Honduran Supreme Court in illegally seeking to extend his stay in office, it has thus far stood firm against pressures to reinstate him. Those pressures include the vote of all 192 members of the UN General Assembly, the Organization of American States, such champions of democracy as Hugo Chavez (who demands an OAS-led military invasion), Daniel Ortega and Raul Castro, and shameful addition to the list, Barack Obama, who promptly suspended military assistance and development projects.

In 1940, shortly before his death, the great Zionist leader Zeev Jabotinsky penned what he called his kaddish, his final testament. The Jewish people was at its lowest ebb, with the Holocaust looming and the British White Paper of the year before cutting off Palestine as a refuge for the Jews of Europe. Since he had long been forbidden entry into Palestine, Jabotinsky cast the kaddish as the demand of his young followers in Palestine.

“A Jew comes to us, particularly a young one, and announces before the entire world ‘I demand right and justice for myself—if I will not get it, may the entire world turn into a desert. In a place where I am a king among other kings—there progress will flourish. But if my fate is to be ejected from the structure of peoples, it will not bother me if all of you are consumed by fire. I shall add oil to the flame. There will be no redemption for the world if I have no part in it.’ This is a position…for which it is worthwhile to fight, to suffer and to devote your life.”

An Israeli leader must be imbued with faith in Israel’s legitimate rights to her ancient land, a bedrock conviction that not everything is negotiable, and those convictions must be so strong they inure him to pressures, both internal and external. Were Netanyahu to have the uncompromising underlying attitude expressed by Jabotinsky’s kaddish--I will be treated as an equal, with my national and legal rights and core principles respected—he would immeasurably strengthen Israel The more Israel appeases its enemies, the more Israel’s deterrence erodes. The more Netanyahu crumbles before Obama’s unreasonable demands, the more those demands will accelerate. It is only by standing up to pressure that a leader has the chance to develop countervailing pressures. If Netanyahu were to refuse the role of doormat, he would find Israel has allies, among Democrats in Congress as well as Republicans and among evangelicals. It even has potential allies in Europe—look at staunch supporter of Israel Geert Wilders, who may yet be the next Prime Minister of Holland.

If Netanyahu were a genuine leader, he would force debate on the real issues including, among others, Iran’s development of nuclear bombs under an apocalyptic leadership, the dangers posed by resurgent Islam to the West, with Israel only the initial target, the steady transformation of Gaza into a Taliban statelet and international terror base at the very time when the U.S. is pouring resources into preventing the reemergence of such a base in Afghanistan.

Instead, by caving in to Obama’s outrageous and unethical demands (who is Obama to decide what houses may be built and how many children Jews may have?), he allows Obama to set the framework for negotiation, which now focuses on such absurd trivialities as whether a “settlement freeze” includes kindergartens and toilets in Jewish communities beyond the 1949 Green Line.

What is most painful of all is that the folly, the betrayals and the debasement of Israel comes from a political party and leadership that claims spiritual descent from Zeev Jabotinsky, the man who above all sought to instill pride, honor and determination in the Jewish people. ,