What would you think of a foreign policy expert who advocated a course of negotiations between two adversaries that required the political leader of one side to abandon his ties with his biggest supporters (including his own party) and to affiliate with his current opponents in order for a deal to be concluded successfully? Okay, I know that is a bit confusing. Let me say it differently. How likely is the successful conclusion of negotiations that require the leader of one side to change both his policies and his supporters? Hopefully that is clearer.
The question may be confusing, but the answer is not difficult. A successful conclusion to the negotiations is highly unlikely. In fact, for anyone to attempt to pull off a deal that depends on the complete reversal of one of the leaders could best be described as a victory for fantasy over reality.
Of course, what I have just described is not some esoteric philosophical question. It is the recounting of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as described by Tom Friedman of the New York Times. Before going further, I have to point out that the fantasy may well be coming from Friedman; he has a history of being oblivious to the actual facts. Nevertheless, Friedman ascribes to John Kerry the tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations of seeking to have Israeli prime minister Netanyahu abandon his party and his coalition partners while seeking support from other parties the gain a majority for the peace plan envisioned by Kerry.
Let's just stop here for a moment. Israel is a democracy. It has a parliament with 120 members which governs the country. Netanyahu's party (the Likud) and its coalition partners control a clear majority of the parliament. If Netanyahu abandons the Likud and his allies, there are not enough members of parliament left to form a majority. In other words, Kerry's plan cannot work because of simple mathematics. But it gets worse. In Israel, the parliament is roughly 10% composed of Arabs in three different parties. Israeli politics is such that it is highly unlikely that an Israeli prime minister would make the most important decision in the history of the Jewish state based upon minority support of the Jewish members of parliament. That means the number of potential new allies for Netanyahu is even lower, and the chances for Kerry's plan to work are even worse.
Now we all realize that some of the current members of the governing coalition might move with Netanyahu into a new grouping, and Kerry's plan must be based upon that hope. But really, does Kerry think that any Israeli leader would enter into a deal with the current sclerotic Palestinian leadership, a group that has shown itself incapable of governing? President Abbas just began his tenth year of a four year term. That is not a mistake. Abbas should have left office six years ago, but has just hung on to power without there being a peep out of the Palestinians. Under his rule, the terrorists from Hamas have taken over the Gaza Strip, a control which continues today. Why should the Israelis believe that the autocratic (and kleptocratic) Abbas and his people will be able to keep a new Palestine free from the terrorists once a deal is structured? Would Israel actually enter into a deal only to be forced to retake control of that state to rid it of terror groups?
In fairness, there are so many problems facing the negotiations that Kerry's plan is just one of many flaws in that mess. Still, if Friedman is correct (always a big if), then the Secretary of State is delusional.
The question may be confusing, but the answer is not difficult. A successful conclusion to the negotiations is highly unlikely. In fact, for anyone to attempt to pull off a deal that depends on the complete reversal of one of the leaders could best be described as a victory for fantasy over reality.
Of course, what I have just described is not some esoteric philosophical question. It is the recounting of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as described by Tom Friedman of the New York Times. Before going further, I have to point out that the fantasy may well be coming from Friedman; he has a history of being oblivious to the actual facts. Nevertheless, Friedman ascribes to John Kerry the tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations of seeking to have Israeli prime minister Netanyahu abandon his party and his coalition partners while seeking support from other parties the gain a majority for the peace plan envisioned by Kerry.
Let's just stop here for a moment. Israel is a democracy. It has a parliament with 120 members which governs the country. Netanyahu's party (the Likud) and its coalition partners control a clear majority of the parliament. If Netanyahu abandons the Likud and his allies, there are not enough members of parliament left to form a majority. In other words, Kerry's plan cannot work because of simple mathematics. But it gets worse. In Israel, the parliament is roughly 10% composed of Arabs in three different parties. Israeli politics is such that it is highly unlikely that an Israeli prime minister would make the most important decision in the history of the Jewish state based upon minority support of the Jewish members of parliament. That means the number of potential new allies for Netanyahu is even lower, and the chances for Kerry's plan to work are even worse.
Now we all realize that some of the current members of the governing coalition might move with Netanyahu into a new grouping, and Kerry's plan must be based upon that hope. But really, does Kerry think that any Israeli leader would enter into a deal with the current sclerotic Palestinian leadership, a group that has shown itself incapable of governing? President Abbas just began his tenth year of a four year term. That is not a mistake. Abbas should have left office six years ago, but has just hung on to power without there being a peep out of the Palestinians. Under his rule, the terrorists from Hamas have taken over the Gaza Strip, a control which continues today. Why should the Israelis believe that the autocratic (and kleptocratic) Abbas and his people will be able to keep a new Palestine free from the terrorists once a deal is structured? Would Israel actually enter into a deal only to be forced to retake control of that state to rid it of terror groups?
In fairness, there are so many problems facing the negotiations that Kerry's plan is just one of many flaws in that mess. Still, if Friedman is correct (always a big if), then the Secretary of State is delusional.
No comments:
Post a Comment