******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
NY Times Op-Ed, Mar. 19 2015
Netanyahu’s Win Is Good for Palestine
By YOUSEF MUNAYYER
WASHINGTON — IF anyone doubted where Benjamin Netanyahu stood on the
question of peace, the Israeli prime minister made himself clear just
before Tuesday’s election, proclaiming that there would never be a
Palestinian state on his watch. Then he decided to engage in a bit of
fear-mongering against Palestinian citizens of Israel in hopes of
driving his supporters to the polls. “The right-wing government is in
danger,” Mr. Netanyahu announced on Election Day. “Arab voters are
heading to the polling stations in droves.”
But Mr. Netanyahu’s victory is actually the best plausible outcome for
those seeking to end Israel’s occupation. Indeed, I, as a Palestinian,
breathed a sigh of relief when it became clear that his Likud Party had
won the largest number of seats in the Knesset.
This might seem counterintuitive, but the political dynamics in Israel
and internationally mean that another term with Mr. Netanyahu at the
helm could actually hasten the end of Israel’s apartheid policies. The
biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that
change could come from within Israel. It can’t and it won’t.
Israelis have grown very comfortable with the status quo. In a country
that oversees a military occupation that affects millions of people, the
biggest scandals aren’t about settlements, civilian deaths or hate
crimes but rather mundane things like the price of cottage cheese and
whether the prime minister’s wife embezzled bottle refunds.
For Israelis, there’s currently little cost to maintaining the
occupation and re-electing leaders like Mr. Netanyahu. Raising the price
of occupation is therefore the only hope of changing Israeli decision
making. Economic sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s increased
its international isolation and put pressure on the apartheid regime to
negotiate. Once Israelis are forced to decide between perpetual
occupation and being accepted in the international community, they may
choose a more moderate leader who dismantles settlements and pursues
peace, or they may choose to annex rather than relinquish land —
provoking a confrontation with America and Europe. Either way, change
will have to come from the outside.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (B.D.S.) has thrived
while Mr. Netanyahu has led Israel. He has become the internationally
recognized face of Israeli intransigence, settlement building and brazen
disregard for Palestinian human rights. But while Mr. Netanyahu has
become synonymous with the occupation, he is in many ways a product of
it. There are also entrenched political and economic interests that
benefit from maintaining the status quo.
By monopolizing West Bank land and natural resources, Israel reaps the
benefits of occupation with few costs. Settlements are a major state
investment, and add both a geographic and political obstacle to peace
since settlers play a key role in shaping Israeli politics and their
interests cannot be ignored.
Mr. Netanyahu’s style has certainly heightened tensions and harmed
relations with Israel’s allies. He has clashed with President Obama and
thumbed his nose at the Democratic Party by helping to make Israel a
partisan political issue in America. His most recent speech before a
joint session of Congress, which 60 members of Congress boycotted, was
merely the latest incident.
Replacing Mr. Netanyahu with his challenger, Isaac Herzog, would have
slowed down the B.D.S. movement and halted pressure on Israel by
creating the perception of change. A new prime minister would have
kick-started a new “peace process” based on previous failed models that
would inevitably fail again because of a lack of real pressure on Israel
to change its deplorable behavior.
The re-election of Mr. Netanyahu provides clarity. Two years ago
Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the maximum time left for a
two-state solution was two years. Mr. Netanyahu officially declared it
dead this week in order to drive right-wing voters to the polls. The
two-state solution, which has seen more funerals than a reverend, exists
today only as a talking point for self-interested, craven politicians to
hide behind — not as a realistic basis for peace.
The old land-for-peace model must now be replaced with a
rights-for-peace model. Palestinians must demand the right to live on
their land, but also free movement, equal treatment under the law, due
process, voting rights and freedom from discrimination.
Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election has convincingly proved that trusting
Israeli voters with the fate of Palestinian rights is disastrous and
immoral. His government will oppose any constructive change, placing
Israel on a collision course with the rest of the world. And this
collision has never been more necessary.
The election results will further galvanize the movement seeking to
isolate Israel internationally. B.D.S. campaigns will grow, and more
countries will move toward imposing sanctions to change Israeli
behavior. In the past few years, a major Dutch pension fund divested
large sums from Israeli banks active in the West Bank, and hundreds of
millions of dollars have been divested from companies, like G4S and
SodaStream, that operate in occupied territory.
There won’t be real change on the ground or at the polls without further
pressure on Israel. And now, that pressure will increase. For this, we
have Mr. Netanyahu to thank.
Yousef Munayyer is executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the
Israeli Occupation.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com