Response to the NY Times

This is my response to the editorial below which appeared in the NY Times on Friday.

===================================================================================

To the editor of the NY Times:

Your editorial on the need for Israeli Prime Minister to make yet more concessions in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table once again bespeaks the paper’s unwillingness to understand the playing field on which Israel is operating.

Israel has already conceded its willingness to agree to a two state solution with a Palestinian state on its border; it has agreed, in principle, to return to the 1967 borders in return for true peace; it has agreed, as well, to allocate a portion of what the world calls East Jerusalem to the Palestinians for its capital; and, in a show of incredible commitment to the peace process itself, it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza displacing thousands of its citizens and destroying over a dozen communities, for which it received absolutely nothing in return save a five year barrage of rockets in the south of the country and the continuing loss of its troop’s lives defending its southern border (witness the death of two of our soldiers on Friday at the hands of Hamas operatives who were trying to lay mines on the border itself).

So, none of us living here can blame the Prime Minister for standing tough on construction anywhere in Jerusalem and even in biblical Judea and Samaria which the world refers to as the West Bank. Israel’s position in this regard is supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public and taking this position in a dialogue with an ally such as the US should not have caused President Obama to treat our Prime Minister during his US visit last week like someone from Equatorial Guinea.

Yes, friends have to be honest with each other. But friends also have to recognize the realities with which each of them are involved and, as both a US and an Israel citizen, I must say that this time I think the reaction of the US administration has been “way over the top” during the post-Biden visit discussions. Frankly, when and if the Palestinian leadership decides to come to the negotiating table in earnest, we here in Israel will still have to have some concessions to offer in order to make peace. The real settlements, not Jerusalem neighborhoods but those small but courageous communities in the West Bank, will probably be on the chopping block at that time. No good negotiator would yield those in advance of the discussion.

Sincerely,
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem

=============================================================================

March 27, 2010
EDITORIAL
Mr. Obama and Israel

After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more skeptical now.
All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran’s nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship.

But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state.

President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.

Mr. Netanyahu’s government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian “proximity talks” were to begin.

Last year, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama’s call for a freeze on all settlement building. On Tuesday — just before Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Netanyahu at the White House — Israeli officials revealed plans to build 20 units in the Shepherd Hotel compound of East Jerusalem.
Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured.

Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage. Details of their deliberately low-key White House meeting (no photos, no press, not even a joint statement afterward) have not been revealed. We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.

The administration should also insist that proximity talks, once begun, grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, not incidentals. And it must ensure that the talks evolve quickly to direct negotiations — the only realistic format for an enduring agreement.
Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.

Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel’s security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?