Anything New Under the Sun?

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's much anticipated foreign policy speech Sunday left much to be desired. While Obama hailed it as an "important step forward," it represents little in the direction of forward movement. Since UN resolution 242 in 1967 Israel has ostensibly supported the two state solution, while it took the PLO until the end of 1988 to indirectly accept the two state solution and Resolution 242.

Now, however, the tables are turned. The once intransigent PLO is now begging for table scraps, while Israel has moved further away from the two state solution. The right is ascendant in Israeli politics, and many on the right argue that the West Bank and Gaza should remain under Israeli control indefinitely, despite prohibiting international law and global approbrium. The land captured in 1967, some argue, is not only strategically important, but the heart of historical Israel. Never mind the Palestinians who inhabit the land, it is argued. Our land is our land! We should keep it all!

Really, it is not much different from the arguments Palestinians presented after 1948...

Like many realists have argued, greater power yields greater ambition. A larger definition of vital interests has emerged from Israel's success in the battlefield and political arena. Now Israel's ability to dominate the region has turned into a necessity to dominate the region.

America has not opposed growing Israeli intransigence. In fact, American policy has tended to mirror Israeli policy. No longer do American presidents refer to Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories as "illegal" but "unhelpful" or at most "illegitimate" (Obama). The Palestinian territories are not "occupied" but "disputed" territories.

After Netanyahu's speech, President Obama focused on the positive aspects, most notable of which was that Netanyahu apparently reversed his long-standing opposition to a Palestinian state, though his "acceptance" was so wrought with caviats as to make it nearly worthless. Obama, diplomatically, remarked that these caviats were to be negotiated in the future. His optimistic assessment was that the speech represented a basis upon which to start peace talks.

It's hard to know if he is simply leaving the door open to talks, and therefore reacting positively and diplomatically, or if he is mired in the same mindset that leaves the Palestinians out in the cold. Let's hope he doesn't start calling Netanyahu a "man of peace"!