WORLD SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

For Israelis, this is the time of the return of the lie. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas tells the UN General Assembly that Israel bears sole blame for the origins of the conflict, that Israel is the sole obstacle to resolving it, and that, in effect, the Jews have no connection to the land of Israel. And he receives a standing ovation.
This is also a time of inversion of expectations: Barack Obama, Israelis’ least favorite president, emerges as the defender of truth, while Bill Clinton, whom Israelis adored, joins the distorters. Here is what the week, and some of its main players, looked like from Jerusalem:
Barack Obama. Thanks to Obama, Israelis felt, at least for a moment, a little less alone. For Israelis, the most crucial part of his UN speech was this: “The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition.”
Israel, Obama was saying, deserves recognition not because of the Holocaust—an implicit point in his Cairo speech—but because Israel is the Jews’ historic homeland. In Cairo, Obama missed an opportunity to tell the Muslim world that the Jews are not a foreign transplant but an indigenous people returning home. And that omission was the beginning of Israeli disillusionment toward Obama. Now, though, the president was speaking clearly about Jewish history.
But as it turned out, only Israelis seemed to be listening. The media response was largely contemptuous: Obama wasn’t motivated by moral clarity but by political expedience, addressing not the Muslim world but American Jewish voters. Three years of estrangement had their effect: When Obama finally spoke the truth, few seemed to believe he meant it.
Bibi Netanyahu. In his UN speech, Netanyahu also told the truth: Israel is ready to pay the price for real peace, the Palestinians want a state without peace, and the uncertainty in the Arab world means that Israel requires security measures which the Palestinians refuse to consider.
But telling the truth isn’t enough. In the coming weeks, Netanyahu needs to say explicitly: Israel accepts the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, in exchange for a Palestinian declaration of acceptance of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.
He needs to say so, first of all, because that is the basis for an eventual peace agreement. More urgently, he needs to shift the onus for the absence of peace back to where it belongs—on the Palestinian leadership, which denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state and seeks its unraveling through the “right of return” of the descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, rather than to a Palestinian state. Abbas has called the Palestinians’ UN bid “a moment of truth.” By exposing Palestinian rejectionism, Netanyahu can make this a moment for truth.
Mahmoud Abbas. The most revealing moment in Abbas’ speech was this: “I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough.”
As the Israeli newspaper Ma’ ariv sarcastically noted, “Moses was absent.” In a sense, Abbas’ speech was a response to Obama’s: The Jews have no legitimacy in the land. That is the message Palestinians routinely receive from Abbas’ media. Abbas, whose doctorate from the Oriental College in Moscow was based in part on Holocaust denial, remains a denier of Jewish history.
There is a direct link between erasing the Jews from their own land and history and a view of the conflict which places all blame on Israel. In Abbas’ telling, there were no Israeli peace offers, only colonialist oppression. Palestinian history is entirely passive, a narrative of grievance. Abbas’ speech does indeed explain why there is no peace and no Palestine, but in the opposite way he intended.
The United Nations. There is no worse place to try to heal the Arab-Israeli conflict. The UN doesn’t merely condemn Israel more than any other country, which would be scandal enough; it condemns Israel more than all other countries combined. According to the Geneva-based UN Watch, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted, in the last five years, about 70 resolutions condemning specific countries, 40 of which have been against Israel. In the General Assembly, about 20 anti-Israel resolutions are adopted each year, as opposed to five or six against other countries.
And all that effort for the one national movement on the planet whose long-term goal isn’t just building its own state but destroying a neighboring state. That is the movement being celebrated by the UN above all other stateless peoples.
One consequence of the UN’s Palestine obsession is the displacement of other crises. Here is Jordana Horn of the Jerusalem Post describing how Japan’s prime minister, Yoshihoko Noda, was received following Abbas’ speech: “The energy and concentration of the assembled diplomats dropped precipitously. Groups of diplomats left, not listening as … Noda spoke of the tragic earthquake that had befallen his country, and his land and people’s attempts to pick themselves up from horror and disaster.” Tibet, Kurdestan, starvation in Somalia—none of these tragedies merits the urgency accorded to Palestine.
Bill Clinton. Perhaps the most bitter moment of this bitter week was provided by Bill Clinton, precisely because he’s a friend. In a round-table with bloggers, Clinton blamed Netanyahu for the failure of the peace process over the last 15 years. “The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics … were Rabin’s assassination and Sharon’s stroke,” Clinton said.
And if Rabin hadn’t been assassinated, would Yasser Arafat have made peace? It was Clinton who laid the blame for the failure of the Oslo process on Arafat. For the last decade, as apologists for Palestinian rejectionism tried to obscure that fact, Clinton remained a voice for truth. But now, hatred of Netanyahu apparently justifies falsifying the historical record and undermining Clinton’s own integrity.
Clinton also blamed the one million Israeli citizens who came from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s. “You’ve had all these immigrants coming in from Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them.” But might one reason for the skepticism of Russian Israelis toward a two-state solution be that they came of age as Israelis during the second intifada—when Palestinians responded to Israel’s peace overtures with exploding buses? Might another reason be the thousands of missiles that fell on southern Israel following the Gaza withdrawal in 2005? Might the fear of Russian immigrants—and of veteran Israelis—toward a Palestinian state in the hills overlooking Tel Aviv be based on a knowledge of geography, rather than an ignorance of history?
Savvy friends of Israel know that the strength of the American-Israeli relationship depends on bipartisanship, and that Israel’s interests are not served by becoming a wedge issue between the two parties. Obama’s speech was an essential step in reaffirming that bipartisanship. It’s too bad that Bill Clinton, of all people, has just reinforced the arguments of those who are trying to portray the Democrats as the “blame Israel” party. As Clinton well knows, the truth has a way of taking its revenge against those who would deny it.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor to The New Republic and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
28 comments
When Bill Clinton was president Arafat visited the White House more than any other foreign leader. Dennis Ross ,chief negotiator for Clinton, describes how Arafat demanded always where is my money. Madeleine Albraight, the Secretary of State cooked lunch for Arafat. Clinton despised and so treated Nethanyauh the Prime Minister of Israel. Bill Clinton,s antagonism to Nethanyauh has not changed. Bill Clinton thought, and certainly advised, that BHO and Hillary,s malevolent treatment of Nethanyauh will bring him down. Nethanyauh is quite popular in Israel. Thus Bill Clinton has failed miserably. The only thing he has left is to go into dishonest statements. Well Bill Clinton has become another Jimmy Carter, a liar a liar. What really gets me is that these politicians don,t read the speeches in Arabic of Arafat, Abbas, and so on. In Arabic they attack and denigrate Israel and the Jews and America. Or they know it and simply ignore them. BHO once made a meek comment to Abbas to "reduce" the hatred propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Abbas ignore the advise. At the end of the day Abbas and groupies are mortal enemies of Israel. Thus Israel, and the Jews, should be ready at any time to defend themselves. Israel should stop giving jobs to Palestinians. Let the Palestinians build their State by themselves. Let them cooperate with their Moslem and Arab countries, Jordan,Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait from where they were expelled during Arafat siding wit Iraq. Let the Palestinians work with their "brothers".
- JAIMECHUCH
September 28, 2011 at 6:05am
Interesting interpretation of Obama's UN speech. It also could be seen as an abandonment by the US of its role as mediator and affirmation that only Israel's story is the right one. ("You guys work it out; let us know when, if ever, you're done.") In all the looking-back -- who's more to blame, who's more entitled, who's more right -- which has been THE feature of the issue for 40 years, what remains missing is any sense of the end-game. With the US presumably no longer in the way of the Likud's Entire Land of Israel enterprise, and assuming that the UN, the Palestinians, and anyone else not signing on to that enterprise is either a cretin or a dope, what happens now?
- gkjames
September 28, 2011 at 7:28am
In this way, Bill Clinton has mainly damaged his own reputation and future viability as a mediator. For all his admirable intellectual gifts and accomplishements, I am saddened by this failure of character and judgement. This is no help to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, either. Israel is one of the smallest and most vulnerable states in the world, at 8,000 sq. miles smaller and less inhabitable than New Jersey or Belgium. Why do some people think that Israel's Muslim enemies will be appeased by trifling territorial compromises? They have made their ultimate intentions clear, like blinking neon signs.
- amidut
September 28, 2011 at 8:14am
"Israel is one of the smallest and most vulnerable states in the world, at 8,000 sq. miles smaller and less inhabitable than New Jersey or Belgium. Why do some people think that Israel's Muslim enemies will be appeased by trifling territorial compromises?" This is an astonishing bit of argument. The people on the West Bank and in Gaza, regardless of their rhetoric and actions, do not represent an existential threat to Israel. Only the big nation states who might acquire armed forces (and nuclear weapons) to offset Israel's existing military advantage do that. As I argue elsewhere, there is a lot more to be gained by giving the Palestinians' a state in which to invest their limited energy, thus reducing the appeal of terrorism (I mean, let's be real - The government of a Palestinian state and most of its people would understand from the get go that if there were a Palestinian state, and they allow cross border attacks on Israel without immediate and strong punishment for the perpetrators, they will be invaded, the territory occupied, and the leaders deposed). Getting Palestine normalized, even if it's a bumpy normalization, is the only thing that will allow Israel to focus its energy on the big state actors that might actually threaten its survival. Before or after Palestinian statehood, Israel will still be "one of the smallest and most vulnerable states in the world." The only thing that can change that is changing its relationship with the big state actors in the area - a much harder problem, especially with the Arab Spring - than solving its Palestinian problem. In many ways, Israel and US are engaged in the same fallacious enterprise. We've just wasted a decade wrapped around the notion that terrorism is an existential threat to the US that justifies 2 wars and trillions in expense, while we ignore the real threats to the country (mostly internal rot, and the loss of anything resembling a claim to international moral and economic leadership). Israel of course is not be ignoring the real threats to it (Iran, e.g.), but their continual focus on Palestine sure as hell obscures and obstructs that focus.
- IowaBeauty
September 28, 2011 at 9:03am
I am not following the Knesset proposal to annex Judea and Samaria, and I doubt it would pass, but my "gut instinct" is that there is a serious effort by the Israeli government to emphatically divorce building apartments in Jerusalem (Gilo) from the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria since Abbas' UN speech wherein he denied any Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem. I watched/listened to Obama's UN speech again yesterday, and he implied without saying the words that he still wants the "1967 borders", which are the 1948 armistice line, to be the starting point for new direct talks. No one in Israel is going to support giving up what Jordan illegally occupied in 1948 (Wailing Wall, Old Jewish quarter, etc), and both Ramat Shlomo in NORTH Jerusalem and Gilo in SOUTH Jerusalem were built on previously vacant land. NOT like Israel is talking about Maale Adummin, which is outside the formal Jerusalem boundary since Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. and now US State and Hillary have announced that no American citizen born in Jerusalem can have a US passport that says Jerusalem, Israel. I wonder if former NYC mayor Ed Koch realizes he was played by Obama - not that Koch is such a big influence anymore, but the whole point of Koch's endorsement of Turner in NY9 and the ECI campaign was over Obama's obsession with dividing Jerusalem, breaking his 2008 campaign promise on "UNDIVIDED Jerusalem". If Obama manages to win re-election, I expect him to wear a kefiyah to his inauguration, he is so in love with the PLO's victimhood whinin' - oh, sorry, Obama only drops his g's when he is speakin' to African-American members of congress.
- K2K
September 28, 2011 at 9:52am
Ack - I cannot hear anyone questioning Bill Clinton's commitment to his beloved Israel - just ridiculous, paranoid and vicious even. Friends have disagreements, enough already. In the meantime: Happy Rosh Hashanah! Shana Tovah.
- WandreyCer
September 28, 2011 at 10:19am
Shana Tovah, Wandrey.
- Tristan
September 28, 2011 at 10:25am
“ 'The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition.' ” That part is good. What I would like to hear further, but is unfortunately not even mentioned by the Eurocentric Israel advocates, is that Jewish history in Palestine did not go into a hiatus from the time of the completion of the Mishna until the Yishuv. The have had a distinct, continuous history in Palestine and the rest of the Middle East throughout that time. Most of that time was as third-class citizens under various implementation of the Pact of Umar. As recompense for debasement by their Muslim rulers for centuries, it is only fair that a slice of Islam's empire be turned over to one of Islam's victims.
- sighthnd
September 28, 2011 at 12:14pm
Israel accepts the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, in exchange for a Palestinian declaration of acceptance of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. I don't know exactly what this means. Does this mean that Arab Israelis have no claim on Israel as their own homeland? And who decides who is Jewish? I have no problem with the state of Israel deciding who is a citizen or not, Germany has the same theory of jus sanguinis. But Israel is also the homeland of many Palestinians (I am referring to the ones who are Israeli citizens) why denigrate them to second class status in their own country? This is why this is an impossible situation. "Israel is ready to pay the price for real peace, the Palestinians want a state without peace" No, Israel is not ready to pay the price for real peace because they refuse to acknowledge that Palestinians feel that the land there is their own homeland as well. Neither side can budge because to do so would be to give away the store so real peace is impossible. So what is the solution? Fuck real peace. Accept that the Palestinians will have a state without peace with Israel. The US has long accepted the reality of North Korea, we have that state without peace (technically we only have a cease fire), it has worked well enough for South Korea. So draw the lines, build an effing wall and live like the South Koreans do.
- blackton
September 28, 2011 at 12:26pm
Thank you Tristan - after living on the Upper West all these years (and adoring it), I'm all stocked up on my honey and apples!
- WandreyCer
September 28, 2011 at 12:29pm
"If Obama manages to win re-election, I expect him to wear a kefiyah to his inauguration, he is so in love with the PLO's victimhood whinin'" Oh gimme a break! That is just asinine. He's more likely to have latkes on the White House menu as a gesture of thanks that Jewish voters stayed with him. You know, K2K, you were a lot more interesting when you were talking expertly about navy stuff.
- ironyroad
September 28, 2011 at 12:30pm
"This is an astonishing bit of argument. The people on the West Bank and in Gaza, regardless of their rhetoric and actions, do not represent an existential threat to Israel." Are you familiar with the geography of the region? Samaria is within small arms range of Israel's central coastline which houses the vast majority of her population, major metropolis and international airport. If the rockets from Gaza were coming from Samaria, Israel would be unable to function. Israel must retain the ability to interdict weapons flowing in to Samaria. This is without mentioning the demographic effect of the demanded right of return. "The government of a Palestinian state and most of its people would understand from the get go that if there were a Palestinian state, and they allow cross border attacks on Israel without immediate and strong punishment for the perpetrators, they will be invaded, the territory occupied, and the leaders deposed" Like what happened in Gaza?
- sighthnd
September 28, 2011 at 1:04pm
"But Israel is also the homeland of many Palestinians (I am referring to the ones who are Israeli citizens) why denigrate them to second class status in their own country?" No one questions present-day South Africa as a black country. It is inconceivable that South Africa will have a white head of state in the near future or ever have a head of state who does not get the approval of a substantial portion of the black population. Does this mean that the whites of South Africa are second-class citizens? There's a lot that Israel should do to better integrate its Arab population. None of the manifestations of these shortcomings necessarily follow from Israel having a Jewish calendar. "No, Israel is not ready to pay the price for real peace because they refuse to acknowledge that Palestinians feel that the land there is their own homeland as well." There were Arabs living in Palestine before the Yishuv. Their descendants are a minority of today's Palestinians. The Palestinians living there now should be accommodated as human beings, but claim that it their homeland when their families only discovered it after the Zionist enterprise made the place worth living in.
- sighthnd
September 28, 2011 at 1:22pm
^calendar^character I was juggling several different thoughts there.
- sighthnd
September 28, 2011 at 1:23pm
IowaBeauty is babbling, again.
- arnon
September 28, 2011 at 3:31pm
I think the headline might have read "Obama exceeds expectations". As for Clinton, this sentence is about the most cynical I've read in awhile: "And if Rabin hadn’t been assassinated, would Yasser Arafat have made peace?" And I thought sacrafice was Christian. I disagree with Halevi's statement that the American-Israeli relationship depends on bipartisanship; it depends on our common ancestors, heritage, and beliefs, and our shared commitment to democracy. It's Halevi who would emphasize political differences. It's getting late. Shanah Tovah.
- rayward
September 28, 2011 at 4:25pm
"It is inconceivable that South Africa will have a white head of state in the near future" this is simple demographics, if whites had a much larger population in SA then I could find it conceivable. After all it used to be inconceivable that a country like the USA with its history of slavery would have a black President. And you are taking a long view of history, most Arab immigration to Palestine happened in the 1880's, I don't particularly care about that I am talking about the sentiments of their descendants who feel a lot like Irish Americans or Italian Americans etc. who consider America their homeland. I suppose you can say that most immigrants felt like moving to America after the WASPs made it "fit" to live in, but that doesn't mean the WASPs own America or that only their culture is the valid one. I suppose we are arguing about the nature of Israel, I view it as a secular state and the ancestral homeland of Jewish people, this does not make it incompatible with Arabs willing to live in a secular state and who view themselves also as Israeli citizens, I could be wrong but it seems like you are arguing that Israel is a religious state first and foremost. I am not calling for any right of return, the people who left did so of their own accord, the only right of return I can see is for first generation to be allowed to return, which amounts now to a few elderly pensioners dying in the village they were born. Other than that, fuck them. But to hope in vain that their children and grandchildren are going to say "you know, you are right, fuck us." is silly. Which is why I say screw this concept of a Palestinian state having to be at peace with Israel. Give them their country, if they lob rockets militarily occupy them to the end of time for all I care (provided they persist in their useless war) I draw the line at the settlements. It will not be an inducement for peace, it will only make seperation harder, and do you really want Israel to be considered a pariah state, one that also has a form of apartheid, forever? Israel won the war, hoping to get the Pals. to admit it or to "fall in love" with Israelis is never going to happen. Impose the security at a barrel of a gun, fine but give up this fantasy of Pals. ever liking you.
- blackton
September 28, 2011 at 5:16pm
While I disagree with much of this (among other things I think Halevi is glossing over the role recent Russian immigrants are playing in Israel) I'm considerably more sympathetic to Halevi's arguments than I would be to similar sentiments expressed in atrocious prose and sprinkled with grammatical errors and dropped names. I don't imagine I'm alone in this regard. Israel and TNR greatly benefit fro writing of this caliber rather than the constant embarrassment that is Marty Pertez's ramblings in and out of coherence. L'shanna tova.
- mtinora@me.com
September 28, 2011 at 5:48pm
"May You Be Written and Sealed for a Good Year." כתיבה וחתימה טובה
- blackton
September 28, 2011 at 6:20pm
Nice piece on this week at the UN. I tend to believe the Israeli Barrier Wall is the reason the Palestinians are at the UN. Notice how the terrorism drops off when the Terrorist are walled off, searched and managed outside the country? Mssr. Abbas may want people to believe he wants statehood and into the community of nations. I believe that all he wants is a way around the wall to kill more Jews. God Bless Ariel Sharon.
- CRS9TNR
September 28, 2011 at 8:07pm
The West Bank settlements are a major impedement to peace. They undermine Israel's moral authority; they isolate Israel within the international community; and given that it is impossible to imagine a two-state compromise acceptable to Palestinians where settlements of the present size and configuration continue to exist under Israeli protection and Israeli law, their continued illegal existence and even expansion under Netanyahu is an obvious barier to the peace process. To the extent that Rabin and Sharon recognized the huge problem settlement posed for the peace process and for Israel--and it is obvious that both saw the problem more clearly than Bibi does--their loss is the peace process's loss and Israel's, and Clinton is exactly right. Clinton didn't claim that Rabin's survival would have guaranteed a peace aggreement. He simply claimed that Rabin's death and Sharon's incapacitation made things a lot harder, and given Netanyahu's self-destructive fumbling Clinton's claim wouldn't seem to be all that hard to support.
- AaronW
September 28, 2011 at 8:09pm
Yeah, when a president speaks to thrush, for a change, then he disappoints....LOL Who do you really think you are fooling. President Clinton is addressing what is in the best interests of AMERICA and not what AIPAC believes is in the best interest of some racist apartheid state. AIPAC and their main funders on Wall STreet need to pay for the $5.5 trillion they have stolen from American tax payers for the wars based on lies.
- MSA70
September 28, 2011 at 8:12pm
Not that you necessarily meant to, MSA70, but please don't associate me with your "racist apartheid state" description of Israel. That is yours, not mine. Europeans created several states out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. One of them is Israel. It is no less legitimate than Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or any of the other post-Ottoman Arab states. And despite six decades of war and near-war--wars that Israel did not initiate--Israel has managed to build itself into a liberal democracy that however imperfect should be a lesson and an example to every other state in the region. The settlement movement is a big problem. It is illegal and anti-democratic, and the argument can be made that settlement along with the rise of haredi zealotry coupled with the high haredi birth rate poses an "existential threat" to Israel as a liberal, secular democracy. But Zionism itself does NOT equate to racism.
- AaronW
September 28, 2011 at 8:42pm
God bless you but to trust Obama one iota would be a terrible mistake. Obama's ideological background is hard core anti western, anti-American, pro Islamist. The next presidential election is about three issues: Do the Jews deserve to survive? Shall the United States to remain the land of the free and the last best hope of mankind?, Does what is left of European civilization deserve to survive? Conservatives say yes, liberals say no. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
- bulbman1066
September 28, 2011 at 11:49pm
"The West Bank settlements are a major impedement to peace." Before the Israelis occupied the West Bank in '56 what effort did the "Palestinians" exert to set up a state there? The Arab Palestinian cause is a lame imitation of Zionism. The so-called Palestinians are a an excuse for Arab regimes to oppress their subjects. According to those regimes: sure you're ignorant, poor and oppressed, but guess what: it's all the Jews' fault. The European and American lefts agree with us.
- bulbman1066
September 29, 2011 at 12:29am
WB was occupied in 1967.
- noga1
September 29, 2011 at 2:01pm
bulbman: "Obama's ideological background is hard core anti western, anti-American, pro Islamist." I was wondering why he gave Osama bin Laden a bouquet of roses and a free voucher for a sauna and massage at his local health club. Thanks, that clears it up!
- ironyroad
September 29, 2011 at 4:28pm
And, just in case you don't have access to news these days bulbman: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/30/another_obama_foreign_policy_success.html
- ironyroad
September 30, 2011 at 10:57am