Q&A on Netanyahu’s speech with National Review Online

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+

Q&A: Caroline Glick on Netanyahu & the World   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

 

 

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a much-discussed speech on Sunday, endorsing a demilitarized Palestinian state and responding to Pres. Barack Obama’s recent Cairo address, among other things. Caroline Glick took a few questions about it and the Iranian elections this morning.

 

 

 

Caroline is senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. She’s also author of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Here’s the conversation:

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: Is it shocking Netanyahu would come out for a Palestinian state?

 

 

 

GLICK: It is not shocking that Netanyahu would set out the conditions under which he would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration’s obsession with creating one in Israel’s heartland as quickly as possible regardless of the character of Palestinian society, Palestinian support for the destruction of Israel, and the close ties the U.S.-sponsored Palestinian Authority shares with global terror groups and state sponsors of terror like Hezbollah and Iran made it necessary for Israel’s premier to make it very clear what must happen before Israel will agree to proceed on this path.

 

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: Is this anything remotely like a breakthrough?

 

 

 

GLICK: There are only two ways that Netanyahu’s speech can constitute a breakthrough. First, in the unlikely circumstance that the Obama administration actually cares about Israel’s concerns, Netanyahu’s speech should give the president and his advisors pause before they renew their massive pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians.

 

 

 

Second, Netanyahu’s speech could empower Israel’s supporters in Congress to begin questioning the administration’s harsh treatment of the U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East and so perhaps act as a break on the administration’s moves to steamroll Israel. Aside from that, what his speech served to do was expose just how radical the Palestinian and Arab position on Israel is. The Palestinians reacted to Netanyahu’s speech with calls to war in retaliation for his demand that they recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is not the sort of behavior one might expect from supposedly “moderate” Palestinian political leaders.

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: Will the U.S. and Israel agree on settlements? Have we entered a chill in our relationship?

 

 

GLICK: Obama and his advisors have made clear that their view on the settlements is not based on facts. It is based on their acceptance of the false Arab narrative of the Middle East conflict. They accept Arab historical revisionism that places the cart before the horse by claiming that Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is the cause of the conflict when in fact Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is a consequence of their continuous attempts to invade and destroy Israel. Since the Obama administration’s view is based on a false assertion, it is impermeable to fact and rational argument and therefore it is unlikely to change.

 

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: Is it significant that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech?

 

 

 

GLICK: It is very significant for Israel and world Jewry and perhaps for Israel’s supporters that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech. That speech was full of distortions of Jewish history and deeply dismissive of the Jewish claims to our homeland. It was absolutely necessary for Netanyahu to respond to Obama’s false and hideous assertion that Israel owes its creation to the Holocaust. And in explaining that the Holocaust could only happen because Israel didn’t exist at the time and by setting out the true 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to the land Netanyahu provided a necessary corrective to Obama’s move to write the Jewish people out of the history of the Middle East. Here too, Obama’s position is based on an  Arab myth — most enthusiastically propounded today by the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — that the Jews are interlopers in the region.

 

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: How bad might that be if a new intifada begins? Or a war between Israel and a neighbor?

 

 

 

GLICK: If the Palestinians follow through with their threat to renew their terror war against Israel it will be quite bad. This is so not because Israel will be unable to defend itself. Israel has the means to defend itself. It will be quite bad because, in light of the hostile treatment Israel is suffering at the hands of the Obama administration, and given the central role the U.S. under Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is playing in arming and training the Palestinian army that will likely be attacking Israeli targets in Judea and Samaria, the U.S. may well side with the Arabs against Israel. The administration is already placing limitations on arms sales to Israel. In this event, Israel will have to move quickly to find other suppliers.

 

 

 

It is unlikely today that Arab states will go to war with Israel, although that could change quickly if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In that event, the Iranians will be in a position to blackmail Arab states like Egypt and Jordan into abrogating their peace treaties with Israel and opening hostilities against it. Iran would accomplish this task by threatening to overthrow the Mubarak regime and the Hashemite Kingdom. It is this specter — along with the specter of nuclear attack and chronic terror violence conducted under Iran’s nuclear umbrella — that makes it essential for Israel to move quickly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

LOPEZ: How nervous is Israel about Ahmadinejad’s “reelection”?

 

 

 

GLICK: In a round about sort of way, Ahmadinejad’s “reelection” empowers Israel to take the necessary action. By stealing the election, Ahmadinejad now stands in open opposition to the Iranian people. This decreases the likelihood that the public will rally around the regime in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.

 

 

 

Ahmadinejad’s open hatred of the U.S. and his humiliation of the Obama administration will similarly make it more difficult politically for the administration to prevent Israel from striking Iran. If before the Iranian elections it was easy to see the administration signing on to U.N. Security Council sanctions against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran, or even shooting down Israeli aircraft en route to Iran, in their aftermath, such prospects seem more unlikely.

 

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+

3 Comments

  • br1spina 06/15/2009 at 17:38

    I think Netanyahu made two big strategic errors:
    1. He made his discourse the same day of the iranian elections, so the media (at least in France and Italy didnt spoke about it at all, the iranian elections where obviously taking all the news… so nobody who is watching TV know in europe what Netanyahu said. BAD timing
    2. More problematic is the error he made by speaking before the iranian results. It was obvious that Ahmadinejad was going to win. There was really no doubt about that, (only naive and wishfullthinkers beleive the contrary). Now his election is also another failure of the Obama foreign policy. Netanyahu should have waited the end of the iranian elections, that some media commentarys would have attack Obama (some main stream newspaper here in Italy and France are noticing the failure of the politics of openness toward muslims, tacking into account the results of the iranian elections).
    Only then Netanyahu should have done his discourse but at that point Obama would have made the request for it !
    There would have been a tiny position to exchange…
    The timing of Netanyahu discourse was really bad. he didn’t use it at his advantage. These are real errors of a staff too much focused on the inside politics, missing the broader picture.
    Netanyahu is not Sharon (for his strategy) and Obama (for its communications effects)
    A discourse like that is, in itself, a pricy discourse (in terms of advantages in the debate/war/negociation with the arabs and the outiside world. It is very sad to see how it has been thrown out to the public, making it unusefull.

    Reply
  • Marc Handelsman, USA 06/15/2009 at 22:52

    As a result of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech, the PLO may start a new intifada against Israel. Since the PLO denies that Israel is a Jewish nation, it will resort to violence to advance its cause. Like previous intifadas, the PLO will try to influence the media and continue to de-legitimatize Israel’s historic claim to Jerusalem. One of the biggest security threats to Israel would be for the PLO to acquire tactical nuclear weapons from Iran and deploy them. And Israel has every right to preemptively attack and destroy Iranian nuclear sites.

    Reply
  • BigB 06/16/2009 at 1:25

    First I am gratified you employ the term “Heartland” toward the territories usurped by the Arab invader. Such was Netanayhu’s spirit too.
    “so-called palestinians” is another touch I am glad you use, for it is a historic accuracy. The only true Palestinians are Jews (so it is inscribed on my parents’ ID card) while Arabs have no right donning this appelation.
    Third, impregnable rather than impermeable. Obama, expressing islamist ideology is impregnable to reason. like a safe or lock-box. But that is nit-picking
    Fourth, unfortunately this conflict can only be resolved with the expulsion of either the Arabs or Jews. Muslims cannot contemplate a jewish Sovereignty, however small, so the Abrahamic policy of amicable separation can work with Lot, not Muhammad. Most unfortuntely the jewish State will not move toward the economic expulsion, that is, emigration by economic necessity, to reverse the trend of Arab demographic expansion inside Israel. Ergo, a repeat of 1948 is the only option, a massive violent convulsion. That can only occur under the auspices of an occupying power. Once it was Britain. Now, the USA wishes to take the role. A US brokered and defended Arab state established in the heartland will quickly deteriorate into a Hamastan, incurring massive casualties among the jews, with the backlash of unavoidable expulsion. The only way to avoid this horrible eventuality is a consistent policy of economic emigration using the application of the Rule of Law, that jews abide by, and Arabs cannot. failing that, blood will flow again.

    Reply

Leave a Comment