Netanyahu’s Congressional Triumph

The Confrontational Speech the Israeli Prime Minister Delivered Before Congress Gets a Standing Ovation.

The head of the Israeli government took a hard line at the close of his visit to the United States. While Netanyahu talked of being ready for “painful compromises,” the reality was that the pain caused by his proposals would all be felt on the Palestinian side.

It was Benjamin Netanyahu’s day. The Israeli prime minister got thunderous applause from the U.S. Congress for his thoughts on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They were essentially the same ideas put forth by President Obama the week prior, but Obama’s ideas were received far less warmly by many in Congress. Still, the policies of Israel’s hawkish Netanyahu/Lieberman government enjoy nearly total approval in the current U.S. Congress; plus, Israel has a reliable supporter in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Netanyahu’s visit is therefore likely to be remembered more for the standing ovations he received than for the discord that characterized the earlier atmosphere between the two leaders.

The main sticking points were the borders set for Israel in forming the new Palestinian state. Obama suggested the demarcation line as of June 4, 1967, i.e., the day preceding the war, as a starting point. On the one hand, this is logical, given the valid U.N. Security Council resolution of Nov. 22, 1967 that also prescribes those borders. On the other hand, every U.S. administration since that time has given Israel reason to believe the United States doesn’t insist the resolution be implemented. George W. Bush even assured Israel that he personally found the resolution to be invalid.

Now Netanyahu calls this a commitment on the curious grounds that Israel cannot live with those borders because they are indefensible — a defense that is invalid from a human rights point of view. In plain language, it means no return to the 1967 borders. Netanyahu in fact spoke of “generous compromises” but gave no further details. “In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders,” he announced with great flourish, but remained vague as to whether that meant Israel would withdraw from any land it currently controls, land to which Israel has no legal right.

Still, that also drew frenzied jubilation from Congress.

For the Palestinians, however, that was the most pleasant part of his speech. On the other disputed matters, Netanyahu showed not the least inclination toward compromise: No withdrawal from the Palestinian sector of Jerusalem; no right of return for refugees; no end to the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land; a definite no to a unilateral declaration of statehood before the U.N. General Assembly planned for September unless it has Israel’s blessing.

To attain those objectives, Netanyahu placed very high hurdles in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ way — so insurmountable that they will probably result in failure for the negotiations process. Netanyahu accused Abbas of hindering the peace process because he supposedly refuses to recognize Israel. He went on to say, “You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.” A “Jewish state,” however, places the right to exist for a 20 percent-strong Arab minority inside Israeli borders into question. But Netanyahu himself refuses to even negotiate as long as Abbas insists that reconciliation with Hamas means its inclusion in a national unity government.

After such a speech, and given the reception it got from the U.S. Congress, a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict may be further away than ever.