Liel Leibovitz views and transcribes a rather telling video shot of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, presumably, thought the cameras were off:
In it, Netanyahu dismisses American foreign policy as easy to maneuver, boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery, and suggests that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (all translations are mine).
According to Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, the video should be “Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.”
…After claiming that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack, Netanyahu was asked by one of the participants whether or not the United States would let such an attack come to fruition.
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” He then called former president Bill Clinton “radically pro-Palestinian,” and went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.
“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”
Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”
Such open contempt from our supposed “strongest ally” and the recipient of more US aid than any nation in the World. Also note Netanyahu’s confession about bringing down the Oslo accords – which flies in the face of the preferred narrative regarding Arafat’s recalcitrance.
In a somewhat related sense, Joel Schalit wrote an interesting piece on the resentment and underlying current of anti-Americanism prevalent in Israeli politics:
Despite the fact that both right and left equally indulge American involvement in domestic affairs when it suits their purposes, Israeli conservatives tend to complain the most about the United States when circumstances require. Part of this is due to the opportunity such criticism provides to remind Israelis that the right is the sole bearer of national values, of Jewish cultural pride and political power. Part of it has to do with the discomfort that the right carries over Israel’s intense reliance on a country with strong traditions of liberalism and multiculturalism, despite America’s historic support for Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians and US sponsorship of the settlement project.
There is always a fear that an increasingly multiethnic America will lean too far to the left, and that such a transformation, while logical to anyone familiar with the country’s changing demographics, will inevitably portend negative consequences for Israel. This is where the Israeli discomfort at having to rely for 10% of their budget upon a mixed-race president with an Arabic middle name, who makes a point of reaching out to Muslims, unfortunately comes in. Encouraged by rightist Jewish forces in the United States, Israeli conservatives become intransigent as a means of demonstrating their support for their Diaspora counterparts, even if this means risking larger crises for Israel, such as a split with the United States.
While this fear no doubt exists in some form or another, the stronger case can be made that Israeli leaders such as Netanyahu can and do, in fact, lead America around by the nose, regardless of which party or politician inhabits the White House. In short, history validates Netanyahu’s arrogance.
History also supports the conclusion that the Likud Party’s only interest in the peace process is in determining how best to sabotage it, not as a good faith negotiator.
Imagine if the United States foreign policy establishment acted rationally given this evidence, and the fact that our current policies vis-a-vis Israel are bad for both the United States and Israel? Radical.
Related posts:
“Also note Netanyahu’s confession about bringing down the Oslo accords – which flies in the face of the preferred narrative regarding Arafat’s recalcitrance.”
Which preferred narrative are you referring to? If you mean the preferred right-wing idea about how everything bad that happened from 1993-2004 was entirely Arafat’s fault and that nobody in Israel did anything wrong (except, by this line of thinking, accommodate Arafat too much), then yes, Netanyahu’s comments fly in the face of that. At least I think that’s the narrative you’re referring to.
Well, such a narrative DOES exist. In fact, I’d say it dominates domestic discourse.
I’m not sure we’re following the same domestic discourse. Where in the American media, aside from explicitly right-leaning commentary, does anyone consistently maintain that Israel’s never done anything wrong?
Not “never done anything wrong,” but in general, the view is very one-sided in the vast majority of media outlets. Especially with respect to the Oslo history and Arafat’s role as spoiler thereof.
This bias is true of the New York Post, NY Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, any and all conservative periodicals (National Review, Weekly Standard) – with the exception of The American Conservative – any and all conservative radio programs, etc.
Some other periodicals are a little more balanced, but the prevailing story of Oslo is one of Arafat’s perfidy/duplicity/recalcitrance, with very, very, very few exceptions.
Two things, I guess. One, as I said, I certainly agree about right-leaning outlets and periodicals. But I don’t think that constitutes a “vast majority” of media outlets who “dominate domestic discourse.” I don’t think the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, or pretty much any other major non-right media outlet ever pushed only one narrative about Oslo. I also doubt that the Wall Street Journal’s reporting (that is, assuming they do much reporting from the Middle East) shaded things that way either, inasmuch as I know that their domestic issues reporting is considerably more fair than their wingnutty editorial page.
Second, what I think (and certainly hope) you’re arguing is that there was plenty of blame to go around for Oslo failing, and that this Bibi tape should give pause to anyone who blames Arafat exclusively. I certainly hope you’re not arguing that it somehow means Arafat was a blameless party.*
*I don’t think you are arguing that, but I just want to be clear because your post could possibly be read that way.
Not arguing that Arafat was blameless. Just not enamored with Dennis Ross’ take, and, again, what I perceive as the dominant narrative of those events.