Wanted: Pragmatic Israeli policies instead of ideology

[bemildred]

Israel’s strategic situation has worsened considerably in the last weeks. Turkey’s Edogan is scoring points in the Arab world for staring down Israel, and making veiled threats that Turkey will no longer tolerate Israel’s hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. The attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo again raises the specter of Egypt’s reneging on the peace agreement with Israel, and the Netanyahu government was sufficiently worried about a similar attack on the embassy in Amman to recall its staff from there. And, of course, the Palestinian Authority will ask for full membership status in the UN, and it is likely to gain observer status as a state.

As Aluf Benn has pointed out, the Netanyahu government has been singularly inept in handling this series of crises. It has come up with nothing more than a rear-guard fight of trying to gain a “moral victory,” hoping that at least the largest EU states will either vote against the recognition of Palestine or avoid it. There could have been a number of better options; in my view, the most promising would have been to engage with the Palestinian initiative and turn it into a vote that would reaffirm Israel’s standing and determine its final internationally recognized borders.

The reason why such a course of action was never even considered is deeply seated in Netanyahu’s worldview, which is at odds with that of most of the international community, as the following shows.

The New York Times carries a discussion entitled “Can Israel Survive without a Palestinian State?” The choice of title, of course shows the editors’ position: Not only is a Palestinian state not a threat to Israel, it is its best bet for long-term survival. The ensuing discussion is quite interesting.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/wanted-pragmatic-israeli-policies-instead-of-ideology-1.385367

[Jefferson23]

1. He is correct of course about the resulting isolation, and that it is

avoidable. I will venture to say that even if the United States manages to pull off an abstention instead
of having to veto in the SC, it will have a negative impact to the arab/muslim world nonetheless.

It's not as if people don't read.

[bemildred]

2. I don't believe I have posted Mr Strenger before, but he argues well here.

I am in favor of a "principled pragmatism" too. I think the choice between principle and pragmatism is a false one, it is necessary to have both. It's like having both a good strategy and good tactics.

I think an abstention, should it occur, would be a PR win for the USA, almost as good as a "yes". Sometimes getting out of the way can be enough.

[Jefferson23]

3. My concern about that possibility is our long standing

aide and unconditional support will not assist us to be viewed as neutral despite an abstention...more of a ploy. Depending on what we do after that could possibly help bolster credibility for Obama, we'll see soon enough.

[bemildred]

4. I think what follows will be much more important.

It's the first time since I cannot remember when in one of these UN vote deals where I don't have the feeling anybody knows how it will come out, which I suppose is why all the control freaks are freaking out about it.