Bernard Avishai is right that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu should take meaningful steps to advance his "economic peace" agenda. There's little downside -- as Avishai writes, Bibi can do these things "without endangering Israelis or even removing settlers" -- and a growing economy will help to reinforce stronger Palestinian institutions.
Economic peace is not a replacement for meaningful peace talks, of course; an occupied territory with a vibrant economy is still an occupied territory. But bolstering the Palestinian economy would be good policy for Netanyahu, and it would buy him a bit of needed international goodwill.
Andrew Sullivan didn't like Avishai's piece, but I think his criticism misses his mark:
[...] Netanyahu's occupation continues to stifle Palestinian civil society and economic vibrancy, and he owes his power to those who wish to stifle it even more, to those who believe that Judea and Samaria should be in Israel forever, and that raw force and the immiseration of the Palestinians are the ways to achieve it. If Netanyahu cannot resist these forces even to freeze settlement construction for a year, what are the odds of his being able to grant these far larger concessions?
First, let's not call this "Netanyahu's occupation," as if one man is single-handedly responsible for it. The occupation continues because there's nobody in Israeli politics (or Palestinian politics, for that matter) brave enough to take steps to end it.
And when Sullivan characterizes "economic peace" measures as larger concessions than the settlement freeze, I think he misreads Israeli politics. A sizable majority of Israelis support Netanyahu's "economic peace" plan: In an April 2009 OneVoice poll, for example, just 22 percent of Israelis objected to easing security measures in the West Bank in order to develop the economy. (They only support limited steps, though: 61 percent said removing all checkpoints was unacceptable.)
There's a wider range of polling data on the settlement freeze. The OneVoice poll found only 23 percent of Israelis opposed the idea -- but that was before President Obama demanded it, and before Netanyahu imposed it. A June poll found that 58 percent of Israelis opposed a settlement freeze; another June poll found 40 percent opposition; a Jerusalem Post poll in August found 50 percent opposition; and so on.
Whatever the exact number, the freeze is clearly more controversial than economic peace measures. It also has greater potential to blow up Netanyahu's governing coalition: Right-wing Israeli parties draw a lot of support from settlers, and they have framed the prospect of a full settlement freeze as a red line. (Bibi has spent the last few months showering settlers with cash just to blunt the criticism of his partial freeze.)
"Economic peace" measures would actually be easier to implement than a full settlement freeze. Whether Netanyahu and his government have the will to implement them -- that's another story.
For updates throughout the day, follow us on 
Twitter, 
Facebook or 
RSS!
Categories: Israel, Israel & Palestine, Palestine, Regional News
Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bernard Avishai, economic peace, polling, settlement freeze
1 Comment
good piece.
it shouldn't be this or that. i think 'economic peace' plans are important regardless of the settlement freeze, which is significantly harder politically. so it should be applauded - not as a replacement for settlement freeze, but as an important step on its own.
also, i'm not surprised about the settlement freeze polls.
israelis see the settler activity as problematic for various reasons, and it is very possible was enough public support for some sort of freeze before it became an issue where Israelis felt they were dictated to, by the US.
While we're on a right foot, I want to make another important point on Jerusalem. People get mad about the Israeli construction there and see it as an "in your face" stunt, where it actually isn't.
Everyone's heard Al-Aqsa is the 3rd holiest place for muslims, but foreigners regularly underestimate the importance of Jerusalem to the Israeli public, religious as well as secular. Foreigners include it when talking about the Israeli settlements in the WB, because it infringes on 67 borders.
This is a grave misreading of inner Israeli politics, and even the Israeli basic mind-frame.
Except for unelectable fringe groups, not a single left winger will perceive east Jerusalem as a settlement, much less dare to declare it as such.
When Israel announces a full settlement freeze, and builds in Jerusalem, many see it as being cheeky. But it's not. It's a honestly giant perception gap that the west hast to take into account when discussing with Israelis.
Barak, Livni, Peres or even Rabin (were he alive) would not ever hold talks from a starting point which assumes Jerusalem neighborhoods outside the 67 green line are illegal settlements.
On an even wider note - The whole 67 border is an ad-hock creation of Israeli and Jordanian generals, that was suddenly set in stone due to UN 242.
The Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state, and want a solution in the form of land compromise. The 67 borders are however are simply not perceived as something holy, or something that ever defined a rightful Palestinian state. Israelis see it as a good starting point, for historical reasons, but expect it to accommodate changes, for which the Palestinians should be compensated.
Post a Comment