Being a Partner for Peace
As he prepares to take office as Israel’s next prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is offering what sounds like a tantalizing commitment. He said that his government will be a “partner for peace.”
“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.
We would like very much to take Mr. Netanyahu’s words at face value, and it would be a lot easier to do that if he had not worked so assiduously to build his reputation as a hard-liner with deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace. In this year’s election campaign, he disparaged talks on a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Even now, he has not spelled out exactly what terms he is offering as a “peace partner.” He still cannot bring himself to endorse a two-state solution — which we believe must be part of any serious regional peace effort.
It will not be that hard to judge by his deeds, and relatively soon, whether Mr. Netanyahu is serious about seeking peace with the Palestinians. His government is expected to win parliamentary approval next week.
After that, we suggest that he start with freezing further settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank, as Israel has so often promised but failed to do. He should lift roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns that are not needed for security. In East Jerusalem, he should stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians. And in Gaza, he must expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials.
If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a preventive war with Iran.
Palestinians are understandably skeptical about the change in Israeli leadership. Mr. Netanyahu’s “peace partner” commitment was part of a hard-nosed political deal designed to ensure that the Labor Party — a leader in Mideast peace efforts — would join his government and thus broaden its appeal at a difficult time.
As The Times’s Ethan Bronner reported, Israel is increasingly isolated and facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades following its Gaza war. Mr. Netanyahu has understandably raised alarms with the expectation that his foreign minister will be an ultranationalist leader with what are widely considered to be anti-Arab views. Failing to pursue peace talks with the Palestinians would only make things worse by causing frictions with the new Obama administration and with Europe.
Mr. Netanyahu is widely believed to be more open to peace talks with Syria than with the Palestinians. But some Israeli experts and officials have suggested that despite his hawkish reputation, he could turn out to be a leader who may also conclude peace with the Palestinians. He is now on record as promising to pursue that. We will watch eagerly and hope Israelis hold him to it.
__________
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/opinion/27fri1.html?ref=opinion
__________
Other New York Time Editorials for March 27, 2009
__________
An Inspector General Under Fire
Robert Cobb, the inspector general for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, should be let go because of the doubts about his objectivity and effectiveness.
__________
John Hope Franklin
A conversation cut short with the historian John Hope Franklin focused on what it was like to be a rising black intellectual in the Jim Crow South.
