Subscribe to The Jewish Standard free weekly newsletter

 
font size: +
 

Carrots, not sticks, can stop Israel’s settlement growth

 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

Ironically, while the United States offers carrots to the hostile regime in Iran to encourage it to change its policy on nuclear enrichment, the administration seems bent on using sticks on its ally Israel to force a change in its settlement policy. The approach is counterproductive and should be changed to one focusing on offering incentives for Israel to freeze settlements and evacuate Jews living outside the blocs of consensus settlements. Here are a few possible incentives to explore:

1) Set a deadline for eliminating Iran’s nuclear facilities. If the United States takes out Iran’s nuclear capability, then Israel has no more existential threat to worry about and does not have to take risks to do the job itself. Israel would be thrilled, but there’s little evidence President Obama has any intention of taking the necessary measures to stop the Iranian program and few American officials are willing to risk the consequences of a military operation. This would, nevertheless, be the most powerful incentive to change Israeli policy.

2) Sign a formal defense treaty with Israel. Though the United States has said it will defend Israel, a formal treaty would significantly reduce the threat of an Iranian strike and would also enhance its deterrent against groups such as Hezbollah. Many Israelis fear the constraints such a treaty may place on their freedom of action, but why not give them the choice?

3) Admit Israel to NATO. Israel’s army could contribute to the alliance and the alliance could all but eliminate the Iranian threat because it would force the Iranians to abandon the idea they can win a nuclear war with Israel. NATO forces would also be more reliable than U.N. peacekeepers to patrol borders, which would make it easier for Israel to make territorial concessions to the Palestinians as well as the Syrians and Lebanese. As with a U.S. treaty, Israel would have some trepidation about the restrictions NATO might seek to impose, especially with regard to nuclear weapons. The United States also could not make this deal alone.

4) Offer a generous compensation package to relocate settlers inside Israel. It is anathema to many U.S. officials to pay Israel to reverse a policy that America has long opposed, but any peace agreement will inevitably involve a significant financial role for the United States, so why not make a down payment on peace now? The most ideological settlers will still resist, but most settlers moved to the territories for economic reasons and will be receptive to financial incentives to relocate.

5) Pressure the Arabs to buy the land from the settlers. Jews bought land from Arabs to build their state; the Arabs should adopt the same tactic. This would be a good test for the Saudis, in particular, who feign concern for the Palestinians. Let them offer settlers money for their land. The Arabs will claim it’s already their land, but saying it won’t make it so.

6) Provide Israel with a large number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. These planes could help Israel achieve a significant upgrade to its air capability. As it is, Israel is expected to get some planes but cannot afford the large numbers it would like. There would be little downside to making the offer, though it may not be a significant enough benefit to offset the political risk of abandoning the settlements.

7) Finance the Red-Dead water project, which involves building a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. This project will significantly increase the water supply in the area and thereby address one of the most critical issues affecting the economies of Jordan, the future Palestinian state, and Israel. An even better solution would be for Obama to find partners to help pay for the project.

Benjamin Netanyahu may offer the best chance for progress in the peace process because his national security policies give him greater credibility in Israel to make risky decisions. Beating him with a stick, however, is likely to bring down his government. This would only put negotiations off by months or years, and his successor may be no more malleable to Obama’s will.

If the president wants to stop settlement growth and move toward a peace agreement, it would be wise to drop the stick and offer Israel carrots.

{/exp:member2:custom_profile_data}
Disclaimer
The views in opinion pieces and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jewish Standard. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters. Libelous or obscene comments will be removed.
 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

Stay tuned for the return of comments

Jeff posted 08 Aug 2009 at 06:38 PM

With millions of Americans out of work, California literally broke, Mitchell Bard calls on the US to provide yet more money and gifts to Israel in order for it to stop something that every US president has opposed and is considered to be illegal every place in the world but Israel. Perhaps he should take to heart what he wrotein an article that was published in the No. California Jewish Bulletin on May 14, 1993 when the US was in far better shape than it is today::

“President Clinton has asked the American people to make sacrifices to help ease the budget deficit and revitalize the economy. With everyone being asked to do their share, the question being asked is why should Israel be exempt?”

Victor Williams posted 09 Aug 2009 at 07:11 AM

Why must the West Bank be Judenrein?  We are expected to to welcome Palestinian Arabs into *our* homeland, and indeed we do so willingly (including offering Israeli citizenship in both 1948 and 1968).  In return, we are also expected to remove our people from their homes in Eretz Yisrael, as if their existence is somehow a stain on the land.  Why is no-one asking that Jews be given the same courtesy in (another) proposed Arab nation that we give in the one Jewish nation?  Draw the border where you will, but Jews should stay where they are.  Say NO to ethnic cleansing in Yesha!

Michael Hess posted 09 Aug 2009 at 05:13 PM

Why should Israel be rewarded for criminal activity?

The time has come for Israel to be forced to comply with UN resolutions and international law.

The colonization of land outside of Israel is illegal. Each and every “settlement” is illegal, Ban Ki-Moon has spent the last several weeks informing a succession of Israeli ministers of this well-known fact.

Iran is not about to nuke Israel. Israel is doing a fine job of destroying itself by the sheer greed and arrogance of a people who think they can steal land and resources from the indigenous people the land belongs to.

Israel can know peace when it goes back to living within its own borders; if it does not succeed at destroying itself over the “settlers” who have caused all of this grief.
Grief that I must add that increase the threat of terrorism worldwide.

Jan posted 09 Aug 2009 at 11:55 PM

I suspect that Palestinians might not have a problem with Jews living in a Palestinian state as long as they are not in Jewish only settlements where Palestinians are barred from living. Also it should be a given that Palestinians can live anywhere they want in Israel which has reserved 93% of the land only for Jews.

Michael Hess is absolutely correct regarding the illegality of settlements. There is not one settlement built on the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 that is legal under international law. And that includes settlements built in illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Unfortunately Israel has defied international law for all too long.

Perhaps the best solution, given that any space for a Palestinian state has shrunk to almost nothing, would be a secular democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians regardless of their religion.

 

‘Live long and prosper’

The death of Leonard Nimoy on Friday, February 27, at 83, marked the passing of an American icon — indeed, a star of global renown, and a Jewish hero as well.

Nimoy’s accomplishments were many. He was an author, poet, musician, photographer, philanthropist, educator, and director, and of course an actor who played many roles on stage and screen. But he is best known for his role as Mr. Spock on Star Trek, the television series that first aired in 1966. It is a role he reprised in the various sequels, spinoffs, and remakes that appeared after the original series went off the air in 1969.

Nimoy was a Boston native, fluent in Yiddish, whose parents were Orthodox Jews who escaped from the Soviet Union. As he related in various interviews, his background informed his portrayal of the sole alien being on the Starship Enterprise. Spock hailed from the planet Vulcan but was also half-human, making him an alien on Vulcan as well. His status reflects that of immigrants and their children, first-generation Americans who, like Nimoy, grow up in a household, community, and culture that still has one foot in the old world.

 

 

Je suis Charlie?

It says much about the age that we live in that so many of us first learned of the terrorist attacks in Paris on January 7th through Twitter, and that the slogan that came to represent much of the international response to the massacre originated as an image tweeted by French artist and music journalist Joachim Roncin, and soon morphed into a hashtag that rose to the top of the day’s trending topics, and has become one of the most popular hashtags in the history of that social network.

I am referring, of course, to Je suis Charlie, or in hashtag form, #jesuischarlie, and its English version, #iamcharlie.

Some followed up on this formula with the variations Je suis Ahmed or Je suis Ahmed Rabet, to acknowledge the Muslim police officer who was so brutally murdered in the attack on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, and as a subtle reminder that the terrorists are not representative of Muslims in general. Others added Je suis Juif, meaning I am Jewish, to recall the fact that four hostages were murdered in a kosher supermarket, in addition to the 12 killed at the offices of the Parisian periodical. (Several of them also were Jewish.) Members of the Jewish community in France and abroad were encouraged by the appearance of Je suis Juif signs and hashtags, especially as the slogan was displayed by some French Muslims, although there has also been some criticism that it was not shared widely enough.

 

 

To end terrorism, start with moral clarity

The most often asked question I hear today is “How do we stop radical Islamic terrorism?”

Of course there are no quick, easy solutions but any attempt must start with an absolute commitment to speaking and acting with moral clarity.

How can it be that there are leaders today, including the president of the United States, who simply refuse to use the words “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic jihad”? I am not an expert on Islam, and I have no true sense whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace.

 

 

RECENTLYADDED

Israel, not Netanyahu, is the ultimate target

There is no world leader more hated by well-meaning liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush — for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shiite and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel — it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable NATO ally — concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance toward international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was notable. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

 

 

Dirty dancing

Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, please come to your senses

Benjamin Netanyahu is the winner of the most recent election in Israel.

The odds are that he will be asked to build a coalition and continue his premiership. I wish him well. But many are still gargling to get the yucky taste out of their mouth.

Every match-up will have a winner and a loser, whether pitcher versus batter or presidential hopefuls. But if a win is achieved through sneaky tactics or cheap moves, it salts the wound of the loser and mitigates the validity of the winner. That is what happened when the incumbent prime minister made some political statements on the eve of last week’s election.

 

 

Universities punish bigotry — but not anti-Jewish bigotry

A few weeks ago, the University of Oklahoma appropriately responded swiftly and strongly when members of a fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, sang anti-black chants that included the “n” word and references to lynching.

The university expelled two students and shut down the entire fraternity chapter, even though not all its members were involved in the incident. Similarly, colleges and universities are cracking down on hostile actions against women. For example, after members of Delta Kappa Epsilon chanted “No means yes” on campus, Yale University banned the fraternity for five years.

Yes, these responses were tough, but they sent an important message not only to the wrongdoers and the university community, but also to society at large: that bigotry against African-Americans and women is repugnant and intolerable, and there will be harsh consequences for those who engage in it.

 

 
 
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31