by Andrew Sprung
A month ago, in a review of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Michael Crowley claimed that Clinton had given birth in May to an accidental Israel policy:
Crowley further reported that Clinton's subsequent praise of Netanyahu's partial settlement freeze as "unprecedented" was also unauthorized and made the White House unhappy, since it came across as a cave-in after the White House had insisted on a total freeze.
It was also, however, true. Today, Ethan Bronner in the Times lends a sympathetic ear to the theory that Netanyahu is seriously seeking a deal. The story highlights the extent to which Clinton's original gaffe (if gaffe it was) may have distorted perceptions of Israeli policy:
Yet skepticism would be a polite way of describing the reaction of the Palestinians and much of the world, who view his steps as either too little too late or a ruse aimed at buying time to pursue his real agenda.
To put this in perspective, most Israelis are almost as skeptical as the Palestinians that Netanyahu would really pull a Begin and negotiate seriously for a two-state solution. But as Bronner notes, all but the rabid right wing in Israel are aware that the country cannot afford further diplomatic isolation.
It's worth noting too that thanks in part to Netanyahu's actions, new facts on the ground are being created — by Palestinian economic development. A recent account of rising prosperity on the West Bank by Tom Gross in the WSJ struck me as ideologically slanted, casting Palestinian progress largely as a result of Israeli largess. But the rising prosperity Gross reports is doubtless real:
Palestinian economic growth so far this year—in a year dominated by economic crisis elsewhere—has been an impressive 7% according to the IMF, though Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad, himself a former World Bank and IMF employee, says it is in fact 11%, partly helped along by strong economic performances in neighboring Israel.
As Andrew would say: know hope.