World reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory has ranged from barely concealed dismay to open-mouthed horror.
The New York Times published a scathing editorial, condemning Israel’s likely next prime minister as ‘desperate’ and ‘craven’, his ‘subversive’ and ‘outrageous’ behaviour having ‘laid bare his duplicity’.
Today it publishes a column by Yousef Munayyer, arguing that Netanyahu’s victory ‘could actually hasten the end of Israel’s apartheid policies‘ by stoking international pressure on Israel. (Is this appearance of the A-word in the New York Times, as a positively endorsed description of existing Israeli institutions and practices, a first?)
Yet, if the publication of Munayyer’s column testifies to the level of international hostility towards Netanyahu, it also bodes ill for the prospects that this anger will be leveraged to the Palestinians’ benefit.
Munayyer argues that Netanyahu’s election is to be welcomed because it puts Israel on a much needed ‘collision course with the rest of the world’. This collision, he predicts, will force Israelis ‘to decide between perpetual occupation and being accepted in the international community’, at which point they will either
choose a more moderate leader who dismantles settlements and pursues peace, or… choose to annex rather than relinquish land — provoking a confrontation with America and Europe.
The world’s frustration, Munayyer recognises, is fuelled by Netanyahu’s opposition to a two-state solution: Netanyahu ‘has become the internationally recognised face of Israeli intransigence, settlement building and brazen disregard for Palestinian human rights… [He] has become synonymous with the occupation’. Munayyer cites examples of growing boycott campaigns against Israel’s settlements and occupation:
In the past few years, a major Dutch pension fund divested large sums from Israeli banks active in the West Bank, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been divested from companies, like G4S and SodaStream, that operate in occupied territory.
If Netanyahu provokes international hostility because of his commitment to occupation and the settlements and his rejection of the internationally accepted two-state solution; and if we want more of this hostility; then presumably the solidarity movement should be campaigning for an end to the settlements, an end to the occupation and the realisation of two-states, seeking to mobilise international opinion behind the application of material pressure to those ends and highlighting Netanyahu’s opposition on all counts.
In fact, Munayyer draws the opposite strategic conclusion:
The two-state solution, which has seen more funerals than a reverend, exists today only as a talking point for self-interested, craven politicians to hide behind — not as a realistic basis for peace.[*]
The old land-for-peace model must now be replaced with a rights-for-peace model. Palestinians must demand the right to live on their land, but also free movement, equal treatment under the law, due process, voting rights and freedom from discrimination.
Leave aside that, as of now, Palestinians are not mobilising en masse to demand anything.
Per Munayyer, international hostility to Israel is not based on occupied Palestinians’ lack of voting rights. The Dutch pension fund did not, on his account, divest from Israeli banks active in denying occupied Palestinians voting rights. Netanyahu did not, on his account, ‘become the internationally recognised face of’ Israel’s denial of occupied Palestinians’ voting rights.
Yet the director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Denial of Occupied Palestinians’ Voting Rights – sorry, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation – would have activists shift their demands from those grievances which, by his own account, resonate, to those which, by his own account, do not.
‘The re-election of Mr. Netanyahu’, Munayyer concludes, ‘provides clarity’. If only.
* But, didn’t Munayyer say that international pressure might induce Israelis to ‘choose a more moderate leader who dismantles settlements and pursues peace’? And, didn’t he conspicuously not say that international pressure might induce Israelis to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state?