Nobody can ever blame Daniel Pipes of being reasonable or well informed with regard to the conflict in the Middle East. Professor Pipes, besides being a knee-jerk "Israel is always right" advocate of Zionism and opponent of Palestinian self-determination, is also the founder of the neo-Stalinist Campus Watch Web site, which "monitors" (what it perceives to be) anti-Israel sentiment written by academics (yours truly included).
But today's article by Professor Pipes in FrontPageMagazine.com was a model of ignorance, obfuscation, or both. Let's have a look.
Pipes claims that the record of Israel's four previous Likud prime ministers — Begin, Shamir, Sharon, and Netanyahu himself — indicate that Bibi will not take as hard a line against Israel's enemies as Pipes, apparently, would like. Here are his assessments of the four previous Likud prime ministries, three of whom, he says, "ran right and governed left" — with my own comments interspersed:
Menachem Begin (p.m. 1977-83): Elected in 1977 on a nationalist platform that included annexing parts of the West Bank, he instead removed all Israeli troops and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula.
Well, sure, Begin traded the Sinai for peace with Egypt, but he did this while not only ignoring those parts of the Camp David Accords that dealt with Palestinian issues, but also beginning a de facto annexation of the West Bank by supporting massive settlement of "Judea and Samaria." He also supported and passed unilateral annexation of the Golan Heights. In short, Begin was no champion of peace or compromise. He merely realized that, in order to hold onto the West Bank and the Golan Heights, it was necessary to get rid of the Sinai. It was a bait and switch.
Oh, and Begin invaded Lebanon. That was kind of a big mistake.
Yitzhak Shamir (p.m. most of 1983-92): Ran on a platform against giving land to Arabs and kept his word.
Fair enough. He did, however, as foreign minister under Begin, oversee the Camp David Accords.
Netanyahu (p.m. 1996-99): Promised to retain the Golan Heights but nearly traded away that territory; opposed the Oslo accords but ceded more control in the Hebron and Wye accords to the Palestinian Authority.
First of all, nearly doesn't count except for in horseshoes and hand grenades, so the fact that, when Bibi left office in 1999, Israel still held the Golan Heights is more important than Pipes's memories that Bibi "nearly traded away" the territory. I frankly don't recall Bibi even coming close to negotiating the Golan Heights, but I concede I could be wrong.
Second, President Clinton had to pull Bibi kicking and screaming through Wye and the Hebron Accords, and both moves are moot now, since the redeployment in 2003 by Israel in the West Bank in response to the Passover suicide bombing in Netanya.
Ariel Sharon (p.m. 2001-06): Won the 2003 elections arguing against a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; then did exactly that, withdrawing all Israeli troops and civilians from Gaza.
Yeah, this is a typical error and/or lie made by apologists for Revisionist Zionism. Sharon was never a Revisionist. His involvement with the Likud came largely as a result of his being seen as a liability by the Labor Alignment at the time he entered politics. (He had made a bad reputation for himself as being reckless in his military career.) That being said, I think Sharon genuinely had a change of heart, as did his successor, Ehud Olmert, who was further to the right of Sharon when they had both entered politics.
So yes, these men "ran right," but I don't think it can fairly be said that any of them "governed left." Far from it.
But there are more gems from Pipes:
What now, as Netanyahu prepares to take office again? Neither his party's history, nor his own biography, nor his character, nor murmurs coming out of Israel suggest that he will keep his electoral promises. Indeed, Netanyahu already flunked his first test: after 65 of Israel's 120 members of parliament informed the president, Shimon Peres, that they supported Netanyahu for prime minister, Peres on Feb. 20 gave Netanyahu a chance to form a government.
Netanyahu proceeded to ditch those allies in favor of forming a "national unity" government with leftist parties, notably Kadima and Labor. He even announced that his biggest mistake in 1996 had been not to form a government with Labor: "In retrospect, I should have sought national unity, and I'm seeking to correct that today." Kadima and Labor appear to have decided to go into the opposition, foiling Netanyahu's plans. But that he preferred a coalition with the left reveals the lightness of his campaign statements.
OK, Kadima a left-wing party? Really, Professor Pipes? And, beyond that, we've already seen how Labor fails the leftie test. And, in case it isn't already obvious, the reason Bibi has been courting Livni and Barak is because, otherwise, he'll have a narrow, far-right government that won't last a year, much less four years.
I don't believe Pipes is too stupid not to understand this. I believe he's obfuscating.
A final point of Pipes's to examine:
On the Golan Heights, diplomacy has apparently begun. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the importance of Syria-Israel talks "cannot be overstated." Despite Netanyahu's ostensibly rejecting these negotiations, a close aide observed that a breakthrough with Damascus offers a way to curry favor with the Obama administration and Netanyahu would expect Washington in return "to give him a break with the Palestinians."
Well, that may be true, but Pipes ignores an important aspect of peace with Syria, and that's this: Peace with Syria means that Syria stops funneling arms from Iran to Hezbollah. That means a quiet northern border for Israel. That's a good thing, in case that's not clear.
Pipes and people like him, who are by nature or learned behavior distrustful of Arabs (be they Syrian, Palestinian, or American), refuse to negotiate on any territory that Israel currently occupies. The obvious result of that is a continuing state of war. Why is that preferable to compromise? Can someone please tell me why?