Palestinian rejectionism won't do us any good on its own
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon, National Infrastructure, Energy, and Water Minister Silvan Shalom, Interior Minister Gideon Sa'ar, Culture and Sport minister Limor Livnat and others in the Likud doubt that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas really wants peace.
I am not close to the foci of power, where decisions are made. Just like millions of other Israelis who are not privy to the secret documents, I, too, have concluded that Abbas is not seeking peace. I would be truly saddened if my assessment was validated, but it seems the Israeli leadership would actually welcome such news. I share their assessment, I reject their hopes.
This debate has rocked Netanyahu's two cabinets since 2009. In his previous government, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then-Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor shared some of Ya'alon's concerns. They, as well as others, were worried that the peace process could result in Israeli concessions -- on territory, on security, and on other issues pertaining to its history -- that won't be matched by a Palestinian quid pro quo.
According to Barak and Meridor, this concern was thoroughly discussed. But they did not consider any alternatives. For example, what happens if the Palestinians get cold feet and, like always, bolt just before an agreement is signed, leaving Israel alone to contend with the rest of the world, where nations are anywhere from hostile to outright indifferent to its plight? The government has not been preoccupied with this scenario, with the exception of the centrifuge spinning inside the coalition, Yesh Atid and Hatnuah.
One such alternative was floated by French Ambassador to Israel Patrick Maisonnave, who penned an unusual op-ed in Haaretz the other day. According to Masionnave, if Israel reaches a deal with Palestinians, it will enjoy a "privileged partnership status that would boost its ties with member states and would undermine the efforts to boycott Israel.
The article reflected the views of his superiors in Paris.
"The EU's offer still stands, despite the Israeli government's resounding silence," he said. But Israel issued no official response. The Israeli public was also oblivious. And this, despite the ambassador asking "government ministers and leaders of the opposition, Knesset members, entrepreneurs, scientists, artists and intellectuals" to engage him on this matter. He even provided an email address and called for discussion on the subject.
Maisonnave's challenges were not lost on the dozens of Israelis who did comment on the article's online version. But overall, the piece did not generate a buzz, because otherwise people would have realized the potential of this deal and the degree to which it might boost Israel's national security and economy as well as its employment levels, its universities and its scientific research. But this question was never asked. We couldn't be bothered. Have Israelis put any thought into the possibility that this deal could outweigh the benefits of continued construction in Yitzhar? Is a two-year moratorium on construction worth less than improved relations with the EU? Likud has gone out of its way to avoid this question.
Netanyahu's pessimism is twice as great as his cabinet's, be it on Abbas' willingness to reach an accord and the willingness of the enlightened world to lay the blame on the Palestinians, should the talks collapse. He believes that even if his flexibility reaches extremes, this will not produce the same images from July 2000, when then President Bill Clinton stood by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and blamed Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat for the collapse of the Camp David summit.
Despite Netanyahu's assessment, he is willing to go out of his way to make sure the world views the Palestinians as rejectionists. But he first has to overcome various hurdles, like Ya'alon's criticism of Kerry earlier this week, or legislation drafted by MK Miri Regev and coalition chairman Yariv Levin, or various views expressed by deputy ministers Tzipi Hotovely, Ofir Akunis and Danny Danon.
Likud rightists are trying to marshal support for a principled rejection of any agreement with the Palestinians. It is time that the heavyweights among that group -- there are a few -- consider the day after the Kerry-sponsored talks collapse. What will Israeli academia look like from America -- where the efforts to boycott Israel are nascent but on the rise -- and from Europe? Who is going to buy Israeli products from this export-based country? Who is going to help Israel on the diplomatic front and on defense-related matters? I hope the rightists don't fall for the fallacy that India can substitute Europe and that China can stand in for America. Such folly was on display during the French Revolution, when someone said "Let them eat cake."
Israel is now stronger than ever. Its security is guaranteed. Terrorism has yet to rear its head. The regimes of the Middle East are willing to join forces with Israel unlike ever before. A common threat -- Tehran -- has brought the nations together. But things cannot stay that way forever. Fleeting opportunities ultimately expire, by definition. They don't wait.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו