If the government could take back the last 48 hours, it would reconsider its decisions to expand construction beyond the Green Line by 3,000 housing units and freeze the transfer of tax money it collects for the Palestinian Authority. I have no doubt about this. But the truth is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded to this thesis in a clear manner: no and no. It's true that friendly European countries didn't threaten to return their ambassadors. However, it's also true that representatives of these governments briefed economic, trade and media institutions that such an option was being considered. It's not as if Israel has no case. It does. After all, these governments are guarantors of the Oslo Accords, in which the Israelis and Palestinians committed to refraining from unilateral actions, and that is precisely what PA President Mahmoud Abbas did with his diplomatic maneuver at the U.N. when he asked that Palestine be recognized as a nonmember observer state. How then has the European guarantee been implemented, considering that it supported the PA's bid or, in the best case, abstained from voting on the matter (aside from the Czech Republic, which opposed the initiative)? Consequently, Netanyahu added Prague to his itinerary this week to thank the Czech government, and will visit there following his trip to Germany. Since the Camp David summit in 2000, Abbas has habitually refused to enter negotiations. Justice is on Israel's side, but what about a little sophistication? If you were to ask professional diplomats at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, they'd say that among friendly governments Israel could have benefited diplomatically from Abbas' U.N. initiative, but that the bewilderment over Abbas' move was replaced with anger directed at Israel. This anger stems primarily from the decision in and of itself to build in E1. Indeed, representatives from the various European countries have already intimated that the decision like Hanukkah candles is more for show rather than for tangible purposes. There were those in the Israeli government on Monday who said that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's criticism of Netanyahu was reckless (is this a sign that he intends to run in the elections-). But even Olmert's concession-filled offer to the Palestinians included annexation of this area, which stretches from Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim. A document signed by late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was also published, revealing that Israel would expand its settlement construction in response to the 1975 U.N. resolution stating that Zionism equaled racism. However, the government should have trodden carefully in this diplomatic territory, which is seen as the litmus test for Israeli willingness, when the day comes, to negotiate the two-state solution. To build along the road leading to Maaleh Adumim means sentencing Palestine to the same fate as Pakistan in its first years a country with no territorial continuity. The U.S. has consistently expressed apprehension over Israeli construction in E1. Politicians tend to struggle to admit their need to amend their positions. They see it as a stain on their honor. They don't understand that a person capable of admitting mistakes is considered trustworthy, self-confident and capable of self-monitoring three of the most important characteristics a public and national leader can possess. Now it may be too difficult to make such amends, because a government that does so on the eve of elections will be easy political prey for parties like the Jewish Home-National Union and Strong Israel. However, with the public relations skills possessed by Netanyahu, it is possible to convince people that changing course is preferable to staying on a dead-end road. It's a shame to persist along this path of unnecessary diplomatic hostility.
