Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government marginalizes Israeli political parties who oppose concessions to the Palestinians and welcomes Kadima, the largest party in the Knesset, which is more open to a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s government is no longer at risk of falling due to outreach to the Palestinians. Well, then, is peace closer? Is there a new chance for an Israel-Palestinian agreement?
Possibly, for the reasons just outlined. But it takes two to make peace. For Israel’s government to unburden itself of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which opposes any concession to the Palestinians, is half a loaf. Will the change in Israel’s government also change the Palestinian position? Not likely, if the past is any indication.
The Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 and in 2008 by Israel — the first time by the man who is now Israel’s hawkish Defense Minister, Ehud Barak; the second time by the leader of the more moderate Kadima Party, Ehud Olmert. To both Israelis, the Palestinians said no. Yasir Arafat said no in 2000; Mahmoud Abbas, the current head of the Palestinian Authority, said no in 2008.
Now, the Palestinians say “no” to negotiations without pre-conditions. If Israel agrees to the Palestinian idea for a peace agreement in advance of negotiations, then the Palestinians will negotiate. This circular reasoning will not lead to peace.
For example, one of the Palestinian preconditions for negotiations is that an Israeli assent to a Palestinian state will not be accompanied by a Palestinian renunciation of further claims against Israel. See the circularity? We Palestinians make peace, but one of the conditions of peace is that there is no peace.
More examples of circularity: Palestinian leaders say that they could never make peace with an Israel that maintains so many checkpoints on the West Bank. The Netanyahu government has removed hundreds of checkpoints. So what now? Peace negotiations? Well, no, say the Palestinians, and so it goes: When one objection is met, another is raised.
Another example of circularity: settlements. The Palestinians say that by maintaining and growing settlements, the Palestinians cannot negotiate with Israel. Yet, in 2005, Israel removed all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip. Did the Palestinians then come to the table? Well, no, because Israel retained a blockade of Gaza in order to keep terrorists from infiltrating Israel. Yet, in the last two years, Israel has eased the land blockade considerably. Have the Palestinians come to the table? Well, no, because…
Because the Palestinian pattern is circularity —the constant moving of the goal posts.
The Economist writes: “Though, under American pressure, he [Netanyahu] endorsed the notion of a Palestinian state in 2009, he has presented no plan to bring it into being.” Netanyahu’s plan has been: Let’s sit down to negotiate without preconditions. The Palestinians have said no. What else is Netanyahu supposed to do?
President Obama said in 2010: Here is what you, Mr. Netanyahu, are supposed to do: Freeze all settlement building for 10 months. Netanyahu said: “OK. I’ll do it.” And he did it. Was it enough for the Palestinians to come to the table? Well, no. Their response was: Freeze settlements for another 10 months.
After a while, the goal posts are moved so often, so consistently, that Israel gets the idea that the Palestinians simply don’t want to come to the table. For you see, however far-reaching the concessions that Israel might make, here is one it cannot make: To concede its right to exist. Put differently: To agree to a peace agreement that creates a Palestinian state which, however, does not agree to end all hostilities and claims against Israel.
The Economist also writes about Shaul Mofaz, the new head of Kadima, with whom Netanyahu reached an agreement for a national unity government: “Palestinian remember Mr. Mofaz as the general who broke the back of the Palestinian Authority when he was the army chief of staff and then minister of defense during their second intifada (uprising) in 2000-05.”
That dry, abstract, almost ethereal statement neglects to mention that the “intifada” included massive Palestinian terrorist killlings of Israelis sitting down to coffee or to Passover seder. One who deems a person who stopped terrorism as unqualified to make peace presumes that the person qualified to make peace would be one who rolled over and said: Let the terrorists come. That’s the ultimate circularity.
Copyright © 2012 by the Intermountain Jewish News
