The CSM today published my column on the Israeli election (here and here). It underlines the fact that in this election, the main platform plank of the front-running party is that, as I write, it will,
- turns its back on 58 years of Israeli commitment to negotiating peace with its neighbors, promising voters instead that a Kadima-led government is ready and eager to draw Israel’s borders quite unilaterally.
Perhaps I was too generous. Perhaps I should have written, “58 years of Israeli avowals of commitment to negotiating peace”… Since if there had been a real commitment to a negotiated peace over these past 39 years, then successive Israeli governments would surely not have devoted a lot of effort and resources to implanting lavish, Jews-only colonies in the heart of the occupied territories?
But still, until now, those avowals of committment to a negotiated peace have been politically important in many ways. Crucially, they have allowed the US a big “in” to play the key role of “third party mediator” that since late 1973 has dominated all attempts at negotiations.
But if Israel– the major beneficiary of US “foreign aid” funding over all those decades– is now openly saying, “to heck with negotiations”, then where does that leave the US? Merely as Israel’s main backer, I would say, without any longer also enjoying the fig-leaf of being the main peace-broker between it and its neighbors.
As I note in the column, Olmert has said that his unilateralist plans
- had been shared with the Bush administration, which “refrained from public comment.” He implied this gave him at least an yellow light to go ahead.
I believe that those fearless members of the US press corps who attend State Department or White House briefings should follow up aggressively on this issue. If I were one of them, here are the kinds of question I would ask:
- — Is it true that envoys of Mr. Olmert have shared with you his plans for unilaterally delineating Israel’s final borders by 2010?
— What is your reaction to this proposal?
— What impact do you think this proposal has on the US’s long-held commitment to the idea that all details of the final status between Israel and the Palestinians, including the border and all other issues, should be the subject of negotiation between the parties?
— If an Israeli government proceeds with this expansionist plan, what impact will this have on US readiness to continue according Israel massive political and financial support?
— What do you say to President Mahmoud Abbas and those other Palestinians who have taken great political risks over a number of years to promote and pursue the path of winning a negotiated peace with Israel?
Well, I’m sure you get my drift. But I doubt if many members of the inside-the-beltway press corps will push very hard on questions like these.
By the way, I wrote the piece before Olmert’s latest “unilateralist spectacular”, the raid on the Jericho prison. Laila el-Haddad’s been doing some great blogging about it. (1, 2, 3.)
Actually, Olmert said that the borders would be drawn unilaterally if they couldn’t be drawn by negotiation.
I think Helena is being quite deliberately and knowingly dishonest here. Israel has gone to negotiation after negotiation, signed deals, and gets bloodied for its trouble. Starting with the partition of 1948, every deal has been met with stony silence or outright violence from the Arabs. And Helena knows this.
The settlements are not the cause of the violence, and the settlements are not the cause of the conflict. The settlements are a response to the conflict. And Helena knows this very well.
The very concept of negotiation was thrown out by the Palestinians in 2000 when they interrupted negotiations to start the Intifada.
The Palestinian position has mostly been one of maximalist demands and complete erasure of Israel. That was true in 1948 and it is true today, certainly of Hamas.
Mahmoud Abbas has been unable to force or persuade his vision onto the rest of Palestinian society. He simply failed.
To a certain extent, the cynical can view the Intifada one one side and the settlements and unilateralism on the other as extreme negotiating tactics. Perhaps it will turn out that will be their role in history. Clearly, Olmert is saying either negotiate with us or we will draw the lines ourselves. What greater motivation to negotiate could he offer? If Olmert really wanted to simply expand, he would not stretch out the process to 2010, but simply draw the lines today and begin moving out and Palestinians that might be in the way. He has the power and the means, and the fact that he chooses not to behave that way should tell you that Israel is working very hard for peace and not for expansion.
The Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general have spent over 50 years making sure everybody knew that they would never be good neighbors to the Jews. That there would always be a conflict and that acceptance of the existance of the Jewish State was not to be had. The Israeli insistance on security is the result.
We now have a situation where the Muslim world is threatening nuclear armeggedon with an Iranian warhead. Do not expect the Israelis to be amused.
Helena, I’m going to object on slightly different grounds from Warren.
As you point out, numerous Israeli governments have paid lip service to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians but continued to build. Never mind why, it’s the building that matters from the Palestinian standpoint. Now, Olmert has said he’s willing to draw borders unilaterally if Hamas doesn’t negotiate, but has made a public commitment to (1) withdraw from more West Bank settlements, and (2) institute a complete freeze on funding for construction in the OPT. So which is better – “talk and build” or “don’t talk and leave?”
Neither alternative is perfect, but if I had to choose, I’d pick the second. The facts on the ground (to quote an oft-used phrase) are what matter most, and I’d much rather see a PM like Olmert who actually dismantles settlements than a hypocrite like Bibi who loudly trumpets his commitment to peace but who will build in the WB and move the wall eastward. The withdrawal can at least create the conditions under which a government – either Olmert’s or another – might pick up negotiations in the future.
true story: I used to call in to Mike Gallaghers radio show all the time. He’s a conservative. I was on at least a dozen times over the years and always liked the guy even if i disagreed with him. Last time i called I defended mahmoud ahmadnajad, disagreeing with his ideas about israel but saying it wasn’t a good enough reason to nuke him. Needless to say, I’ve been banned from the show. Oh, one of the shows sponsers is the israel tourism board. oops!
If the “occupation” of the West Bank were truly the source of the problem, there would have been acceptance of the UN’s Partition Plan in 1947, no war in 1948 and no fedayeen attacks of Green Line Israel prior to 1967. And Barak’s Camp David offer in 2000 would have been met with a counteroffer by Arafat rather than a suicide bombing campaign.
This unilateralism appeals strongly to voters who, since late 2000, have been very disillusioned with the idea of trying to negotiate a peace with the Palestinians. “In past elections, the parties all adopted strong positions on the issue of peace,” commentator Akiva Eldar told me. “But this time, the voters aren’t looking for peace – they’re looking for quiet.”
Snide remarks about Israelis sipping lattes in Tel Aviv aside, what is it that is so hard to understand about this position? Sure Israelis want quiet. They want to be able to go to those cafes and for their children to take the bus to school without the fear of being blown up.
The Palestinian voters elected Hamas, and Hamas isn’t really offering anything more than quiet (a tah’dia or, perhaps, hudna) at best; not peace. And this isn’t really much of an offer today. After all, the relative quiet that has been achieved to date has had very little to do, in reality, with anything that the Palestinian side has or hasn’t done. You can talk all you want about how Hamas only violated the tah’dia once over the past year, but the fact is that the number of both specific alerts and actual attacks foiled hasn’t really dropped over that time. No, the quiet has had to do mostly with unilateral actions – as unpleasant as many of these have been – by Israel: the fence, roadblocks and targeted assassinations. So why should any Israeli be anxious to negotiate with Hamas over another hudna dictated on their terms, which they can, by definition, unilaterally break at any time that it’s convenient for them to do so.
Prior to the January elections in the territories, I believe that the majority of Israelis felt that the PA administration was incapable of delivering quiet, let alone, peace. Since those elections, it now appears that the elected Palestinian leadership simply does not want to arrive at a peace agreement. So why should we waste a lot of time negotiating with those who either can’t or won’t?