By: Eliyakim Haetzni
As Netanyahu embarks on his trip to Washington, we would do well to remember that his hold on power is premised on his followers’ assumption (may he forgive me) that he’s lying. They do not believe him when he says that he truly endorses the establishment of a Palestinian state and are convinced that he’s just pretending.
The prime minister indeed boasts to the Americans that he is the only one who can elicit the nation’s support for the “two-state solution” (Sharon boasted similarly before him); However, Netanyahu is not telling them (and possibly not telling himself either) that this achievement is premised on his followers’ conviction that he’s lying to the whole world, and that only they know the truth.
Netanyahu still faces the sobering up test, if and when the “National Camp” discovers that it fell victim to self-deception and that when Netanyahu “spoke Palestinian” he in fact did utter the truth and meant every word. Such cruel wake-up call prompted a rebellion against Sharon among Likud ranks and led to a party split. According to the last Likud members’ survey, the situation today is no different.
The litmus test here is the construction freeze. Should Netanyahu extend it, even if “only” in “isolated” communities (there are no less than 100 of those!), everyone would understand that he is suffocating the settlement enterprise and nobody would be able to provide another explanation. Netanyahu will then be welcomed into the group that includes Peres, Barak, and Tzipi Livni too. The political earthquake that shall follow would go beyond the Richter Scale.
And here’s another pre-talks thought: The negotiations may be thwarted at its outset not by the settlements, but rather, by the linkage between a Palestinian state and the expulsion of Jews. The commonly accepted axiom is that a Palestinian state will necessarily entail “clearing” the area of Jews, along with the outrageous assumption that this ethnic cleansing must be undertaken by Jewish police officers.
What about Arab villages?
Meanwhile, Arab villages continue to exist in the area between the “Ariel Bloc” and the Green Line. Does anyone even think of uprooting them? It’s clear to all that any “solution” would have to take their existence into account, and any construction within them therefore lacks any political significance.
Yet should Netanyahu declare that the status of Jewish communities is no different, and that the Palestinian state would have to reconcile itself to its Jews just like Israel reconciled itself to its Arabs, Jewish construction will no longer be a political news item.
Netanyahu must also ask his interlocutors the following questions: Did the agreement signed in Ireland call for the expulsion of Protestants or Catholics? Were the Germans or French expelled from Alsace-Lorraine? And did NATO allow the Serbs to expel Muslims from Kosovo? America and Europe wouldn’t be sending their armies in order to forcefully uproot Jews from the settlements; where did Israel commit to perform such act of hara-kiri?
During the negotiations, everything will be “on the table,” including the arrangements governing the lives of Jews who wish to live in a Palestinian State, while Arabs live in the Jewish State. Had Netanyahu opened the talks this way, and the Arabs would have insisted to “clear” the area of any Jews, this rather than the freeze would have turned into the major question here – and on this front we hold all the cards.
After all, such Arab demand gives off a stench of Nazi racism. So why does Israel foolishly renounce such card to begin with?
And a footnote: The above refers to Netanyahu’s two-state vision. This writer views any kind of Palestinian state to be established in the western Land of Israel as an existential threat for Israel.
Ynet News
No comments:
Post a Comment