What's the "If Only Israel" - syndrome?
Posted by David Harris, Executive Dir., American Jewish Committee
It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.
Striking, isn't it?
Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.
The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done - it's so obvious to us, isn't it? - so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?
Thus, if only Israel froze settlements. If only Israel removed checkpoints. If only Israel recognized the Hamas government in Gaza. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran's "pragmatic" leadership, which just wants a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______ well, you can fill in the blank.
The point is that, for sufferers of IOI, it essentially all comes down to Israel.
And the IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by the advent of the new Israeli government, of course.
After all, media outlets from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel have already branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "hardline" from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence.
At moments like this, it's important to underscore a few basic points too often lost in the din.
First, the Netanyahu government follows on the heels of three successive Israeli governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state settlement with the Palestinians - and failed. Each of those governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but ultimately to no avail.
Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried mightily to reach an agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The answer was a thunderous rejection, accompanied by the launching of a new wave of terror attacks on Israel.
And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by the entrenchment of Hizbullah, committed to Israel's destruction, in the emptied space. No good deed goes unpunished!
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defied his own Likud Party - indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc - and faced down thousands of settlers and their supporters to leave Gaza entirely. It was the first chance ever for Gaza's Arab residents to govern themselves.
Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a responsible manner, they could have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned itself into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis' worst fears.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, joined by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and urged on by Washington, pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the most recent Israeli offer "talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West Bank." Not only was the offer not accepted, but there was not even a counteroffer from the Palestinian side.
Prime Minister Netanyahu inherits a situation in which (a) Hamas holds the reins of power in Gaza and a growing arsenal; (b) Hizbullah is continuing to gain strength in Lebanon; (c) the Palestinian Authority failed to take Olmert's outstretched hand and make a deal; (d) indirect talks between Israel and Syria, brokered by Turkey, did not produce an accord on Olmert's watch; and (e) Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons capability, while trumpeting its support for Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah.
So before Prime Minister Netanyahu gets further lectures on what needs to be done from New York Times or Financial Times editorial writers or columnists, or from American Jewish groups who profess to love Israel more than Israel loves itself, or from some European leaders eager for a deal at practically any cost, perhaps we should take some stock of what’s transpired - and why.
There have been three successive and bold Israeli efforts to create a breakthrough - and three successive failures.
The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they are assured that lasting peace will be the outcome.
Israelis don't have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond its current treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
They have lived with the absence of peace for 61 years, and know better than anyone else the jarring physical and psychological toll it has inflicted on the nation.
Rather, they have to be convinced that the tangible rewards justify the immense risks for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with its neighbors' acceptance of Israel's rightful place in the region as a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.
And that, far more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.
The Gaza disengagement demonstrated that settlements and checkpoints can be removed when the time comes.
But unless and until Israel's neighbors recognize its inherent legitimacy, and stop viewing it as a temporary interloper that can be defeated militarily or swamped by Palestinian "refugees," then whatever the IOI crowd insists upon will be a secondary issue in the real world.
Unless and until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks, where children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day Crusaders to be driven out, then what hope is there for the future?
Unless and until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious governing structure, including an enhanced capacity and political will to combat Palestinian terrorism, then Israel will have no choice but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its civilians.
And unless and until the forces seeking Israel’s annihilation - from Iran's current regime to Hamas to Hizbullah - are marginalized or replaced by those committed to coexistence, then there will always be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would argue that this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process. I believe it simply acknowledges the inescapable and ominous reality that Israel faces.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington since his election earlier this year, and as the IOI chorus once again raises the decibel level, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
Israel doesn't need sanctimonious lectures on peace. It needs genuine partners for peace. Without them, peace remains elusive. With them, peace becomes inevitable.
