In the run up to the Israeli elections, the great fear discussed
by pundits the world over was that Israelis would take a drastic
turn to the political right at the polls. This, it was felt, would
torpedo any chance of reviving the peace process and give Barack
Obama another headache as he sought to head off Iran’s nuclear
program — two issues of critical importance to the Obama
administration. Instead of lurching to the right, however, the
Israeli electorate steered toward the center. Yet as the election
results confirm, Israelis remain deeply divided politically but it
is mostly over socio-economic issues.
Unique in this election was that the campaigns steered clear of
important foreign policy questions such as the future of relations
with Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood; what should happen if
Western diplomacy fails with Iran; and what will happen if Israel
does not negotiate with the Palestinians. Two primary reasons
explain this political phenomenon. The first is that Israeli
attitudes have been hardening when it comes to the prospects of
achieving peace, and the second is that many Israelis are coming to
believe that peace talks with Palestinians and Western diplomacy
with Iran are both destined to fail and for reasons unconnected to
Israeli actions.
This is not to say that Israelis do not want peace — a position
that news anchors and pundits have falsely promulgated around the
globe while disregarding Palestinian actions. The fact is that the
vast majority of Israelis have consistently supported peace through
a two-state solution, with 70.6 percent either moderately or
strongly supporting
peace negotiations with Palestinians. However, an overwhelming
70 percent believe that Israel remaining a Jewish state is the most
important factor — even if land has to be shared. This Israeli red
line, which forms the basis of the Zionist endeavor, is far from
where Palestinians stand. Two-thirds of Palestinians
claimed, “The real goal should be to start with two states but
then move to it all being one Palestinian state.” And, 84 percent
claimed, “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land
for a Palestinian state.” Among Israelis, this reality has created
a widening gulf between the desirability for peace on one hand, and
the feasibility of peace on the other.
The previous premise of peacemaking rested on the idea of “land
for peace.” But that formula has proven to be fool’s gold. The
lands Israel evacuated have become the source of constant rocket
fire coming from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.
They have become Iran’s forward operating bases. And there is no
appetite to repeat what happened in Gaza in the far larger, more
strategic, and religiously relevant West Bank.
Taking stock of two years of Arab upheaval, Israelis are
witnessing the dramatic rise of political Islam and the full-scale
retreat of secularism. It is not the sunny dawn of secular Arab
democracies so hoped for in the West. Israelis rightly believe that
even if there were a truly moderate Palestinian leadership, it
would likely be unable to quell the rising tide of militant
Islamists. After all, even Egypt — led by a seemingly stable
regime that already signed a peace agreement with Israel — fell in
a revolution subsequently hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. There
is no reason for Israel to believe that a far weaker Palestinian
Authority, already engaged in an on-again-off-again civil war with
Hamas, would survive.
Then there is the stark reality that Mahmoud Abbas does not want
to negotiate but instead wants to use the United Nations against
Israel. This is a reflection of the will of his people; the
Palestinians are in no mood to negotiate a two-state solution with
Israel because they still believe they can have the whole
proverbial pie and achieve the elimination of Israel eventually.
This culture of denial and hatred has not softened in recent years.
When asked more fundamental ideological questions surrounding
Israel’s existence, 72 percent said it was “right” to deny Jews
have a long history in Jerusalem, 61 percent endorsed naming
streets after suicide bombers, and 53 percent said it was “right”
to teach songs in Palestinian schools that talk about hating
Jews.
And then there is the global context, where Israel has resigned
itself to the reality that the United Nations has lost any
semblance of moral authority. The UN, which in November 1947 voted
to partition the land into a Jewish and Arab state, now condemns
Israel for building apartments in Jerusalem while refusing to
formally censure the Syrian government for ruthlessly slaughtering
tens of thousands of its own citizens. In fact, the UN has passed
more than 320 resolutions condemning Israel, while since 2006 the
UN Human Rights Council has singled
out Israel on 27 separate occasions, in resolutions that grant
effective impunity to Hamas, Hezbollah, and their state sponsors.
Through Israeli eyes, the hypocritical righteous indignation
reserved solely for Israel is systematic and unyielding, no matter
what concessions Israel offers.
While there is a constant din of voices that frequently and
mistakenly grumble that there now exists a window of opportunity
for peacemaking, they are chasing illusions set to fit their
pre-determined narrative. The window they see through their
selective lens is in fact a wall. Unless there is a substantial
change in Palestinian red lines, peace and a two-state solution
that will end the historic conflict will remain a long way off.
No matter the coalition that Netanyahu cobbles together in the
coming weeks, it will not change the aforementioned fundamental
issues that prevent progress on the path towards peace. In
political reality, neither Netanyahu nor Abbas are motivated to
make concessions where little public support exists. Therefore,
President Obama should think hard before elevating the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process to the front burner as he did at
the beginning of his first term. There are more pressing concerns
facing American interests in the wider Middle East, such as Iran,
Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now apparently Mali.
The fate of the peace process will have no impact on the stability
of those countries or on Iran’s incessant march towards a nuclear
weapons capability. At least Barack Obama can take solace in the
fact that unlike his first term, he now has the benefit of
exceptionally low expectations. In other words — no progress, no
problem.
Photo: UPI
