by Zalman Shoval
"The formula for an
understanding between Obama and Netanyahu is simple," a prominent
Jewish-American leader (a Republican, actually) told me during a visit
to New York last week: "War and peace," that is to say, an American war
against Iran in exchange for Israeli peace with the Palestinians.
However, as with many nifty magic formulas, this one too provides
nothing more than an optical illusion.
One of the basic
assumptions in the aforementioned proposal is that blocking Iran's
nuclear program is just an Israeli interest, and that U.S. military
action against Iran would essentially be a "favor" to Israel. For its
part, Israel would commit to provide a "payment" of concessions to the
Palestinians in return for American military action against Iran.
However, the logic and
analysis behind this formula is completely devoid of real diplomatic
sense: A general attitude of opposition to overseas military action
currently prevails in the U.S., so much so that the government would
only be moved toward war if Iran's nuclear program was perceived as a
threat to the country's vital interests. In Congress, and even in
President Barack Obama's new administration, there will be those who
will perhaps support military action, but there won't be a shortage of
others trying their best to influence the president in the opposite
direction.
In other words, it
needs to be clear that if Washington remains unconvinced that an atomic
bomb in the hands of the ayatollahs isn't a direct threat to the country
or its essential interests — even if Israel never builds another house
in Jerusalem and gives Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
control over the Western Wall — U.S. bomber aircraft won't be taking off
at dawn.
One can hope that
during talks between the two leaders in Jerusalem next month they
discuss the Iranian threat separately from the other issues (according
to the latest reports by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency,
Iran's nuclear program is accelerating toward the point of no return),
and not as part of some "package" that lacks substance.
Not to mention that
regardless, the timetables for the various moving parts in this formula
aren't synchronized: The challenge of stopping Iran's race toward a
nuclear weapon could last months, perhaps weeks, while a solution to the
Palestinian problem, in the best-case scenario, could take many long
years.
Meanwhile, the other
and perhaps most fundamental flaw that characterizes this futile formula
is, of course, that the Palestinians haven't given any sign that they
intend to abandon their strategy, which primarily calls for avoiding any
real negotiations with Israel devoid of preconditions and demands.
According to this strategy, they simultaneously continue to engage in
maneuvers and distractions in the goal of receiving international
recognition without the need to make concessions and compromises
themselves, including anything pertaining to recognition of Israel's
existence as the home of the Jewish people (on this matter,
incidentally, Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni have essentially agreed).
It can be assumed that
Netanyahu will indeed present the U.S. president with certain practical
proposals on the Palestinians. And he should do so; but we cannot agree,
not even conceptually, to the phony link between the Palestinian issue
and Iran's nuclear program.
Where should there be a
link? Between the disquieting diplomatic and security-related
developments in our region — including the increasingly harsh threat
from Iran as well as the Palestinian matter — to Netanyahu's efforts, in
a short timetable, to assemble as broad a government as possible. One
can understand that new politicians, who suddenly feel they are
"big-time," get caught up in things that their more experienced,
responsible colleagues would never start in the first place, but there's
a limit. These folks need to understand that politics isn't merely
about tricks and shticks, or about newspaper headlines, but about
shouldering the burden of responsibility that the public has charged
them with carrying.
We could have expected
Habayit Hayehudi to display more stately and responsible behavior, while
in the political department store known as Yesh Atid there are still
doubts, to my regret. Netanyahu prefers a broad government, and not just
because the Likud primary results demand it but because of the
difficult challenges Israel is expected to face in the coming years.
But there comes a point in time
beyond which a responsible leadership can't further delay the formation
of a new government, even if it is less expansive than he would like —
and then perhaps the Yesh Atid movement will discover that its future is
already behind it.
Zalman Shoval
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3549
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment