by Isi Leibler
Today, he admits that had he won, he had every intention of implementing these policies. Needless to say, had he disclosed his policy, he would have been decimated at the polls.
Zionist Union Chairman MK Isaac Herzog
is the scion of one of Israel’s most distinguished families. His late
father Chaim served with distinction as president, and his grandfather,
whose name he carries, was one of Israel’s most respected and beloved
chief rabbis.
I have been lauding Herzog over the past
year, relating to him as a Labor Zionist of the old school who had the
ability to revive the party and rid it of the delusional leftists who
alienated many of its former supporters and weakened it – almost to the
point of destruction.
I bemoaned the fact that a unity
government was not formed, insisting that Herzog, like the head of all
Zionist parties, would basically be implementing the same policies as
the current government. In this context, I believed that he would make
an excellent foreign minister and enable Israel to display unity in the
face of the concerted diplomatic pressures being exerted against us.
In January after the elections, while as
leader of the opposition, Herzog continued castigating Netanyahu, he
nevertheless publicly endorsed the consensus policy toward the
Palestinians adopted by Professor Shlomo Avineri, Labor Zionism’s
foremost intellectual.
Although he emphasized that he remained
committed to a separation from the Palestinians, Avineri maintained that
the Oslo Accords were no longer relevant as the Palestinian leadership
refused to accept Israel’s right to exist and considered Israel’s
destruction a higher priority than achieving their own statehood.
Avineri concluded that under such circumstances, efforts to implement a
two-state solution were delusionary.
Despite bitter protests and
condemnations from the radical ranks of Labor, Herzog publicly
identified with this approach, explicitly stating that there is “no
chance of peace in this era.” Furthermore, he declared that the Israel
Defense Forces must remain in the West Bank and in the Jordan Valley. He
told French President François Hollande that “hatred and incitement
among the Palestinians” are currently too intense to contemplate
implementing a two-state solution.
Thus, it was a shocking revelation when
it was disclosed last week that, prior to last year’s election, at the
height of Palestinian incitement and frenzied calls to “save Al-Aqsa,”
Herzog was secretly negotiating terms for a final settlement with the
corrupt and degenerate Palestinian Authority. Through former Deputy
Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, Herzog outlined the following
surrealistic principles which were summarized in a secret letter of
understanding with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and
scheduled to be implemented following the elections.
- Israel would withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., from all of Judea and Samaria, with the exception of 4% territory swaps enabling Israel to retain portions of the settlement blocs. Those resident outside these areas would either be repatriated to Israel or obliged to accept Palestinian rule. Israel would retain a “symbolic” presence in the Jordan Valley in conjunction with Palestinian forces.
- East Jerusalem would become the capital of a Palestinian state with a single municipality acting under the jurisdiction of both Israel and the Palestinian State.
- The Temple Mount would be administered by an international force with an Israeli presence at the Western Wall.
- The Palestinian refugee issue would be resolved on the basis of U.N. Resolution 194 with a “joint decision” to accept those wishing to return or accept financial compensation. The Arabs claim that currently over 5 million people – the original refugees and their descendants – are awaiting repatriation.
This is simply an extension of the Olmert formula – which was not approved by the cabinet or the Knesset and rejected by Abbas.
It was surely utterly naïve and
politically counterproductive to extend such unilateral concessions
before obtaining a single indication of reciprocity from the
Palestinians. But the worst travesty was the unprecedented initiative of
an opposition leader to furtively engage in foreign affairs initiatives
that conflict with the policies determined by a democratically elected
government. When this is applied toward hostile forces that promote and
endorse terrorism, it could even be considered seditious.
What makes Herzog’s behavior even more
reprehensible is that all opinion polls clearly demonstrated that a
broad consensus of the nation was adamantly opposed to further
unilateral territorial concessions. Most Israelis aspire for separation
but recognize that unless the Palestinians demonstrate a willingness to
accept the reality of a Jewish state and cease terror activities, there
is no possibility of creating a Palestinian state.
To cap it, Herzog fought an election and
failed to disclose to the electorate that these negotiations had taken
place. Today, he admits that had he won, he had every intention of
implementing these policies. Needless to say, had he disclosed his
policy, he would have been decimated at the polls.
A year later, after this sleazy episode
has been exposed, Herzog tries to justify his deceit by suggesting that
the entire operation was designed to persuade Abbas to cease inciting
against Jews. The late Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin would turn in his
grave if he could visualize how a youngster whom he personally nurtured
politically and had become leader of his party, crossed every one of the
red lines he had drawn in relation to territorial concessions to the
Palestinians.
In light of this, I must concede with
considerable chagrin that my calls for a unity government with Labor
were misguided and that my respect for Herzog was unwarranted.
The somewhat insipid response by the
media to these revelations is a byproduct of our dysfunctional political
system, having inured Israelis to political deceit and made them highly
cynical.
Herzog has probably hammered the last
nails into the coffin of the Labor party. Were an election to take place
in the near future, it is almost assured that these misguided
initiatives would result in the decimation of the Zionist Union. The
principal beneficiaries would be Yesh Atid, Ya’alon’s presumptive new
party, Habayit Hayehudi and Yisrael Beytenu.
After such duplicitous behavior – both
ethically and politically unconscionable – Herzog must resign. The
problem, however, is whether his potential replacements will be any
better.
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Isi Leibler
Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/herzogs-intolerable-deceit/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment