The missing word was peace

NECHEMIA MEYERS

At the time of writing, Israeli election returns had just begun to come in. But one thing is crystal clear. Judging by the election propaganda, no major party – right, left or centre – believes in the possibility of peace with the Palestinians within the foreseeable future.

This is reflected in the fact that the word peace was scarcely heard in the course of the election campaign. In earlier contests, it was part and parcel of most slogans. For example, in a recent election, supporters of the right-wing Likud were promised that Binyamin Netanyahu would bring Israel "peace and security." This time, the Likud and most others spoke only of security.

Right-wing propaganda was dominated by the don't-give-back-an-inch crowd, though sometimes it was "don't give back an inch without receiving substantial Palestinian concessions in return."

Perhaps more surprising, the centre and left sidestepped the peace issue as well. Kadima and Labor dwelt upon what must be done in the meantime, without even hinting that peace might be around the corner. They declared that Israel must withdraw from most Palestinian areas and, in parallel, strengthen our hold on Israeli West Bank enclaves like the Etzion Bloc and Ariel. Also emphasized was the need to complete the separation fence as quickly as possible and to take other measures to physically cut Israelis off from the Palestinians.

The results of the Palestinian elections were primarily responsible for the fact that no major Israeli party talked about the possibility of peace. Hamas leaders have shouted from every rooftop and minaret that they will not consider even the most minimal of Israeli demands. Though they hold the reins of government, and now must solve day-to-day problems, they go on pretending that these problems are secondary, that only a bomb-fuelled national liberation struggle will bring them to their goals.

So Israeli parties drew the logical conclusion. They proclaim that this country must make every possible preparation for a long-term siege, which requires that it determine its own borders and enclose them behind an ever-higher fence. Even the most optimistic tend to believe that only in another generation or two will it be possible to take down that fence, to have open borders between Israel and Palestine. Meanwhile, in the view of almost all parties, we must raise our drawbridges in order to keep our adversaries at bay.

Such a scenario has a plethora of drawbacks. It implies that we must indefinitely go on devoting billions to defence, go on demanding that our youth spend extended periods in uniform. Also, it is based on the assumption that – inside our fortress – we can enjoy good relations with the rest of the world, even though many other nations are critical of such an approach.

No matter how many walls we build and how many areas we evacuate, the embittered Palestinians will still be there, waiting for their chance to pounce. And with the Islamists on the march all over the area, they will not lack for allies.

Nechemia Meyers is a freelance writer living in Rehovot, Israel.

^TOP