data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d851/6d851ff87f4b49614c8ccc1213e66ae08b169380" alt=""
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afa44/afa44e6ef93ea45ff7476f50ec36d334bbcdc0fb" alt="archives"
March 31, 2006
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
|
|