This opinion piece in the Israeli daily Haaretz is substantially similar to an op-ed I co-wrote (with David Perlmutter) that appeared in Asharq Alawsat back in 2007.
An Israeli ambassador in Riyadh
Yehezkel DrorAn examination of the Arab-Israeli conflict from a historical perspective and in light of current developments leads one to the clear conclusion that Israel is in need of a new diplomatic paradigm. Time is not on our side. “Managing” the conflict based on the concept of “more of the same” will not do. No interim arrangement featuring “a kind of Palestinian state on a portion of the territory of Judea and Samaria” will prevent the constant erosion of Israel’s situation.
That is also the verdict with respect to the “Mofaz Plan,” which continues to focus on the Palestinian issue, with the added element of “opening the road to diplomatic arrangements and regional peace,” instead of thinking first about a regional framework.
The significant security dangers do not stem from the Palestinians or Syria, and Iran alone is subject to containment as well as deterrence. However, the continued basic hostility on the part of Islamic forces to our existence as a Jewish state and our exclusive control over Jerusalem’s holy sites is thriving in Islamic regions and is fraught with long-term existential dangers.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:13:2009 - 11:43
Well, this stuff might have been important thirty years ago, but is it really important now? We are in a different era, an era when terrorist “non-state” actors can dictate policy to captive populations, over-riding the power of a state – or at least tolerated by its institutions. Peace treaties and international laws and agreements pale to nothingness in lands controlled by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban.
Sign a treaty and I predict the hostility will simply be outsourced. It’s easy for me to envision Israeli ambassadors comfortably ensconced in Riyadh, Beirut, and Damascus while Israel is under attack from “non-state” actors employing personnel drafted from these same countries. Isn’t that a good characterization of the US-KSA relationship and 9-11?
I suppose that what is needed is a sustained effort to educate Arab and Muslim peoples to follow, in their minds and souls, the path of peace with non-Muslim peoples and states, including Israel. Is there even a hint of that happening?
November:13:2009 - 12:02
Yes, a ‘sustained effort to educate Arab and Muslim peoples’ is critical, but it is something that cannot be achieved in a short time. I don’t think there is time to achieve it before all else implodes/explodes. What is necessary is for the governments to bite the bullet and make hard choices. The alternative is more of the same we’ve seen for those past 30 years.
Sure, hostility is likely to be ‘outsourced’, but that’s going to happen anyway. It’s already happened. So what real difference would it make? At the very least, state-actors would be constrained and that’s a very real improvement.
November:13:2009 - 13:03
How can you possibly talk about peace when, in the words of this israeli author:”
The significant security dangers do not stem from the Palestinians or Syria, and Iran alone is subject to containment as well as deterrence. However, the continued basic hostility on the part of Islamic forces to our existence as a Jewish state and our exclusive control over Jerusalem’s holy sites is thriving in Islamic regions and is fraught with long-term existential dangers.”
MIND BOGGLING!
November:13:2009 - 16:13
“I don’t think there is time to achieve it before all else implodes/explodes.”
Explain, please.
November:14:2009 - 09:19
The status quo is not stable; I think it’s spiraling downward. If it keeps going as it is, then things are going to get worse, for all parties. Israelis, according to the polls I’ve read, aren’t happy with the way things are going. They may force a major change in government, for better or worse. Same with the Palestinians.
November:15:2009 - 08:20
In your opinion, when was it that the “status quo” improved?
November:15:2009 - 09:40
Never. That’s why it needs a major kick in the tail, to break out of a totally dysfunctional dynamic.
November:15:2009 - 15:51
According to some things I have read lately…a couple of books and a blog…(and I have no idea if this is true that is why I am putting forth the question) Palestinians/Israelis have been on the verge of a peace agreement before. In fact, one was a very sweet deal actually better for the Palestinians than the Israelis, but because it wasn’t EXACTLY what the Palestinian powers that be wanted(about 90% though) they rejected it outright. Never asked the people or put it to a vote. IF this is true WHY would the leaders do this to their people? Is there a benefit for them to keep the situation going? And if so is it for the personal power of a few people at the expense of many?
BTW…these books and website were by Muslims, not Jews so I don’t think that there would be an overt bias.
Your thoughts?
November:15:2009 - 17:15
There’s an old saying about ‘Perfect being the enemy of Good.’ That’s very much in play in the ME peace process, I think.
And then there are the fantasies that suggest that something is negotiable when in fact a leader is afraid to negotiate that something away. Like the status of Jerusalem or a Palestinian right of return.
And then again, there are those situations in which the argument seems to be about one thing, but that thing is actually a metaphor or stand-in for what’s really at stake.