|
By Ira Sharkansky
 JERUSALEM— Headline in Friday's Ha'aretz "Abu Mazan (Mahmoud Abbas) is losing hope: 'I sense that Netanyahu has not changed since 1996'"
A headline on an inside page in the same edition: "Paralysis at the summit of coordination between the government and the territories." That story goes on to say that things are not happening in the policy to advance "economic peace" on account of the failure of Israeli government to make appointments to key positions in the program.
Elsewhere in the news we hear that negotiations about freeing Gilad Shalit are moving at the speed of a crippled snail. International donors are complaining that Gazans are still living amidst the rubble because Israel will not open the borders to the supplies and equipment that their contributions will provide.
Let me offer explanations for these disparate items that I can sum up in some pithy epigrams.
There is no free lunch in international relations: You screw us; we'll screw you.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may be a spiritual ideal, but the more popular norm in international politics is the simpler one of "Do unto others."
Israel can live well enough without solving the problem of Palestine.
The Palestinians may pride themselves in their willingness to die for their national cause, but they have committed national suicide. There will be no Palestinian state as long as key factions persist with the dreams of turning back the clock to 1967, to 1947, or to the mid-19th century before Jews began coming to this area.
I perceive that Netanyahu has changed since 1996. He appears to be wiser, and more skilled in expressing what he demands as conditions for moving forward with a peace process.
Go to the top of next column
|
|
Abu Mazan's problem is that he has not changed. From the information available to the public, I see no signs of flexibility in his position. No matter what Israel has offered is not enough.
Too bad that we seem to be stuck without movement in a peace process, despite its position high on the priorities of the Obama White House and European governments.
Several things beyond Palestinian stubbornness are contributing to the stalemate.
The Goldstone report is one of them, and symbolizes a general condition. As Netanyahu has said, why should Israel be generous when international organizations and others distort reality, judge Israel so much more severely than they judge other countries, and are working to deny Israel the right to defend itself. When Abu Mazan works to keep the Goldstone report on the agenda of international organizations, he provides Netanyahu yet another reason to follow the line of "screw him."
Another major contributor to stalemate is Hamas. Its unrelenting refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy, as well as its persistence in demanding the freedom of individuals seen in Israel as murderers makes it a doubtful partner for negotiations. Gaza represents about half of Palestine, and Hamas appears to be strong in the West Bank. Moreover, Hamas is only one of numerous Palestinian groups that push Abu Mazan to a hard line with Israel. Abu Mazan may be able to stay in power in Ramallah by demanding the Palestinian wish list, but why should Israel bother?
There is also the problem of Iran. Not only is it resisting international efforts to temper its nuclear aspirations, but it is prominent in the cluster that features Hamas and Hizbollah, as well as Syria and Turkey.
Peace would be nice, but the prevailing sentiment is not to rely on the Palestinians, governments that find it convenient to express their support for a Palestinian state, and other governments that have trouble finding words sufficiently strong to boost Palestine and threaten Israel.
|
|
