The Important Thing Didn’t Change

Peaceful elections that change governments are the hallmark of a democratic society. We have them. Israel has them. Precious few others do. So, first an enthusiastic cheer for the 80+ percent of Israeli voters who went to the polls. And then a cheer for the utterly blase way in which the world assumed that, this being Israel, the loser would leave office and the winner take over – in how many countries can you take that for granted?

But this may be one of those “plus ca change…” moments.

Peaceful elections that change governments are the hallmark of a democratic society. We have them. Israel has them. Precious few others do. So, first an enthusiastic cheer for the 80+ percent of Israeli voters who went to the polls. And then a cheer for the utterly blase way in which the world assumed that, this being Israel, the loser would leave office and the winner take over – in how many countries can you take that for granted?

But this may be one of those “plus ca change…” moments. The American administration would be wise to work on the principle that, not withstanding the political tidal wave (based largely on domestic, not foreign policy concerns), a durable Arab-Israeli peace must be still predicated on demonstrable Arab acceptance of the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty in the Middle East. Nothing less will do.

That is the “given;” the point from which all negotiation must proceed. No Israeli government should be expected to pay a price or “take a risk for peace” for that. Suggesting that Israel “take risks for peace” is ludicrous on its face. No country should have to risk its people to secure the fundamental promise of the UN Charter. That said, Israel’s new Prime Minister is no stranger to risk – physical or political.

Ehud Barak has spent his adult life defending Israel against those who would deny it a place among the nations, and his post-election comments emphasized the continuity of his views on security. He announced that the principal blocs of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria will remain in Israeli territory; the fight against terrorism will continue; unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty is Israel’s capital; and Israel will not return to 1967 borders nor allow any foreign army West of the Jordan River.

The problem has never been Israel’s willingness to negotiate in good faith (or even to take risks). UN Res. 242 requires Israeli withdrawal from territories, but also, “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Labor and Likud governments have made territorial and political concessions, withdrawing from more than 90% of the territories and removing military occupation from 95% of the Palestinians acquired in 1967. Israel has more than met the conditions of 242.

Recent Palestinian insistence that the 1947 UN Partition Resolution (181) must be the basis of negotiations with Israel stems from the fact that the Palestinians are unwilling to deliver unequivocal acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel required by 242.

The United States must insist that the Palestinians fulfill their obligations as the only appropriate means to the political settlement Israel desires.

Plus c’est la meme chose.