Why peace talks will fail. By David Suissa. Jewish Journal, August 7, 2013.
Suissa:
The
conventional wisdom is that the revived Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are
doomed to fail. The popular reason cited is that “the maximum the Israelis can
offer is less than the minimum the Palestinians can accept.”
From a
pragmatic view, that may well be true, but I think there’s an underlying emotional reason why these talks are
doomed to continue the failures of the past.
No one
wants to negotiate — let alone compromise — with a thief.
For
several decades now, the Palestinians have successfully sold the world and
themselves on the narrative that Israel stole their land. This has given them
zero incentive to compromise.
Over
time, as this unchallenged narrative has taken on the aura of accepted truth,
it has undermined all attempts to reach a final peace agreement, as well as
expose Israel to a global campaign of boycotts and condemnations.
To make
matters worse, whenever there is more settlement construction, the perceived
level of “criminality” has only gone up.
I get
why Israel never made a big deal of challenging the “illegal occupation”
narrative. Because it has already shown its willingness to dismantle
settlements for the sake of peace, it probably figured, “Why bring up this red
herring? What purpose would it serve?”
Israel’s
mistake was to overlook a crucial truth
of the Middle East: Honor trumps all. If you don’t defend your honor, you’re
worthy of contempt, not respect. It’s not a coincidence that Palestinian
leaders have consistently used contemptuous language in accusing Israel of
every possible sin.
Concentrating
on pragmatic issues while ignoring this emotional poison is like cooking a
rotten fish with a tasty tomato sauce. Eventually, you’re bound to bite into
the fish.
We saw
another example last week of how dismissive the Jewish world can be about
defending Israel’s honor.
A
petition signed by 1,000 jurists from around the world was delivered to
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton asserting that the E.U. is
wrong in holding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and
that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.
Remarkably,
I couldn’t find any mention of this initiative in the Jewish media, except for
the right-wing Israeli news site Arutz Sheva.
No coverage in the mainstream media; no supportive statements from major
Jewish organizations.
The
jurists who signed are certainly no slouches. As reported on Arutz Sheva, among
the signatories are former Justice Minister Yaakov Ne’eman, former U.N.
Ambassador Meir Rosen, Britain’s Baroness Ruth Deech, and law professors Eliav
Shochetman and Talia Einhorn, as well as legal scholars from more than 20
countries around the world.
It’s
well known that when prominent Jews release public statements encouraging
Israel to make “courageous concessions for peace,” they get major coverage.
But
apparently, when prominent jurists release a statement defending Israel’s
honor, it’s not even worth a news mention.
Even if
you’re a J Street-supporting peacenik whose definition of Mashiach is the
two-state solution, this state of affairs should trouble you. It’s bad for
peace.
However
impractical you might think it is to defend Israel’s honor and assert her land
rights, in this case there is one very practical advantage: If you have a legal
right to the land, it makes your concessions worth something. The concessions
of a thief are worthless.
Sadly
and ironically, Israel could have made a compelling legal case regarding her
land rights. The settlements may be a bad idea, but that hardly makes them
illegal.
As the
man behind the initiative, Alan Baker, explained to Arutz Sheva, “It is true
that most of the world thinks so [that the settlements are illegal], but that
does not make it true legally. Legally, the clause in the Geneva Convention
that they use to say that settlements are illegal was not intended to refer to
cases like our settlements, but to prevent the forced transfer of populations
by the Nazis. This is not relevant to the Israeli settlements.”
Baker
is Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and legal adviser to the Foreign
Ministry, who was also a member of the three-person committee headed by former
Supreme Court Judge Edmond Levy, which pronounced last year that Judea and
Samaria were not occupied territory.
Beyond
the issue of the strategic or moral wisdom of Israeli settlements, the Levy
committee showed there’s plenty of evidence supporting Israel’s legal right to
settle the disputed land — including binding international agreements that
predate the United Nations and were never abrogated.
In
their well-intentioned zeal to challenge the wisdom of these settlements, the
pro-Israel peace camp has tragically reinforced the enemy’s narrative that the
settlements are a criminal enterprise. The real tragedy is that it’s probably
too late now to correct this libelous narrative.
At this
moment, it’s clear that external conditions — such as the presence of Hamas,
the wide gap between the parties and the instability of the region — mitigate
against the success of the peace talks.
But we
should never underestimate the power of internal, emotional conditions.
Because
even if external conditions were to improve, one human truth will remain: As
long as you enter negotiations with the mark of “thief” on your forehead, good
luck trying to get the other side to compromise.
