THE MAINSTREAM of the Israeli political body has always displayed a willingness to part with territories, particularly if heavily populated by Arabs, to obtain peace. Unfortunately, this position was distorted since the 1993 Oslo agreements by ultra-leftists such as Yossi Beilin and Shlomo Ben-Ami, who hold on to many misconceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Surprisingly, Barak went along with this trend and adopted the Peace Now and the Meretz platform. Their slogans, which were trumpeted again and again by the left-leaning media, have obfuscated for several years the better judgement of many Israelis who yearned for peace. Several fallacies held by the 'peaceniks' in Israel and elsewhere became clearer than ever following the recent round of Palestinian violence.
Self-Delusion #1
"There is a Palestinian Partner for Peace" is untrue because the Palestinian society, despite the changes in attitudes toward Israel, is not yet ripe for the historic compromise with the Jews. Israel's "partner" teaches its school children to hate Jews and preaches to obliterate the Jewish state in its recent approved curriculum. Over 80% of the Palestinians, according to Palestinian polls, reject introducing in their books statements showing the acceptance of Israel. Only Orwellian language could accommodate such a "partnership." Indeed, in July, Barak's offer to Arafat of more than 90% of the West Bank, partition of Jerusalem, including shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the absorption of over 100,000 refugees in Israel, was rejected by the Palestinian leadership and 83% of the Palestinians. At best, the Palestinains are partners for a tense armed co-existence.
Self-Delusion #2
"Concessions Breed Trust" is just a synonym for appeasement, which only whets the appetite of the Palestinian national movement. Israeli concessions and restraint are more often than not construed as weakness. Moreover, Arafat never trusted anybody and this is probably one good reason for his being alive today. The thought that Arafat will trust an Israeli leader is a terrible naiveté. Reports about the "good chemistry" beween Arafat and Israeli interlocutors are oblivious to the acting talent of Arafat, a political actor of great cunning. Generally, what counts in international relations is interest rather than interpersonal interactions.
Self-Delusion #3
"Arafat will Keep the Agreements" is an ideal example of self-delusion. Arafat has almost a perfect record of violating each one of the agreements he has signed. Since Oslo, the Palestinian Authority (PA) refused to implement the agreements on collecting illegal arms, limiting the number of its armed personnel in accordance with the agreed quotas, and has continuously smuggled in arms to the territories. The most substantial violation of the Oslo accords is of course the repeated use of force against Israel. During the last week, the PA violated several cease-fire agreements and its promise to preserve the religious site of Joseph's Tomb. Moreover, Arafat used agreements he signed in the past to destabilize two countries, Jordan and Lebanon. He behaves exactly in the same manner versus Israel by mobilizing the Israeli Arabs to act violently on behalf of their compatriots beyond the Green Line. For Arafat, agreements, as well as violence, are tools for gaining concessions and time.
Self-Delusion #4
"The Alternative to Progress in the Peace Process is Violence" is another favorite Leftist slogan with little truth to it. While "progress" usually is a euphemism for Israeli territorial concessions, the recent round of violence came after Barak offered incredible "progress." Indeed, the Israeli concessions that put Arafat in a diplomatic corner were the immediate cause for the violence, rather than lack of "progress." Actually, violence has been a very popular option. Palestinian pollsters show that over half of the population has supported violence against Israeli targets, civilian or military, despite the peace talks.
Self-Delusion #5
"Israeli Arabs can be insulated from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is wishful thinking, even should Israel pour billions of shekels on the Arab sector. While the Israeli Arabs deserve correct treatment and equality (if they take up an equal burden), the emergence of the PA and its revisionist irredentist platform inevitably galvanized the former's national feelings. Such dangerous spillover occurred in hitherto quiet places such as Haifa and Jaffa.
Israel's working assumption should be that the PA will continue to be in the foreseeable future a hostile and violent entity with irredentist aims (towards west and east). This protracted ethno-national conflict in the Land of Israel has no "solutions" in the near future. The strategic aim for Israel is to contain the dangers of the PA and to minimize its capacity to harm us. Foolproof deterrence against Palestinian violence is not achievable, but a stick and carrot approach has been useful in the past in limiting the degree of violence and the damage. We should also consider evacuating certain parts of the homeland to cut our losses (i.e. Joseph's Tomb) and to increase social cohesion at home. In any case, Israel's superior economic and military power could be put to better use in order to remind the Palestinians occasionally that they have much more to lose in a confrontation than the Jewish State. Such a reminder is also crucial for maintaining an image of a strong state in the region. Without such a perception, Israel will continue to be under attack and not only by the Palestinians.
Prof. Efraim Inbar is the Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan Unversity.