Only possible conclusion left is that Israel doesn’t want peace

by Yaniv Reich on December 13, 2009

At some point, the endless series of Israeli provocations against peace must force us to reach the only possible conclusion that remains: Israel simply has no interest in peace, not with the Palestinians, not with the Syrians, not with the Iranians. The country has learned to thrive by bingeing and purging militarism, and it is time we all accepted this.

Gideon Levy of Haaretz elaborates on this argument:

Tomorrow will mark six months since the prime minister’s foreign policy speech at Bar-Ilan University. It’s now time for another historic speech. In the near future, the prime minister needs to convene the right audience, find a fitting site and deliver the speech of a lifetime. We don’t want peace, he should say, going down in history as the first Israeli leader to tell the truth, the whole truth.
[…]
They won’t again be able to lambaste Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for tricks and verbal sleights of hand. There will no longer be a need for his tiring and ridiculous maneuvering. Instead of hopelessly contorting his face because of so many winks and nods, he will be able to stop winking in all directions.

In his speech we will hear what is going to happen. It will end Netanyahu and Israel’s deceptions. The truth is liberating. Such a step will free the prime minister from domestic and international pressure. There will be no further need to freeze construction in the settlements and in the next minute declare them “national priority zones.” There will be no further need to send apologetic inspectors on bizarre treks across the West Bank. No further need to rip up construction-freeze orders in front of the cameras and argue that we are a state of laws; that now there is a freeze, but it will be immediately followed by massive construction.

The settlers will have no further need for their ridiculous protests or for lying down on the road screaming in unison. Netanyahu will no longer have to call them “brothers” and then bring in the police against them. There will also no longer be a need to continue using the phrase “without preconditions” while decisively changing the situation on the ground over and over. And there will be no need to support a referendum bill and then immediately order that its passage be delayed, as is the case with Netanyahu.

The curtain will fall. The performance will be over. It will then be possible for the makeup, masks and costumes to be removed and to follow the straight and narrow. Then, maybe for the first time in his life, Netanyahu will be convinced of the power of truth.

The world will understand that it is dealing with a deep, continuing recalcitrance over peace that no pressure can overcome, so the world will throw up its hands and surrender. Some of the Arabs will do the same. They will all know there is a North Korean leader in Jerusalem who is as stubborn as a mule, that most of his Israeli subjects don’t want the likes of him and don’t want change. The world, which has bought Israel’s web of lies and excuses, hasn’t opened its mouth. This includes Europe, which is incapable of coming to a single firm and courageous decision, and America, which dances to the drum of the Jewish lobby – they will also be happy to be relieved of this deceptive burden.

Because that is the truth. We don’t want peace. It’s as simple as that. It’s good for us to wallow in the current situation. There are no terrorist attacks so there are no Arabs. Life is a bowl of cherries, so why change? Society is comatose. It doesn’t object and doesn’t even ask, led like a flock of sheep, not asking why we need a freeze if at the same time more and more of its funds will be allocated to the settlements in huge quantities.

If you take issue with this conclusion, I encourage any and all arguments in favor of the idea that Israel wants peace.

You must understand I want to believe that Israel tuly desires peace. I desperately want to be proven wrong. But to do so will demand strong empirical support for your arguments. Empirical support stronger than, say, Netanyahu calling an extremely partial settlement freeze and then channeling even more funds into the settlements in blatant violation of his own meager gesture.

Good luck finding evidence to support your case.

Related Posts:

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 judithweingarten December 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm

You are talking about a government, not a nation. What % actually voted for these parties? How about those (the majority) who didn’t?

2 Yaniv Reich December 13, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Judith, you are absolutely right to distinguish between government and citizenry. But how long are we to vote for/tolerate/accept/remain silent about the governments we elect? When have we ever elected a government in Israel for the last 42 years that sought to end the ongoing colonization of Palestine? Never. Most importantly, when will we hold ourselves accountable for the actions our government commits in our names? The answer to this remains an open question.

Previous post:

Next post: