Suddenly there’s a partner?

Likud must declare it will not honor any agreement signed between Olmert, Abbas

Yechiel Leiter|Published: 09.07.07 , 07:13

It is possible that nothing will come out of the international peace conference scheduled for November, indeed, we’re already hearing calls to lower our expectations. However, by reading the political map and looking at our past experience, we can conclude that the current contacts present many dangers.

Even if the November talks fail, the far-reaching concessions being formulated in the document of principles will serve as the opening position of the next round of negotiations: Israel’s hands will then be tied and this would leave it weaker and more vulnerable in the diplomatic and security arenas.

As we recall, in 2000 in Camp David, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to hand over 97 percent of Judea and Samaria land as well as parts of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in exchange for an agreement with the Palestinians. Fortunately, the dangerous offer was rejected by the Palestinians, and Barak was wise enough to minimize the damage by making it clear that his proposal would not constitute an opening position for future negotiations.

Later, the dangerous concessions were washed away in the waves of violence and blood that ensued in September of 2000.

The current leadership, whose failures in the realm of security and corruption displayed by its leaders undermined the public trust in it, is acting rashly and irresponsibility and its actions may serve to bind the State of Israel to concessions and curb its flexibility for a long time to come.

For this reason, the Likud party, which is apparently going to win the next elections and lead the State of Israel, must declare at this point already that it is not obligated to and would not honor any agreement to be signed by Olmert and Abbas.

Such declaration would not constitute a blow to proper government conduct or to the democratic system, as some observers may argue – the opposite is true. We must keep in mind that Olmert came to power on the basis of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s success in uprooting Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and his unilateral approach.

Sharon’s paradigm collapsed

Olmert presented himself as Sharon’s successor in terms of his diplomatic doctrine and approach that “there is no one to talk to.” Meanwhile, Sharon’s paradigm completely collapsed. Hamas, with Iranian backing, rose to power and boosted its military strength, while kindergartens in Sderot and area kibbutzim are being targeted on a daily basis by rockets fired from areas that were under Israeli control in the past.

Yet the problem is not only the collapse of the approach relied on by Olmert in the past. Rather, as a result of this development, the prime minister decided to change course and make a sharp left turn. Suddenly the public is being told that “there is a partner,” and that Mahmoud Abbas, who did nothing to counter terror groups, is a potential partner for agreements.

The State of Israel is currently coping with the rotten fruit of the move undertaken by Sharon in contradiction of his party’s platform and the pledges he made prior to the elections. Olmert, whose approval rating has been diving in the polls to single-digit figures, cannot even resort to the popularity argument as Sharon did.

Therefore, the Likud movement must focus on national considerations and make every effort to minimize the diplomatic ruin planned by Olmert. Likud must make it clear that cases of underhanded opportunism undertaken in contradiction of the views held by voters and behind their backs would not be accepted.

In all matters pertaining to future diplomatic processes, the Likud movement must declare that it would not honor any agreement that does not safeguard the principle of “defensible borders” for the State of Israel, or that calls for the uprooting of Jewish communities, or does not require the other side to give something clear in return.

The writer served as Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff in the Finance Ministry