The peace camp’s immunity
Op-ed: Why are ‘peace champions’ allowed to do anything without facing consequences?
We suffer from an inflation of commissions of inquiry, yet only in respect to military screw-ups. Peace failures and even peace crimes (including ones that ignited wars) are not investigated.
Perhaps this is so because probes look for guilty parties, yet under the banner of peace everything is allowed and no one bears any responsibility. And so, security officials are offered no protection from criticism, while “peace” provides immunity.
Who looked into the decision-making process ahead of the Oslo Accords, which were born in sin? Which forum permitted Netanyahu to hand over Hebron and others areas in Judea and Samaria, and to recently declare his endorsement of the “two-state solution,” in contradiction to the pledges made to his voters? Which official body did Barak consult before offering almost everything to Arafat in Camp David? And who authorized Ariel Sharon’s “Ranch Forum” to carry out the disengagement?
Indeed, while the victims of the Yom Kippur War horrified the nation, the “peace victims” had not been etched into our consciousness.
The direct talks with Ramallah that Israel may find itself in may nonetheless prompt an eventual commission of inquiry, should they (heaven forbid) produce an agreement, because of the grave consequences of such deal. For the benefit of such future probe, here is a simulation of some questions for the prime minister:
• You knew that an armed Palestinian force, since Oslo, shifted to terror. With your permission, General Dayton built a new Palestinian army, while predicting that this very same army will attack Israel in the future should a Palestinian state not be established. Why then did you sow the illusion of a “demilitarized state?”
• You knew that Abbas only speaks for half of the Palestinians, and that his signature is worthless because his term in office expired in January 2009. On the other hand, Israel’s concessions are irreversible. Did you not have access to legal advice?
• Even while negotiations continued, the Palestinian Authority’s incitement did not end, and the PA did not hide the fact that it will turn into an enemy state. Why did you ignore this?
• At the core of the deal there’s an agreement to deploy foreign armies on our border. You were warned in advance that such army, subordinated to the International Quartet, would tie the IDF’s hands. Did you knowingly turn Israel into a satellite state?
• You demanded a security presence in the Jordan Rift Valley. Yet how did you imagine a link between the Valley and the State after erasing Jewish settlements in Samaria?
• The uprooting of 8,000 Jews during the “disengagement” cost roughly NIS 10 billion and failed to rebuild the lives of most expelled residents. How did you expect to raise NIS 120 billion, the cost of the next expulsion, while a global economic crisis continues?
• The disengagement left a bleeding national, social wound. Ahead of a mass expulsion, how did you plan to counter riots, broad insubordination, a wave of emigration, and (heaven forbid) casualties as well?
• Did you predict the dangerous influence of an independent “Palestine” on the fragile coexistence with Arab-Israelis?
• Did you think of the destructive historical implications of tearing Jerusalem and other historical regions away from the Jewish people by a state calling itself “Israel”?
• How were you expecting to contend with the trauma and schism within Israel’s Jewish public, and with a certain domestic war, in exchange for an imaginary, dubious peace with the Arabs?
These are the questions that a commission of inquiry may raise in the wake of the certain downfall to be expected, just as Operation Cast Lead was certain to follow the disengagement. For that reason, the prime minister has nothing to fear: There will be no commission of inquiry.
- Follow Ynetnews on Facebook
