Ilan Baruch
צילום: יריב כץ
Netanyahu should quit
Op-ed: Bibi promoting Greater Israel vision, must quit if he doesn't aspire for peace
Last week, author Etgar Keret held a face-to-face talk with Netanyahu. Keret came out of the meeting outraged and made it known: The prime minister is not leading us towards peace; in his view, the conflict cannot be resolved.
The government secretary rushed to clarify this: Indeed, the prime minister said that the conflict cannot be resolved, yet he was not fully understood. The territorial aspect is not the heart of the conflict. The Palestinian refusal to recognize the State of Israel as the Jewish State, that is, to recognize the Jews' unique attachments to the Land of Israel, is the root of the problem.
We have no reason to be disappointed. Prime Minister Netanyahu is leading us towards his objective: The Greater Israel. Netanyahu is not "zigzagging" or "knows what needs to be done but hesitates." In Netanyahu's view, he was elected on a rightist platform that sanctifies the integrity of the land, even at the price of perpetuating the conflict and even at the price of war.
Netanyahu wants "an end to the conflict" without "an end to the occupation"; peace without giving up all or most of Judea and Samaria land under Israel's control.
Does Netanyahu have a public majority that aspires for the Greater Israel at any price? The answer is no. Most people, including most Likud voters, sought to grant Netanyahu new credit because of what they viewed as essential: A strong leader for negotiations, not a leader who rejects negotiations.
Former prime ministers – Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon and Olmert – explicitly pointed to the required objective at the conclusion of the peace process and its price: "An end to the conflict" – that is, no more demands from our opponent – in exchange for "an end to the occupation" – an agreed model for withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem while safeguarding our security.
Palestinians despaired
Netanyahu, in his constitutive speeches at Bar-Ilan University and in Washington, never said "occupation." He spoke of "two states" and the need to hand over "parts of our homeland." The Palestinians are despaired by such diplomatic discourse, and rightfully so. Hence, we should not be surprised to see far-reaching changes in the Palestinian diplomatic discourse in the past two years.After realizing that Jerusalem's diplomatic discourse underwent a complete change and that the Netanyahu-Lieberman government repeatedly says that the conflict is not the result of the occupation, the Palestinians also started to update their own targets: No longer is it "an end to the occupation" for "an end to the conflict." From now on, we must make a distinction between the two: The Palestinian target is to bring the occupation to an end, with or without an "end to the conflict."
Against this backdrop we can understand the two recent, major Palestinian moves: Firstly, striving to internationalize the conflict in a bid to uproot Israel from the occupied territories, without paying a heavy political price over concessions on territorial questions, on the Jerusalem issue, and on the right of return. Secondly, a rapprochement between the two major political forces that comprise the Palestinian diplomatic discourse, Fatah and Hamas.
The Israeli government must regain its senses and update its "target bank." Until the target to achieve "an end to the conflict" and an end to mutual demands will not be integrated with willingness to bring about an agreed "end to the occupation," on the basis of the 1967 lines, the Palestinians will continue to pursue their aspiration to end the occupation even without paying the price of the compromise.
Netanyahu was elected to be a prime minister who strives for peace. If he refuses to use the credit he received, he should quit.
Ilan Baruch is Israel's former ambassador to South Africa
- Follow Ynetnews on Facebook
