Terrorism is a bigger threat than economic boycott

Many diplomats have claimed in the past that failure in peace negotiations is “not an option.” They were dedicated, near-obsessive actually, much like Secretary of State John Kerry. They too threatened us with boycotts, condemnations, sanctions and international isolation — God forbid any of that happens! — but in the end they simply came to us with the notorious Oslo Accords, which were followed by waves of terrorism and bloodshed. Once bitten, twice shy, and the harder they bite, the better one remembers.

The Kerry framework, based on information gleaned from U.S. government leaks to various media outlets, endangers Israel. It is worth saying out loud that continuing to manage the conflict would be better. A united Jerusalem without an agreement is preferable to any deal resulting in a divided Jerusalem.

The Jordan Valley with an Israeli presence is better than “peace” without the Jordan Valley. In the words of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, a European boycott is preferable to rocket attacks on Ben-Gurion International Airport, emanating from Nablus and Ramallah. In other words, it would be better to go on living with the problems deriving from the protracted conflict between us and the Palestinians, because the solution Kerry has offered seems to be many times more dangerous.

No international boycott has ever caused as much damage as the waves of terror that came crashing down after the delusional Oslo Accords, which represented signs of weakness and capitulation on Israel’s part, and were contradictory to national security interests and inherent Israeli rights.

According to the Adva Center policy analysis institute (from a 2012 report delving into the impact of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis), the Israeli economy actually suffered fatal blows following the surge of terrorism and Palestinian violence, during both the first and second intifadas. Economic growth shrank from 6.1 percent to 1.4% in the first two years following the outbreak of the First Intifada. The economic damage done by the Second Intifada was even worse. Following a period of remarkable growth, 9.2% in 2000 — the Second Intifada broke out at the end of that year — Israel experienced a heavy recession. The Bank of Israel defined it as “the most prolonged [recession] in Israeli history,” as growth turned negative, plummeting below zero. Only when we regained security control of the West Bank did the terror subside and growth resume.

Kerry may have used the Munich Security Conference to say that “the prosperity and security Israel enjoys right now are momentary and illusory,” but with all due respect, the fact is that according to Kerry’s own draft proposal, the Israel Defense Forces and Shin Bet security agency will soon lose the operational freedom they have, which has managed to squash Palestinian terror. In the past year alone, the IDF and Shin Bet have foiled 16 suicide attacks and 171 abduction, shooting and bomb-placing attempts.

The expected impact on preventing terrorism is much more concerning than the concomitant economic damage of any boycott, because the ramifications of terrorism are far more acute, even in economic terms. At the moment, we have maintained control, but according to the Kerry document, that control will either disappear or dwindle dramatically.

The American proposal is difficult in an ethical sense as well. The secretary of state intends to legitimate Palestinian claims for a capital in east Jerusalem, a city which, in the past, barely played a role in Arab political or cultural life. Islam’s upgrade of the city in recent times has woven an intricate tapestry of lies and deception, rewriting Jerusalem’s history by insisting that Muslims were here before the Jews ever arrived. Jerusalem is the justifiable embodiment and memory of the Jewish people. Israeli acquiescence to the Kerry proposal’s Jerusalem clause is nothing less than denial.