Israel must credibly convey that support for unilateral Palestinian statehood will not be a cost-free decision for whoever acts to effect it – or fails to act to foil it.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein
As September 20 – and the Palestinian unilateral initiative (UDI) for UN endorsement of a state within the 1949 armistice lines – approaches, Israeli policymakers would do well to adopt this perceptive dictum as a conceptual compass and an operational guideline in formulating effective responses to the looming diplomatic offensive.
The urgent imperative
The “Palestinian Problem” was created – or at least elevated to its present prominence – by Israel’s recognition of the Palestinians as a legitimate national entity. It can only be resolved – or at least reduced to future insignificance – by retracting that recognition.
This must be done by sustained assault on the Palestinian narrative, its factual authenticity, moral validity and political legitimacy, and aim at undermining the material, intellectual and emotional underpinnings of the Palestinian case for statehood.
Of course, this is easier said than done. However, this difficulty negates neither the necessity nor the urgency.
Indeed, the longer action is delayed, the more difficult it will become.
Defiance, not compliance
Indeed, it seems that in the corridors of power in Jerusalem, the lessons of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington have not been well-construed.
No one present in the US capital last May, when he confronted President Barack Obama and mesmerized the American political establishment with his rhetorical brilliance, could fail to feel the waves of admiration, identification and support he generated.
The unequivocal message this response conveyed was: Defiance is far more efficacious than compliance.
Assertive self-respect resonates far better than fawning self-effacement.
Resolve trumps retreat
It was a message further underscored by the recent flotilla fiasco, which – in the face of Israeli firmness – evaporated like the morning mists. (Wednesday’s rejection of US demands to apologize to Turkey is, hopefully, a well-overdue sign of a new understanding of this.) This, then, is the spirit in which Israel must approach the UN vote. It must bring home that the decision to recognize unilateral independence will not be cost-free; it is liable to entail significant penalties for those who endorse it – or refuse to thwart it.
Inflicting costs
The first, most immediate measure is to make it clear to the Palestinians – and to their UDI supporters – that if it is independence they demand, then independent they will have to be.
Accordingly Israel must convey in unequivocal terms that unless the Palestinians abandon their UDI effort, it will cease to provide every service and all merchandise that it provides them today. In other words, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no postal services, no communications, no port facilities, no tax collection or remittances will be supplied by Israel.
Indeed, what possible claim could be invoked to coerce one sovereign entity to provide for another allegedly sovereign entity – and an overtly adversarial one at that? After all, when Israel declared its independence, no Arab country rushed to help it develop and evolve.
Quite the opposite: The Arab world imposed embargoes and boycotts on it – and on anyone with the temerity to conduct commerce with it.
This message need not be delivered in a provocative, confrontational public statement, but through confidential diplomatic channels to all concerned parties.
Discretion notwithstanding, there should be no doubt as to Israel’s resolve to implement its stated intent – or as to the repercussions of thereof: The Palestinians will have to find alternative sources for their utility requirements and day-to-day needs.
It must be underscored that this burden will fall to those nations that endorsed the unilateral measure – should they care to shoulder such an onerous and expensive responsibility. It may be surprising how rapidly international appetite for UDI wanes if its sponsors realize that they will have to bear the financial consequences of its creation.
Ending the charade
If credibly conveyed, this declaration will compel the Palestinians either to forgo their UDI initiative with massive loss of face, or to launch a huge and humiliating appeal for urgent international assistance, exposing their total dependence on the very body from which they seek independence.
Either way, it will demonstrate the futility of the endeavor for Palestinian statehood, which almost two decades after the Oslo accords and massive investment has not produced anything but an untenable, divided entity crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a dysfunctional polity, an illegitimate president, an unelected prime minister, and a fragile economy that, with its minuscule private sector and bloated public one, is unsustainable without massive foreign infusions of funds and the largesse of its alleged “oppressor.”
However, to generate the necessary credibility, the Israeli government must halt its complicity in perpetuating the farce that led to the current predicament.
Instead of trying to cajole an unrepresentative Palestinian leadership – with promises of ever-increasing pliancy – to re-engage in futile negotiations, it must declare that all previous offers are off the table, all previous agreements null and void.
It must announce that since agreement on a “two-state solution” has proved unattainable, Israel will seek alternatives – now unavoidably unilateral – to ensure its security and survival as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.
Containing the consequences
Yes, there will be diplomatic consequences from such radical departure from established diplomatic convention – but none as grave as those of continuing capitulation.
In this regard, Israel must refrain from concessionary gestures that might afford the Obama administration any political gain or foreign policy victories. Indeed, it must distance itself from it as far as the niceties of diplomatic protocol permit –leaving it to stew in juices of its economic woes and flounder in the moronic morass of misconceived actions and misguided inaction that masquerades as its “policy” in the Mideast.
Instead, energies should be channeled into generating as much domestic pressure on the White House as possible to convey that a failure to veto the Palestinian UDI move will entail dire domestic political ramifications – and a windfall for Obama’s rivals.
After all, the White House will not order a Security Council veto because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it is the politically expedient thing to do. It should remember that the present acrimony is “small potatoes” compared to that which prevailed during the 1975 US “reassessment” of ties with Israel, when Gerald Ford brusquely suspended all aid and new arms deliveries to the Jewish state.
This policy was reversed not because of moralistic second thoughts on the part of the administration; as Ambassador to the US Michael Oren has observed, it was only when “confronted with opposition from both houses of Congress [that] Ford rescinded his ‘reassessment.’” Israel – and Netanyahu – have demonstrated considerable clout in Congress. With the 2012 elections looming, this must be utilized to the utmost to make withholding a veto of the UDI bid too daunting to contemplate.
Moreover, today Israel has an additional card to play: the Evangelical Christians, who by some estimates total close to a quarter of the US electorate, and sizable minorities in other countries across the globe. They comprise a political asset of huge and hitherto sorely under-utilized strategic potential.
The plight of Christians under Islam today, and the massive erosion of Christian presence in Christ’s birthplace, Bethlehem – under the Palestinian regime – make any policy to deliver control of Jerusalem’s holy sites to Muslim rule, as is implicit in the UDI initiative, a cause for alarm not only for Jews. It is also a prospect of the utmost gravity for hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide, many of whom are among Israel’s most fervent supporters and are searching vainly for some sign of direction from Israel of how to express that support.
The time has come to mobilize this asset and translate the potential into practical political influence.
In the US, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to win elected office against the united will of this community.
To date, such unity of will has been lacking. But what could be a better banner around which to rally such unity of will than the unity of the holy city? What more effective vehicle though which to bring political pressure to bear?
Come September
Israel is far from helpless in facing the Palestinian UN initiative. Much can be done to defuse it. True, it requires political will, moral resolve and the appropriate “anatomical appendages” on the part of Israel’s leadership.
So the only question is, will it rise to the occasion…or be found wanting?
There is no doubt that Sherman has hit the nail on the head. Of course the best solution is with a change of leaders in Israel,
Jewish Leadership (Manhigut Yehudit) would follow this platform. However, since this may not happen so quickly and the paradigm
needs to be implemented, Israel should accelerate building in East Jerusalem and J & S. In short order they should formally annex
these areas using the rationale that the PA move to UDI is an abrogation of the Oslo Accords.
The automatic majority at the UN and the Left leaning West (pro-Muslim not out of love but strict interest) will try to impose a double standard solution detrimental to Israel.
As long as oil and gas are the issues, Israel will be the perennial victim. Oil and gas trump ETHIC.
The first country to assist the Palestinians if Israel take measures against the PA-Hamas will be the Obama administration. The US cannot influence its enemies but wants subservient allies. After all they control ammunition supplies. See the difficulty the Fr. and Brits have with ammunition in Libya.
Kissinger, apparently, had no compunction to sacrifice Israel to the interest of the US!!!!. Why should Obama?
Someone famous said: France has no friends but interests only.
I was moderated for 14 words and no links? and 9 words and no links?
@ gurza:
I was moderated for 14 words and no links?
@ gurza:
Sensible and logical suggestion but not just Israel proper from all of the territories.
It is virtually certain that Netanyahu will not heed Sherman’s advice. Others have written in a similar vein and they too has been ignored by not only Netanyahu, but predecessor Israeli leaders.
In defiance of logic and reason, the 2 state solution is the only solution that has been on the table since the 1947 UNGA Partition Resolution.
A great many Israelis and diaspora Jews have become more than just frustrated with the 2 state solution peace process that Sherman fairly describes as a charade. The problem with that is that there appear to be more Israelis and diaspora Jews who while frustrated that more progress has not been made towards the end goal of the 2 state solution, still have faith that it is the only and best solution. These Jews endorse the efforts of Western nations and what has been described as world opinion to force a 2 state solution upon Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs.
The goal of the 2 state solution however, has always been an impossible dream made so by the unchanging antithetical needs and aspirations of Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs.
In spite of this, Western leaders and world opinion persist in pressuring mostly Israel to make increasing concessions to push the Palestinians/Arabs from no to yes.
Regardless of how sophisticated and brilliately stated the arguments for a 2 state solution are and the arguments presented by the West and world opinion to justify their efforts to force a 2 state soltuion into existence, those efforts are anything but sophisticated, artful, insightful or possessing the wisdom of foresight.
Those efforts amount to nothing more than strong arm tactics to force Israel to settle for less of her needs and aspirations, while pretty much due to Western self interested willful blindness, leaving Palestinian/Arab needs and aspirations unadressed, unrecognized as an anathema to Israel’s very existence and thus intact.
Sherman’s insights and advice sound so right, but there are some problems in that regard in addition to the obvious problems he alludes to in terms of Israel being ready, willing and able to act on what he instructs Israel must do.
1. Sherman counsels a 180 degree turn in Israel positions and policy as regards the Palestinians. Such a sudden reversal of course would be seen as flagrantly provocative, even if Israel sought to do so quietly through diplomatic channels. Just how long do you figure that would remain secret? The consequences of Israel reversing course in that manner are obvious and they do not spell anything good for Israel.
2. The Palestinans like their Arab brethren have been playing the long game. They have achieved the successes they have through incrementalism. Holding fast to their positions, relying on war, terrorism, politics, oil leverage, taquiyya, playing on Western sympathies, astutely set up by Arafat when on the advice of the Russians, re-branded the PLO from being a terrorist organization to being an organization fighting for rights and against Israel’s oppression or any one or more of these strategies.
Israel, could learn from that. Instead of playing a short reactive game by a sudden dramatic reversal of position and policy, would do well to adopt a long game view that accords with her best interests, needs and aspirations without further weakening her positions in that regard by concessions to the pressure she has been subjected to. Indeed, she would be putting herself in position to regain ground already lost to that pressure.
Seeking through steadfast and continuing subtle small shifts of position and policy in the direction Sherman advocates, her chances of ultimately achieving a complete reversal of policy and position as Sherman advocates, would seem to be less risky and more likely to achieve that ultimate goal.
The Palestinians/Arabs, the West and world opinion are not stupid. They will cotton on to what Israel is trying to do from the get go. Israel however, by taking small steps towards eventually completely reversing position and policy, would less likely be met with an actual war response.
To conclude, what Sherman advocates is feasible, if Israel were to adopt his strategies, not in just reaction to the Palestinian/Arab push for UN unilateral recognition, but moreso as a fundemantal strategy to advance her best interests, needs and aspirations over the long haul.
Crystal balling success in such strategic change in position and policy, leaves the question of what is to become of the Palestinians in Gaza and J & S?
Will the slow, but inexorable change in Israeli position and policy also change facts on the ground in the sense that the world will see the Palestinians as a people incapable of having their own state? Will the world’s welfare that keeps the Palestinian economy afloat allowing Palestinians some modicum of economic well being dry up? Will Palestinians finally seeing there is no future for them to hold fast to their homes in Gaza and J & S, decide to vacate the territories and move to find new homes in nations where their well being is more assured?
The Arab/Palestinian dream has been to eventually see Jews in the region and Israel since 1948, ceasing to exist. That dream to have all the lands of Gaza, J & S and Israel, for themselves and free of Jews has been fiercely kept alive in the hearts and minds of most Palestinians/Arabs by their leaders. Many Muslim religious leaders living in and outside the region have justified that dream in terms of Islamic doctrine that it is the duty of every Muslim to ensure that land that is under Islamic dominion remains under Islamic dominion and that land once under such dominion, but lost to infidels must be returned to Islamic dominion.
Assuming Israel’s ultimate success in realizing her dreams by a slow, but inexorable shift in position and policy, it is hard to imagine that Palestinians inhabiting Gaza and J & S will be free to leave their homes for a better life elsewhere. Palestinian/Arab leaders almost certainly would threaten any Palestinian family that sought to leave their suffering for a better life elsewhere, with death if they tried to leave.
The ruthless cruelty of Palestinian/Arab leaders towards their own people to keep them in line or to simply rid their society of Palestinians who did not follow their leaders’ wishes, is compellingly instructive as to what fate would likely await any Palestinian that would seek to leave Gaza and J & S for a better life elsewhere.
All this being said, there is as much likelihood that an unstable peace will continue indefinitely between Israel and her neighbors as an all out war breaking out. If Israel were to embark on a strategy of a slow, but steady shift in position and policy as Sherman advocates, the prospects for war increase, but are not certain.
If war did break out again, provided Israel wond, new facts on the ground would be established that hopefully Israel would in such case act differently in maximizing her opportunities afforded by such win. If however, Israel lost, the new fact on the ground would be that Israel would no longer exist and this interminable pursuit of the impossible 2 state solution would be over.
@ Bill Levinson:
you are much too kind. Israel should relocate ALL, yes ALL ARABS OUT OF ISRAEL PROPER. That will solve the mid east problem, once and for all.