Imprimir

The Israeli Right received a tremendous blow this week. On Sunday, a Likud-led right-wing government formally adopted the road map, the latest diplomatic initiative to restart Palestinian-Israeli dialogue. The national camp in Israel sees it as a deeply flawed document — concocted by Arabists in Europe, the United Nations and the U.S. Department of State — significantly parting from President Bush’s speech of June 24, 2002. Through such an acceptance, for the first time in its history, the Likud Party endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel.

On Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly defended his support of the road map, terming the Israeli presence in the territories as an «occupation» which was «terrible.» That a prime minister from the Likud Party, and a key leader in the settlement enterprise, would adopt terminology that belongs in left-wing circles marks a political earthquake of mammoth proportions. This is indeed a monumental U-turn for the Likud.

The cabinet’s decision and Sharon’s declarations have to be understood in the current political international and regional context. Sharon probably believes that it would be unaffordable for an already isolated Israel to loose the support of the only true ally that the country has in the world: Bush’s America. Besides, it could be that he thinks that the road map will never really take off, given Palestinian domestic infighting, for instance. So, by accepting the peace plan, he essentially throws the ball back to the Palestinian camp, hoping that it won’t bounce and, thus, deflects global diplomatic pressure.

But — whatever the reasons motivating the government’s adoption of the peace plan, its endorsement of a Palestinian state and the premier’s controversial statements — the consequences of these developments cannot be underestimated. For they may have damaged, perhaps irreparably, Israel’s case — historically, legally and morally — and will have a profound impact on the country’s future.

The powerful link of the Jews with the land of Israel dates back millennia. It was in the hills of Samaria (the West Bank) where the biblical prophets taught mankind eternal lessons and Jewish kings such as David and Salomon ruled. Jerusalem and Hebron highlight the connection between the Jewish people and Israel in a way that Tel-Aviv and Haifa never will. By referring to the Jewish presence in these areas as an «occupation,» Sharon has portrayed Israelis as colonial settlers living in a land that does not belong to them — a point often made by the Palestinians, Arabs and Western critics of Israel.

‘DISPUTED TERRITORIES’

Such characterization will have a disastrous effect on Israel concerning world public opinion. Traditionally, Israeli diplomats referred to Samaria and Gaza as «disputed territories» ~ a fair, neutral terminology that reflects a fact: namely, that these areas are being disputed by both sides. It says nothing of whose right to these areas is more or less legitimate.

Sharon’s problematic wording likely intended to imply that the Israeli army cannot stay indefinitely in Ramallah and did not try to sever the Jewish tie to the Land («We are not occupiers. This is the homeland of the Jewish people,» Sharon would later clarify). Yet Israel’s historic right to the land has been called into question, its legal standing has been tarnished and the moral ground has been ceded to the Palestinians. All in one stroke by none other than Sharon. Unbelievable.

As to Palestinian statehood, some see it as the solution to Israel’s demographic predicament, wich is real and calls for sober answers. The Sharon administration understands this and seems to have grudgingly acquiesced to Palestinian independence. Naturally, it conditioned it on a complete and final rejection by the Palestinians of their so-called right of return.

The logic is simple. If the rationale to withdraw from the disputed areas is to prevent a demographic nightmare, then it would be evidently useless (not to say suicidal) for Israel, which is smaller than New Jersey, to grant Palestinian statehood and then accept millions of Palestinian refugees within its shrunken borders. Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ insistence on realizing this «right» of return, as he told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz this week after the cabinet approval of the road map, is not auspicious, to say the least.

With its historic decision, the Likud-led Israeli government has shown impressive ideological flexibility. Now it is up to the Palestinian leadership to respond in kind.

Julián Schvindlerman, a political analyst, is author of Land for Peace, Land for War (in spanish) and a member of the American Jewish Committee.