When trying to be tough, is it sometimes better not to say anything?
Responding to the repeated Palestinian Authority (PA) “political attacks” on Israel, including attempts to obtain recognition of “Palestine” as an independent state in the UN Security Council and in other international forums, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman has once again announced that Israel shouldn’t just sit and complain, but should be proactive. In doing so, he laid out parameters for what steps need to be taken by Israel to counter the hostile actions taken by the PA, which are in clear violation of the Oslo “Peace” Accords.
So what were the tough words that Liberman actually said? He began by stating the following:
“The State of Israel will not agree to be dictated to by the Palestinians. Any attempt by the Palestinians, assisted by international bodies, to impose on us their desired solution, will only deteriorate the situation in the region even more and be liable to fail.”
Given these strong statements by Mr. Liberman, one might have expected him to follow up with some similarly strong actions that will be taken by Israel, so as not to allow the aggressors to achieve, as he put it, “their desired solution”. Perhaps calling for a government decision to declare the Oslo Accords null and void? Perhaps adopting a Cabinet decision that Israel will no longer accept the validity of the Palestinian Authority? Perhaps at the very least, ending security cooperation?
The surprising answer? None of the above – Liberman called for the adoption of his peace proposal, according to which Israel would totally withdraw from the relatively large region in east-central Israel known asthe Triangle, in which several hundred thousand Arab citizens of Israel live. In exchange, Israel would retain most of the Jewish populated communities in Judea and in Samaria, areas that are already in Israel’s possession, but where Israeli sovereignty has not yet been declared.
In short, the Liberman plan gives the Arabs sovereignty in a central part of Israel that is not in their possession and that is legally under Israel’s sovereignty, “in exchange” for central parts of Israel that already are in our possession, and in which we can declare sovereignty tomorrow without striking any deal with the Hamas-Fatah PA. Does Liberman’s plan sound like a fair deal? Is that really the tough action that he seemed to call for in response to the PA’s political attacks on Israel?
The Liberman plan gives them exactly what they want – continued Israeli withdrawal from the Land of Israel. Liberman does justify his plan by pointing to the demographic threat from the Arabs, but in our presentreality of a rising Jewish birthrate and a shrinking Arab one, claims of an existential demographic threat to Israel’s existence are no longer, if they ever were, a convincing reason to surrender land to our enemies.
As if to convince us that his plan has merit, Liberman goes on to explain that world leaders (who, by the way, are always pressuring Israel to hand over land for the promise of peace) don’t even object to his plan:
“I have never heard a rejection of this idea when I put it in front of world leaders,”
Yes, the “land for peace” cheerleaders around the world actually seem to like this plan. Is that Liberman’s rationale for withdrawal from the center of Israel? Let’s not be fooled again – the Liberman plan is a pathetic diplomatic surrender that will be interpreted as weakness in the Arab countries and in the broader Islamic world. It will also legitimize the Arab demands for sovereignty in the adjacent Galilee region. In the upcoming elections, it may bring Liberman a few votes from the Left or even a few more votes from Arabs, but it’s no less dangerous than the Oslo Accords, and maybe even more so. Hopefully, the voters will recognize that.
