Words & Actions in International Relations

The policy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition has publicly been to refuse negotiations with Palestinian leaders on the grounds that the inclusion of Hamas in a Palestinian coalition government with its long time rival Fatah makes discussions unacceptable. The Netanyahu line is that Hamas has a formal position of non-recognition of Israel and the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States make talking to Hamas unacceptable. Yet, the logic of the position is that Israel will and should talk to Fatah, even though it used to be designated as a terrorist organization.

At least two former Prime Ministers of Israel, Menachem Beigin (formerly of the Irgun Zvai Leumi underground organization) and Yitzhak Shamir (formerly of Lehi, or the “Stern Group”) were designated as terrorists by the British when they ruled what is now Palestine and Israel. Given the participation of both organizations in the notorious Deir Yassin massacre, the moniker terrorist may very well have been appropriate.

Another Benjamin, America’s Benjamin Franklin once said, “words may show a man’s wit; but actions his meaning.”

So what does Hamas’s actions tell us? First of all, anybody with half a brain realizes that Hamas had to make concessions to Fatah to enter into coalition with Fatah, just as Fatah must have made concessions to Hamas. Is Fatah likely to have entered into a coalition with Hamas that gives a green light to military actions against Israel? Not in this universe. The coalition is designed to placate the fears of members of the United Nations in hopes that the UN General Assembly will vote to recognize Palestine as an independent state. Military action and/or terrorist attacks against Israel are likely to be detrimental to that goal and both Fatah and Hamas know that. The words that Hamas may technically espouse in its platform should not be an obstacle to peace talks; its action of joining in a coalition government with Fatah speaks volumes of what is known in formal logic as “unstated premises.”

The largest formation in the founding of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party was the Herut Party of Menachem Beigin. The historical position of what is known as the “Zionist Revisionist” program as enunciated by its founder, Zeev Jabotinsky, was to establish a Jewish state, Israel, “on both sides of the Jordan River,” which of necessity would entail what we now know as the Kingdom of Jordan as well as the “West Bank.” Unfortunately, that thinking is not an anachronism. The goal of Jabotinsky of Israel on both sides of the River Jordan was very recently the subject of Knesset (Israel’s parliament) debate:

As recently as July 21, 2009, this exchange was reported between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Speaker of the Knesset, Reuven Rivlin:

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said in response to President Shimon Peres’ remarks about Revisionist leader, Zeev Jabotinsky, “Jabotinksy was not wrong, Mr. President. He is relevant today more than any other time in our nation’s history.” Peres said Tuesday that Jabotinsky “dreamed of a Jewish state on the whole territory of the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan. This dream, in my eyes, was too big for us. Perhaps even larger-than-life leaders also can be largely incorrect.” (Amnon Meranda) Source:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3750649,00.html

When the leader of the Israeli Parliament gets up and publicly espouses support for Israel on both sides of the Jordan River, how are the Palestinians supposed to feel about negotiating with Israel? Should Palestinian leaders demand that all members of the Knesset renounce their historical support for that position? Asking Israeli politicians to renounce their historical position is as much of a non-starter for negotiations as asking Hamas to renounce its historical reticence to agree to Israel’s right to exist.

The way to the act of peace, of Shalom and Salaam, begins with talking about peace and negotiating peace, not with insisting upon preconditions about past language.

Tweet