PM Benjamin Netanyahu has sometimes been suspected of being less than
truthful. For example, when he promised to make peace yet keep the settlements. For
example, when he said that a 13% withdrawal would endanger Israeli security, it seemed to
us that the real issue was that a 13% redeployment might endanger some of the settlements
- not quite the same thing as national security. President Hosni Mubarrak of Egypt,
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and others have often been disappointed in PM
Netanyahu's promises.
Now Benjamin Netanyahu, and a part of the government, have understood that Israel
will have to implement the Oslo Accords, and begin withdrawing from the West Bank in
earnest. The reaction on the right - by those who believed him when he said he could
square the circle, and defended him against the 'slanders' of the 'left wing' media, is
understandable. Dr. Aaron Lerner is an able spokesman for the Israeli right and publisher
of the IMRA news service. This is what he wrote, in an editorial to be delivered on the
settler's radio station:
And while I can assure you that if and when Netanyahu does announce a 13 percent
withdrawal he will serve it with a healthy serving of misinformation, this won't protect
him - and us - from one of the most serious consequences of such a move.
I have followed Netanyahu's technique from the front row seats of the Likud Central
Committee meetings ...The phony speech at the Cinerama after he returned from his
first meeting with Arafat.... (Aaron Lerner, quoted in IMRA, June 18 1998)
'Phony,' 'misinformation,' ... Heavy accusations to make against our democratically
elected Prime Minister, our government that cabinet member Nathan Sharansky urged us, at
the Rabin Memorial Rally, to support for the sake of 'National unity.' And no Israeli
troops have moved an inch yet. But Aaron is an upright man, he was misled, and his
indignation is justifiable.
Aaron Lerner goes on to say, quite correctly, I think:
Since his (Netanyahu's) election, a core of influential supporters in America -
both columnists and politicians - have staked their professional
reputations on the word of Binyamin Netanyahu. When he said "national
security" they took it as the gospel truth...
...once Netanyahu abandons what he has clearly and explicitly termed vital security
interests, he will find it next to impossible to convince anyone that other security based
territorial requirements - or for that matter any requirements - are genuine
and non-negotiable. (end of quote from Aaron Lerner)
If I wore a hat, I would take it off to you, Aaron. You have spoken the truth and spoken
it so well! But you should have thought of that before. Because everybody with eyes could
see that there was no wolf, so the shepherd who cried 'Wolf' 'Wolf' lost his credibility
quite a while ago.
PM Netanyahu has not only damaged the Likud program. He has done irreparable harm to the
security of Israel. He cried 'security' 'security' when what was meant was land and water
rights. If there ever is a genuine security issue - for example, if Iran acquires tactical
nuclear weapons and moves them into a neighboring country, nobody may believe us when we
cry 'security,' 'security.'
That is the difference between your way, Aaron and our way. That is why even when Rabin
and Peres undertook the most stringent security measures - even when they made mistakes as
in 'Operation Grapes of Wrath' - they did not bring down the wrath of the U.S. State
Department upon themselves. Because everyone believed that they were not crying 'Wolf,'
that when they said 'Security' they meant 'Security,' not settlements.
In the same way, nobody outside of the Israeli right wing believes that demolition of
'illegal' Palestinian houses is vital to Israeli security, or that the settlement
activities of Ateret Kohanim, Elad and Irving Moskowitz are in any way helpful to Israeli
security. So these settlements and provocations are damaging our credibility, and our
moral stance.
Aaron, and many Israelis like him, think the government is making a mistake in giving up
our 'security.' But the mistake was in confusing 'security' with settlements. Some people
have begun to realize this.
Aaron also points out, quite correctly, that after the 13% redeployment there will be more
demands for withdrawal. And I add, the government will have to accede to them, because
there is no real security interest involved in keeping most Israeli settlements in the
West Bank or Gaza.
And Aaron, when it comes to the final settlement, the Palestinians will quite naturally
want to get the maximum. And when they say 'Give us back Ramot Eshkol,' and the government
of Bibi, or Ehud Barak or Ehud Ulmert says 'Security' - it will be hard to get people to
listen now. You are right. That is what happens to people who cry 'Wolf'.
But there is some hope for Israel, because people in the Israeli Peace Camp have been
trying to tell U.S. and world public opinion a different story. That the security problem
is manageable. That loyal Israelis, who have the best interests of our country at heart,
see no contradiction between implementing the withdrawal, and the rest of the peace
process, and national security.
The Likud wants us all to believe that they are the 'National Camp,' 'Hamachaneh
Haleumi' in Hebrew, as opposed to the 'Leftist Camp.' I submit that we in the peace camp
are acting in the best interests of Israel, while the people who have raised the security
issue at every turn in order to justify land grabs are undermining the moral justification
of our very existence.
Ami Isseroff
Rehovot
|
