.
Commentary;
Reciprocity has been seen by this author since, its application by then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a lame secular argument for retaining land but without having to resort to Jewish religious principles, heritage and thousands of years’ bond with the the Land of Israel — all areas in which both Israel’s political leadership and diplomatic corps lack the background, knowledge, ability and sensitivity to impart in a firm, non-compromising fashion to the non-Jewish world.
But, at least reciprocity as Netanyahu applied it in the Wye memorandum, was a standard by which the PA and it’s political leadership could be held to held such that if the PA didn’t meet their responsibilities under the agreement, then Israel would not be bound to actuate concessions on the ground until the PA did carry out their responsibiities. Therefore, the Wye memorandum amounted to nothing other than establishing the principle of reciprocity in future negotiations and plans such as the Road Map.
In the case of the Road Map, under phase one, there was to be an end to Palestinian violence and Palestinian political reform. Only once these two points were sufficiently proven was there to be Israeli withdrawal and freezes on settlement expansion. As with Wye, phase one never happened due to PA non-compliance.
But reciprocity has long since been abrogated by an Israeli leadership, soo lacking in self-esteem, self worth and lacking the most elementary understanding of why there is an Israel and why they are there. The Olmert regime, with its leftist, give-away, destructo agenda before them, opted 6 months ago to jump over the Road Map’s phase one directly into phase two thus leading to the Annapolis conference.
Annapolis was a major disgrace and embarrassment to Israel, a monumental Chillul Hashem. Disgraced and humiliated Israeli diplomats were not permitted to enter or exit a conference room through the same doors as their Islamic counterparts. Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz reported (Jerusalem Post subsequently deleted the link and article);
No Israeli flag flying from any of the four flagpoles outside the Washington hotel where Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the rest of the Israeli delegation are staying… While the Israeli delegates have largely hunkered down since their arrival, at the Palestinians’ hotel, members of the delegation are more readily available.
Israel’s chief negotiator Tzipy Livni was shunned treated as a non-entity (Jerusalem Post subsequently deleted the link and article) as no Islamic diplomat wanted to be seen speaking to her.
Finally, after Olmert’s big bruhaha about Israel negotiating ONLY after the Arabs recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist, he and shunned Foreign Minister Livni tiptoed out of Annapolis, with tails between their legs, having even abandoned the recognition issue.
Ambassador Shoval makes this point which sums up the current state of Israel’s diplomacy such as it is;
It seems, then, that despite what occurred after the evacuation of the Gaza Strip, there are those who have still not understood that Israeli withdrawals do not reduce terror – rather the opposite. And if ideal peace is supposedly in the offing as a result of Annapolis – why worry about terror?
In short, Israel’s leaders, who have scarcely ever had an iota of emunah — faith in Hashem, beg the nations for their love, friendship and support and act as modern-day Yudenrot looking to American presidents and secretaries of state, rather than Shemayim, for the nation’s salvation. MB
Has Israel Given Up on Reciprocity?, by Zalman Shoval (Jerusalem Post)
Excerpts;
The separation fence won’t be a political border,” declared prime minister Ariel Sharon in his 2004 Herzliya speech. Ehud Olmert has repeated this more than once.
Recently, however, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has proposed not only treating the security barrier as a de-facto border, but also offering money to evacuate the Jews living on the eastern side of the fence.
Barak’s spiel is obvious: He aims to convince part of the public that he is a hawk, and the other part that he is the bona fide standard-bearer of the peace camp.
And it isn’t only Barak. Vice Premier Haim Ramon, the prime minister’s “man for some seasons,” has begun to test the waters in order to gauge Knesset support for broad-based legislation in this matter. The idea of “evacuation compensation” was first peddled by the Bayit Ehad (One Home) political movement founded by MKs Colette Avital (Labor) and Avshalom Vilan (Meretz), former Israeli consul-general to New York Alon Pinkas, Maj.-Gen. Alik Ron (ret.), and former defense minister Dalia Rabin, with the twist that the evacuees would be offered the market value of their homes. According to Bayit Ehad, this would include between 70,000-80,000 settlers living outside the security barrier and the large settlement blocs.
SHARON considered President George W. Bush’s recognition of the settlement blocs to be ironclad. But in view of the Annapolis conference and Bush’s failure to even mention his famous letter affirming the settlement blocs to Sharon in his speech – plus the fact that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is raising objections to any building in those locations, as well as in Jerusalem – questions arise regarding the firmness of that commitment.
The proponents of the idea of evacuation in return for money claim, somewhat sanctimoniously, that they are acting out of concern for the welfare of the settlers, since they would be exposed to Palestinian terror.
It seems, then, that despite what occurred after the evacuation of the Gaza Strip, there are those who have still not understood that Israeli withdrawals do not reduce terror – rather the opposite. And if ideal peace is supposedly in the offing as a result of Annapolis – why worry about terror?
THE HISTORY of practical Zionism has been buying land for Jewish settlers – not buying off Jewish settlers to make them abandon their land. Yet even without necessarily being an adherent of the Greater Israel vision or wanting to get into a debate about the ideological or ethical aspects of the “compensation for evacuation” scheme, anyone examining it pragmatically must arrive at the conclusion that it should be laid to rest.
The writer is a former Israeli ambassador to the US.
To read the entire piece, click here.