In Defense of Defense

Prof. Shmuel Sandler
BESA
Perspectives 107
24 May '10

(A different "perspective" and worth the read.Y.)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost criticisms of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statecraft is that he has refrained from advancing a dynamic foreign policy or what is termed a peace “initiative.” He is accused of preferring political survival over an initiative that could help Israel ease its diplomatic isolation. But an alternative reading of the situation might lead to the conclusion that a protective or defensive diplomatic strategy is the right strategy in light of Israel’s bitter experiences with Middle East peace processes. Israeli “initiatives” of the past twenty years have produced such dismal results that any purported Israeli diplomatic initiative holds more pitfalls than promise.

One of the foremost criticisms of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statecraft is that he has refrained from advancing a dynamic foreign policy or what is often called a peace “initiative.” In general, the critique runs as follows: Netanyahu's main concern is political survival, which implies keeping his coalition intact and nothing beyond. In order to accomplish this goal he has avoided taking any initiative in “peace diplomacy” that could extract Israel from its isolation on the international scene.

In this view, Netanyahu’s acceptance of the two-state solution in his June 2009 BESA Center/Bar-Ilan University speech and his declared desire for direct peace talks with the Palestinians -- are to be considered half-hearted reactions to demands from Washington. Netanyahu's opponents aver that, while he may be successful in maintaining his political survival, Netanyahu is compromising Israel's national interest.

Is this an accurate evaluation of the situation?

An alternative reading of the situation is that given the current international scene, a protective or defensive diplomatic strategy is more rational for reasons of statecraft, not (only) for domestic political reasons. A careful reading of the past twenty years of ‘peace diplomacy’ and its dismal results supports the assertion that any purported Israeli diplomatic “initiative” holds more pitfalls than promise. The reason for this is simple: It is now the norm that an “initiative” is synonymous with Israeli territorial concessions; dangerous concessions.

(Read full perspective)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.