What can and should we do? This is the most often asked, but rarely articulated question in Israeli politics. After Sharon's disengagement plan was rejected by his fellow Likudniks, the debate has only intensified about Israel's course of action. Bret Stephens (toh to Micha Reisel) provides a pretty concise overview in his op-ed article in the Jerusalem Post.
Still, it strikes me that nobody discusses the event that would solve it all: the day the PLO published a revised national charter that explicitly abolishes terrorism and other "armed resistance," irrevocably recognizes the right of Israel to exist; and opens the door for real negotiations by actually cracking down on terrorists. And it wouldn't hurt if they stopped making the "right of return" a non-negotiable and read resolution 242 in its plain - rather than wishful - meaning.
I have no doubt that there are vocal elements within the Israeli political establishment that would reject this kind of overture as well as any suggestion that Israel make concessions with respect to the West Bank, Gaza, or any part of Jerusalem. But these will be overwhelmed by the vast majority of Israelis who are actually willing to make territorial concessions, forcibly evacuate "settlements," and even work out something for Jerusalem - in return for real, durable, peace.
Clearly, this same vast majority holds little hope that Arafat ever will do this much, and so they are left to consider their own actions.
But there choice could have simply been: we'll maintain the status quo until the Palestinians come to their senses or start an all-out war to resolve this.
I would wager that most Israelis could argue the pros and cons of the disengagement plan, no matter where they end up on the issue. And they're aware of the consequences of the choice Israel makes - the risks of disengaging, and the risks of staying "engaged."
Knowing both sides of an argument is IMHO a mark of political sophistication. Hillel supposedly argued Shammai's case better than Shammai, only to refute every point even more convincingly.
And taking responsibility for one's own (and others') situation is a sign of maturity. Anyone who pays attention to pro-Israel polemics will notice that they seek to justify their actions rather than elicit sympathy.
I'm not trying to claim that the Israeli political debate is all that sane. The noise-to-signal ratio is annoying and confusing, and extreme views tend to dominate the debate. But it is telling that it's all about what Israel needs to do - very little handwringing and passing the buck.
Contrast that with the Arab and European debate, which largely is about taking turns blaming Israel for everything and assuming that Palestinians are a bunch of children who can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
Comments