Window on Israel: Virtual negotiations

I am ambivalent about writing this note.
 
One reason is that I might be wrong.
 
Another reason is that, whether I am right or wrong, or even partly right, what follows may add to the reputation of Jews as being slippery and somewhat deceitful.
 
Part of me says that is all right. Jewish history has taught us to use our brains to avoid trouble. Israel's condition is not enviable. Our enemies are vicious. By comparison, slippery and deceitful are admirable qualities.
 
My purpose is to explain, to myself and others, what is happening in the peace process.
 
On the one hand, the American administration is putting its considerable prestige behind a push aimed at Israeli and Palestinian officials to meet continuously toward resolving disputes of considerable difficulty: the final borders of each state; the defense of Israel; the fate of Israelis living on land to be assigned to Palestine; and the resolution of the problems associated with Palestinians who left their homes 60 years ago. Some would add other issues to this list, but these are complicated enough to carry the burden of this note.
 
The man who carries the title of President of the Palestine National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has nominal control over the West Bank. His record when in nominal control of Gaza, or now the West Bank, in order to improve the lives of Palestinians or to assure Israeli safety is open to serious question. Publicly, he adheres to non-negotiable positions with respect to Palestinian refugees, the borders of the Palestinian state, and its capital in Jerusalem. Each of these is counter what is acceptable to large or small majorities of Israelis, depending on the issue.
 
Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, expresses his commitment to ongoing negotiations, but also cautions against excessive optimism. He has coupled security from Gaza along with security from the West Bank as conditions of significant Israeli concessions. Insofar as the Hamas rulers of Gaza are dead set against any concessions, the combination of Abbas' and Olmert's postures seem to assure that the peace process will produce nothing but frustration.
 
What is really happening?
 
My own guess is that both sides are playing a game, or engaged in what commentators call "virtual negotiations." Read that as something like a computer game. President George W. Bush demands serious efforts, and the position of the United States is such that President Bush will get serious efforts.
 
The danger is that frustration will produce another uptick in Palestinian violence. Israeli have lived through lots of these since the early part of the 20th century, and the security forces have learned to cope. Currently the Israeli casualties due to Palestinian violence are about 3 percent of the casualties due to road accidents. The Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank lose more of their people killed, injured, and put in Israeli prisons on a weekly basis than Israelis lose in a year.
 
The number of Israeli casualties is not the whole story. Currently the Israelis who live near Gaza are paying an especially heavy price due to rockets and mortars fired against them on a daily basis. This is intolerable, but perhaps inevitable. To stop this for more than a short time Israel would have to risk a much higher casualties rate than at present among its soldiers, and kill so many Palestinians as to risk international censure.
 
Like it or not, Israel lives on a knife edge of international tolerance, similar to the historic problem of Jews throughout the Diaspora.
 
This is not a happy conclusion, but in comparative terms it looks better than at first glance. As Israel approaches its 60 birthday as an independent country, it enjoys a World Bank ranking among the richest countries. Israelis do better than Americans on measures of health and longevity. Its social services could be better, and it could invest more in its economic future, if it did not have to spend so much of its resources on national defense, and if so many of its young people did not have to spend so much of their time as soldiers. Compared to American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recent military accomplishments of Israel look pretty good.
 
Perhaps a bit of play acting on the part of our prime minister is one of the requirements for keeping on the good side of the United States and other great powers. Some of us might aspire to greater heroism and more overt honesty. We should remember, however, that one of the secrets of political success is going along in order to get along. Politics is not for simpletons. Israeli politics may be more demanding than most. Too much heroism, and too much honesty would be out of place.