Guest Blog: Talkbacks and the fear of peace

Whenever the suggestion appears in print of an opportunity for Israel to explore possible peace with the Arabs, be they Saudis, Palestinians or Syrians, the majority of talkbacks, particularly from the Diaspora, dismiss the idea outright and brand the author as a Leftist, a luftmensch. As if Israel must always survive in a state of war, a permanent garrison state.

In a recent JPost article, David Kimche described meeting Prince Turki al-Faisal, intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. In that meeting the prince again raised the Saudi peace initiative. Kimche observed in his article that not only the Saudi prince, but such prior Israeli intelligence chiefs as Avraham Achituv, Carmi Gillon, Ya'acov Peri and Amos Manor, each considered representing right-wingers while serving at their posts, eventually came to represent positions favoring peace with the Arabs. If today's critics found them acceptable in the past, should this at least suggest caution in dismissing them today because they appear to have changed their understanding of Israel's long-term needs?

Talkbackers seem to confuse Israeli willingness to talk peace as a prior acceptance of an outcome based on pre-conditions favorable to its adversaries. In fact the purpose of a negotiation is to provide a process of mutual testing of intentions, of exploring boundaries for compromise and resolution. It is the gradual building of trust and acceptance, a possibility for adversaries to grow accustomed to a changing, non-belligerent relationship. Perhaps talkbackers are uneasy that Israelis are not capable of protecting the interests of the Jewish state as negotiators? If so make that the base of your criticism, not a heated, emotional and visceral rejection of peace at any cost!

Peace with its Arab neighbors has been Israel's strategic goal since before statehood. The end to isolation, the shifting of capital from defense to infrastructure, this is but one benefit of stepping back from a state of belligerency. Does peace with the Arabs mean the end of war, the end of defense expenditures? Of course not. There is still Iran to contend with. But better to confront the self-proclaimed Persian enemy across the Gulf as part of an alliance with the Arabs than to do so alone.

From the earliest days Israel has seen her strategic interest not in winning endless wars; even the most hawkish among Israelis appreciates that "endless" eventually comes to an end. Israel's interest was never endless victories over its neighbors, but accommodation, peace and acceptance by the Arab world at large.

Israel today is a ghetto, larger and better able to defend itself than in the past and present western counterparts, but still only a ghetto. And a ghetto is by definition an isolated and self-isolating entity, surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors. Can Israel survive, flourish in such an environment, its mentality and economy distorted by a chronic state of war? And if so, what would distinguish such a state, our people, the Jews from those we brand Islamo-fascists today?

Israel's security today depends on a strong, respected and yes, feared military. But her future survival depends on ending the state of war. Regardless how painful the present-based-on-past, it is familiar and therefore comfortable. The ability to exchange the familiar, painful as it may be, for the uncertainty of a better future entails risk, demands flexibility and, yes faith. Change, be it personal or national demands courage.

I believe in Israel, that our people, courageous in war, can also be courageous in peace.