Point / Counterpoint: A very one-sided view

Counterpoint to:

A last chance for peace in Israel? 
"It's a sign of how desensitised Israel has become to the violence committed in its name that the potential indictment for war crimes of Livni's main rival, Shaul Mofaz, was barely an issue."

Johann Hari
The Independent (London)
September 22, 2008

Here are four interesting stories. If you bear with me, I will link them later.

The first story is rooted in the Taba negotiations when, in January 2001, the Palestinians rejected peace proposals from President Clinton and from Israel.  Two years later Yasser Arafat lamented his mistake in offhandedly rejecting the offers, but in the intervening time he and his people had launched one of the worst waves of violence and terror Israel had ever witnessed. It became known as the second intifada. 

During this period, which coincided with the last two years of Shaul Mofaz's tour as the IDF chief of staff, 5,000 Israelis were killed or wounded, and so were many thousands of Palestinians. If this was not war, it was certainly close enough. 

Several years later, after Mofaz had retired from the army and entered politics, it was alleged that while he was chief of staff, and in the heat of the violence, Mofaz had told some of his officers that they should aim to kill 70 Palestinians a day. There is no formal record of this statement - which apparently originated with an officer stationed in Hebron - ever having been made, and Mofaz flatly denies it. All the same, the allegation is serious, and it is currently under investigation by Israel's attorney general, Menahem Mazuz.

The second story is related to an interview given by Israel's former foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami. In February 2006, Ben-Ami said that if he were a Palestinian, he would have rejected the Camp David proposals in 2000 (which formed the basis for the Taba proposals). Out of context, this statement, from a senior Israeli negotiator, appears quite alarming.

But Ben-Ami, in the same interview explains that the Clinton proposals were in fact the point of equilibrium between the two sides [the only point where both sides could conceivably agree]. He faults Arafat for having lost the opportunity of achieving a deal that, while being inevitably imperfect, is the product of the way peace is negotiated the world over, and for instead leading his people into war. A similar sentiment was voiced by Arafat's senior aide, Nabil Amr, and later by Arafat himself.

The third story is related to Tzipi Livni, who has been allegedly labeled 'Ms. Not-Right-Now'. While this is not a label that is widely recognized in Israel, it has apparently been used in some circles.  It seems that, as part of the recent anti-Livni campaign, this label was invented by a partisan journalist writing in a sectarian Israeli journal, politically opposed to Ms. Livni.  

The final story is related to Tzipi Livni's upbringing. Both her parents were central figures in the Irgun, the most radical organization in the Jewish struggle for independence in British-mandate Palestine during the 1930s and 40s. Opponents of Israel delight in labeling the Irgun terrorists, because it enables them to claim some legitimacy for Palestinian terror today, 80 years later. 

The point is that times have changed, and Livni, like Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon, has undergone an ideological metamorphosis. Realism, the passage of time, and the assumption of national responsibilities, have led her to become unquestionably committed to the two state compromise solution.  (Ariel Sharon, after becoming prime minister, once defended his ideological shift to the center, saying "Things that you see from here, you can't see form there.")

So what do these four loosely related stories have in common? With little effort, they can all be distorted, exaggerated, embellished, and merged to paint an unsightly perverted image of Israel. And that is precisely what The Independent's Johann Hari set out to do.

After briefly informing his readers that the debate on the leadership of Kadima had averted all major issues, such as Israel's "reduction of Gaza to rubble", and the candidates "avoiding taking a position on anything", Hari reinforces the tone of his article with a direct attack on Shaul Mofaz and his "potential indictment for war crimes" with all the Nuremberg visions that such a presumption conjures up. One cannot escape the feeling that Hari is rubbing his hands in anticipation that the allegations will turn out to be true.

Next, Hari informs us that Livni understands terrorists because she was raised by them, and he unblinkingly goes on to tell us that she has been brought up to respect and admire tales of blowing up marketplaces, cafés and hotels. His philippic is then punctuated with the remarkable revelation that the Palestinians were stripped of their state by Israel (with no clarification of when it was that they actually had a state).

Returning to Livni, Hari attempts to magnify the 'not-right-now' election slur, and then moves on to the more resounding Shlomo Ben-Ami quote, - all, of course, devoid of context. His point is that it was a myth that the Palestinians were offered at Camp David/Taba a real two-state solution and rejected it.

Hari finally reaches what appears to be the main thrust of his article (according to the title). Israel is missing its last chance for peace, and if it doesn't wise up and "divide the land properly" (whatever that may mean), the Palestinians will "demand" a dual-national one-state solution, within which the Jewish majority will quickly fade. Of course, anyone even remotely familiar with the Israel-Palestinian conflict knows full well that there is zero likelihood of that ever happening. And surprisingly, Hari recognizes this too, which seems to expose a significant contradiction in his own biased, though otherwise consistent thesis.

Invectives aside, has Johann Hari raised a valid point? Is there a window of opportunity for a two-state solution that is closing? And is the onus on Israel to hurry before it is too late? 

While prolonging the conflict is in neither side's interest, windows have opened and closed throughout this conflict, and there is no reason to assume that they will not continue to do so. What is more, the Palestinians themselves recognize that they have repeatedly missed opportunities, and it would be difficult to justify blaming Israel if they miss this one too. 

But Hari is right in saying that there is a real opportunity now. It would be a pity for both sides to miss it only to return again five years from now, after another round of conflict with thousands more casualties.