Negotiations, blocked by the choruses of intimidation (Baruch Kimmerling)

[Violet_Crumble]

At any given moment, when the bloodletting between the Palestinians and us appears to be lulling, opening possibilities for a political agreement, the "choruses of intimidation" begin to sound about the "existential threat" to the state of Israel.

These choruses can be divided into three main groups. First there are the settlers, for whom an agreement spells existential danger and an ideological-theological rift. Then there is anyone who would lose socio-economic status if an agreement were to be signed. These are cynical politicians and military personnel, the military industries and any others somehow connected to the war machine and the industry of occupation. They include "experts" and respected analysts who built their careers on explaining how the conflict cannot be solved, and the monstrosity of our enemies in the face of our purity.

There is no dialogue with these two groups, and there cannot be any. But one must systematically reveal what is behind their "patriotic" claims, which can so readily be used to whip the public into a frenzy. Indeed, it is the duty of military personnel, strategists and intelligence officers to warn, with professional integrity, of impending diplomatic steps that involve some form of security risk. These individuals must outline, alongside the statesmen, "the worst-case scenario," and make the decision makers aware of it. (It is doubtful this was done before the decision to begin the last war.)

However, the duty of the third group, the statesmen, is totally different. They indeed must bear in mind security considerations, but they decide whether to further their policy - if indeed they have a policy - even if it involves taking risks, while weighing these against their plan's chances of success. No scenario presented by these three groups that would involve a change in Israeli policy toward the Palestinians mentions a strategic existential threat to Israel. We must remember that any diplomatic move, particularly in the complex Israeli-Palestinian situation, involves some risk for both sides. Contrary to accepted thought, a non-policy is also fraught with dangers, and certainly does not offer a chance for change.

The most recent example of this is the nonrecognition of the results of the democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority (which were forced on the Palestinians by the United States and Israel), and the Israeli, American and European refusal to recognize the Hamas regime - a direct result of these countries' anti-Islamist and anti-Arab obsession.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795811.html