Jabotinsky And The Need For Israel--And Netanyahu--To Stand Their Ground

“As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is ‘Never!’ And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions.”
Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall

The above quote by Jabotinsky is quoted in a New York Sun editorial, A Teachable Moment, which echoes the need for Israel to stick to its principles vis-a-vis the Arabs:

It is a moment to remember that it is precisely the dovish instinct that invites the violence that has been marshaled against Israel in the decades since the independence of the Jewish state was declared.
What Jabotinsky warned of in the “Iron Wall” was that “our peace-mongers” want to “persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages.” He himself had more respect for the Arabs, understanding that they were committed to their ideals, which, he argued, was precisely the need Israel and her supporters to be steadfast.

At times, it has not been clear which principles were the ones that Israel was most in need of sticking with. The consensus over which land Israel must keep and which it can afford to trade--read: concede--in the interests of peace, has changed. As a result, even as Netanyahu has publicly accepted the idea of a Palestinian state and has repeated the offer to sit down and talk peace, what once would have been welcomed as a major development is now ridiculed as insufficient--even as no demands are made of the opposing side.

Or maybe the problem is that Israel still insists that there are some red lines it is unwillingly to cross, some basic requirements that should be met by Abbas and the Palestinian Arabs.

Thus Jonathan Tobin writes in The Shifting Definition of an Israeli Hawk: Bibi Stands His Ground:

Indeed, as Bronner noted, Netanyahu’s program for peace included items that no Palestinian leader has ever stated a willingness to accept. These include: recognition of Israel as the home of the Jewish people; a peace agreement that spells the end of the conflict; and acceptance of the unalterable political fact that the descendants of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees must be resettled inside a Palestinian state and not on Israel’s territory. But if, as the Palestinians and many in the cheering section abroad insist, Israel must concede every inch of disputed territory even before peace talks begin, and the Palestinians will not give up the right of return or recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s existence even in the context of peace, then what could Netanyahu possibly do that would make him seem any less “hawkish” to his legion of critics?

So now Bibi goes to Washington, where he will address Congress. The question is how many of his principles will he stand by, how many principles will he be willing to compromise on.

Back when he wrote The Iron Wall, did it ever occur to Jabotinsky the kind of pressures that would be applied to the Jewish state--just as they have been applied to the Jewish people for generations?

Even now, Jews fear--and Arabs expect--that Netanyahu's stand on what Palestinian Arabs must be willing to accept is transitory, and merely awaits the right pressure from the US in order to force even more unilateral concessions.

Mordechai Kedar writes that The writing was on the wall:

In past years, Arab players have seen and heard that Israel concedes whenever it is subject to external pressure. The Likud, which historically was strongly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, is today willing to accept one. A unified Jerusalem, an Israeli consensus for years, is today on the verge of division. Even the return of refugees – once considered anathema across the political spectrum – is contemplated, at least to a limited extent, by some politicians on the left.

And when Israel’s enemies see it compromising its core “principles” under external pressure, and realize its “red lines” are at most pale pink, hope rises that further pressure will be rewarded with further concessions; strong pressure from the refugees, for instance, will bring war-weary Israelis to give up on that point, too.

Israel’s image today – despite the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9 – is that of a weak, wimpy state, a state that can be nailed to the global cross by Richard Goldstone, a state where announcing plans to build 1,600 homes in Jerusalem is enough to raise the ire of the current resident of the White House. Its neighboring countries are certain that Israeli society – especially the elite living in ostensibly hedonist, pacifist, post-Zionist Tel Aviv – will sell out all that it once held sacred in return for peace and quiet on Shenkin Street, because it has lost the will to fight.

The relative quiet vis-a-vis Israel's neighbors that Netanyahu has enjoyed till now is gone and the pressures that have been applied to him thus far will only increase.

In past years, Israel had a Prime Minister like Menachem Begin, a right winger who could make concessions for peace while still being known for standing up for Israel against all critics.

The question now is whether Netanyahu can do the same.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Netanyahu.