Third, peace is no good for us.
We have no partner for peace, because the Palestinians don't want peace. Lieberman, the immigrant from Moldavia, knows the Palestinians much better than they know themselves. Therefore he states categorically: "Even if we offer the Palestinians Tel Aviv and a withdrawal to the 1947 borders, they will find a reason not to sign a peace treaty." (The 1947 borders, fixed by the United Nations, gave Israel 55% of the country, while the 1949-1967 borders left Israel with 78%.)
True, this matter could be settled easily: Israel could enter negotiations and offer a peace plan within the parameters set by President Bill Clinton and adopted by Barack Obama. If the Palestinians refuse, we would not lose anything and they would be shamed before the whole world.
Lieberman, so it seems, did not overlook such a possibility, and so he has prepared an alternative argument: we cannot negotiate with the Palestinians because they have no legitimate leadership.
Why not legitimate? Here Lieberman is revealed as the principled democrat he is. Mahmoud Abbas' term of office has expired. The Palestinian Authority has held no new elections. Can one demand of Israel, the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, to make peace with a leadership that has not been lawfully elected?
Clearly, that is unthinkable. Israel will not betray its sacred principles. A committed democrat like Lieberman can not and will not agree to that.
True, the great majority of the Palestinian people agree that Abbas should conduct the negotiations. Even Hamas recently declared (not for the first time) that if Abbas reaches a peace agreement, and if this is confirmed by the Palestinian people in a referendum, Hamas would accept it, even though this would be contrary to its principles.
But this does not interest Lieberman. He will not compromise himself by negotiating with an administration whose democratic credentials are in doubt.
This is not so important, because, according to Lieberman, Israel itself cannot make peace.
Quite simply, "there are sharp differences of opinion within the coalition." As he puts it: "I don't think that it is possible to achieve a common denominator between Eli Yishai and Ehud Barak, or between me and Dan Meridor, or even in Likud between Benny Begin and Michael Eitan (Meridor, Begin and Eitan are all ministers without portfolio)"In the present political circumstances, it is impossible for us to present a plan for a permanent settlement, because the coalition would simply not survive."
For Lieberman, as for Netanyahu, the continued existence of the present coalition is clearly more important than reaching a "permanent settlement." True, one could easily set up an alternative coalition, based on Likud, Kadima and Labor, but for Lieberman - " and, so it seems, for Netanyahu, too - " this possibility is not worth considering.
The conclusion, according to Lieberman: peace is not possible, not now, not for the coming decades.
But, fortunately, he has an alternative that is much better than a final peace agreement.
It is called "Long-Term Interim Agreement."
This week, Lieberman leaked its basics: "A significant increase in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority in the areas of security and the economy"The aim of the Plan is to stabilize even more the situation in the West Bank and increase the security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority in order to give the Palestinians more security responsibilities for what's happening on the ground."
So, it is possible after all to cooperate with the illegitimate regime of Mahmoud Abbas, if he continues to collaborate with the Israel military and Shin Bet to prevent attacks in Israel and the settlements. For this service, he will be paid well: "The Plan will act to strengthen the Palestinian economy significantly by increasing the freedom of movement between the Palestinian towns in the West Bank and providing various economic inducements."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
