I believe that what many see as positive developments regarding the Palestinians, such as America’s decision to withhold visas from Palestinian Authority representatives to the upcoming UN General Assembly opening in New York, should actually give them pause. First, for the purpose of this article, let us accept as valid some negative statements about the Palestinians and the PA – such as: “there is no one to talk to,” or “this is not the right time for negotiations.”
Consider the decision to build in the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim. The goal is not only to expand Greater Jerusalem, but also, as has been explicitly stated, to block the possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But if there will not be a Palestinian state, what will there be?
Even if Israel annexes the territory, as is currently being discussed, it is unlikely to endanger its identity as a Jewish state by granting voting rights to the local population. There is ongoing debate about whether an Arab majority exists between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, or whether there is merely a very large minority. Either way, indefinite control would require ever-heavier burdens on both taxpayers and security forces.
Moreover, the world will not accept such disenfranchisement. Whatever the differences, the code word for institutionalized discrimination is “apartheid,” and we recall the fate of white South Africa. In other words, Israel is willingly entering an enduring demographic and political trap of its own making.
Some may say, “Don’t worry, the US is with us.” It is true that President Trump appears to be fully coordinated with Israel’s prime minister. But Trump is not America. In recent years, US support has been weakening, not only among Democrats but also among Republicans, including Evangelicals. Moreover, setting aside the president’s unpredictability, his term will end in under three and a half years.
EVEN BEFORE then, in about a year and a half, midterm elections will reshape Congress. The entire House and one-third of the Senate will be on the ballot, and at least one chamber is expected to gain a Democratic majority. Since not a dollar leaves the US Treasury without agreement between the White House and both houses of Congress, it is unwise to assume that American financial and diplomatic support is eternally guaranteed, or that Washington will forever back decisions currently coordinated with Jerusalem.
Acting in opposition to Israel's security needs
This brings us to the recent wave of announcements by many countries, declaring their intention to recognize a Palestinian state in the near future. How can nations that describe themselves as friends of Israel, that insist they support its security and its right to self-defense, act in direct opposition to Israel’s stated position?
Part of the motivation is frustration with events in Gaza; like many in Israel, they attribute the war’s continuation to political motives. Perhaps more importantly, they understand that Israel’s policies are leading toward a one-state reality.
By their reasoning, without the establishment of a Palestinian state, with appropriate security arrangements, Israel will ultimately cease to be a Jewish state. As friends, they seek to prevent that outcome.
As for the refusal to admit PLO representatives into the US, there is a precedent. The agreement between the US and the UN requires Washington to grant entry to representatives, and it almost always does. A notable exception occurred during the General Assembly in 1988, when the US denied a visa to PLO leader Yasser Arafat, citing his support for terrorism. In response, the assembly moved to the UN headquarters in Geneva, where Arafat spoke on December 13.
At a press conference the following day, he affirmed Israel’s right to exist and expressed the PLO’s support for UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiations. That very day, the US announced that it was entering into a substantive dialogue with the organization. While there had been hints of an impending policy shift, this move was widely viewed in Israel as a slap in the face.
Anyone who assumes that Israel – or any country – can act as it wishes without consequences would do well to look at the situation through the eyes of others, recall precedents, and reflect.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.