How Do Israel’s Two Candidates Differ on Peace With Israel’s Neighbors?

by Eugene Bird

Both Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and his Likud party challenger in Israel’s May 29 election, Benyamin Netanyahu, have made a number of statements in recent interviews and articles in Israel’s Hebrew press concerning peace with Israel’s Arab neighbors. First, Netanyahu:

On peace with the Arabs in general: “Likud is not opposed to peace as evidenced by the peace with Egypt under a Likud government. We want stability and cooperation with our Arab neighbors. We do not believe in the optimistic concept of a new Middle East.”

On final status: “Self-rule for the Palestinians,” but no Palestinian state and with Israel solely responsible for both security of Israel and all foreign affairs. He would prefer a role for Jordan in the final settlement.

On Jerusalem: Netanyahu prefers the Jordanian government, not the Palestinian governing body, to have “influence” in the final status of the holy places in Jerusalem.

On security: Likud would insist on the right of the Israeli forces to intervene to “abort” any terrorist operation before it is launched from any place west of the Jordan River.

On the Golan and Syria: International law does not recognize Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights. “They lost it after launching attacks against Israel and they should get over it.” Peres, in a long article published in the Hebrew press, provided his views on the same and other topics:

On peace with the Arabs in general: “I have a vision of the New Middle East. The key is the embrace of democracy by all parties…The Middle East is in transition to peace…Historically, peace agreements have been based on territorial compromise. We will continue seeking such a compromise, but there is no compromise on security.”

On separation and a binational state: “What has always distinguished us from the revisionist right and the radical left has been our refusal to believe in a binational solution on the one hand, and our aversion to a transfer of Arabs on the other…[Likud] really wants to settle on every inch of land in Judea and Samaria. The tragic demographic embrace that will be created between the two peoples does not bother them.”

On the right-wing program: “All the political achievements of the Oslo process would go down the drain, including the international legitimization we attained in recent years and the special relationship with the United States which emerged from the deep low four years ago to a peak we have never known before.”

On Islamic fundamentalism: “Modernization and peace are being opposed by radical fundamentalism and the state of Israel cannot remain neutral in the face of this struggle…Most experts I know believe today that the current wave of fundamentalism is already past its peak and may even be on the wane.”

On the Jordan option: Peres did not comment but his foreign minister, Ehud Barak, a new power in the party, has commented: “I believe that the right course to be followed is to gradually develop a dialogue between the Palestinians and the Jordanians in the Hashemite kingdom to determine the type of relationship the two sides want to have between themselves.”

Prime Minister Peres did not write about Jerusalem. Nor did he comment on Israel’s long-term relationship with Golan or Syria and Lebanon.

Washington might conclude from all of this that the coming to power of Likud would be a fatal blow to the Oslo process, particularly on the issues of the settlements, Jerusalem and the Golan. The question remains, however, after the massive closures and shut-down of the Palestinian economy and the pounding of Lebanese civilians, is a victorious Peres going to be any more able than Netanyahu to make a comprehensive peace in the coming three years of negotiations?

The Palestinians seeking a state, Lebanese seeking the return of one-sixth of their country, and Syrians seeking the return of the Golan should not expect good news very soon, regardless of who wins. And the burden on the American taxpayer in supporting Israel and the peace process will continue to grow beyond the $100 billion mark. State Department Middle East specialists, their enemies in Israel’s hydra-headed American lobby, the professional Zionists in both political parties and the media “terrorism experts” all can look forward to a long period of employment, and all ultimately at U.S. taxpayer expense.

Israel and its U.S. “Amen Corner,” now that they appear to have won the war for a Jewish-Arab state in part of Palestine, seem bent on losing the peace.