Twice in the 21st century, Israel and the Palestinians conducted substantive negotiations to resolve the conflict.
In 2000, Ehud Barak convinced President Bill Clinton to hold the Camp David Conference with the participation of Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen.
He put forward a softened proposal for the future of a united Jerusalem.
The Palestinians refused and fled, prompting Clinton - who promised not to take a position - to firmly side with Israel in a thunderous interview with Ehud Yaari.
No agreement was born, but Israel received political oxygen to continue its presence in Judea and Samaria.
After eight years, Ehud Olmert offered Abu Mazen a political agreement, which is described in Professor Itamar Rabinovitch's new book "The Middle East Maze" as particularly generous, and the peace refuser Abu Mazen fled to Ramallah under false pretenses.
Rabinovitch, an Orientalist and retired ambassador to Washington, quoted US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who blamed the failure on the Palestinians.
Once again Israel received a dose of political oxygen.
Another year and Benjamin Netanyahu promised in his Bar-Ilan speech that he intends to establish "two states for two peoples", but words are separate and actions are separate.
On that day, Israel's slow and long journey to the suspect's bench at the International Court of Justice in The Hague began.
This week we were pushed there by the decision of the UN General Assembly. At this juncture, a diagnosis is needed for those who favor the paths of diplomacy. One question is whether Israel and the Palestinians are striving for a political settlement; and a related but different problem is which of the parties is maneuvering effectively which allows it to be seen as interested in a political settlement and to receive support in the world, without reaching the goal The statement in its essence is not acceptable to him, except in empty words. This wording is largely consistent with the political outline proposed by Moshe (Bogi) Ya'alon in his book "A Short Long Way", and was accepted by the Likud at the time. The two outlines are not the same.
Since then the Palestinians have wielded a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, the blade of terror, most recently from Nablus, Jenin, and Hebron, and on the other hand, the knife of an appeal to the tribunal in The Hague (in Philip Sands' book, "Mizrah-West Street", describes the course of the Jewish jurists Raphael Lemkin and Hersh Lauterpacht, who after the nightmares of Nazism encouraged to reduce the The sovereign status of each country for the benefit of international law. This is how the Hague Tribunal and the laws against war crimes were born.
Israel has always been anxious about moving the debate from the United Nations to The Hague. In 1969, I began my role as the "political writer" for "Haaretz" and asked for briefings from Dr. Yaakov Herzog, who was still serving as director general of the Prime Minister's Office but was not a favorite of Golda Meir, contrary to It was preceded by David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol. Ben-Gurion went so far as to praise him and called him a "decipherer" - the biblical dream solver Joseph. We met at his home in Jerusalem, and even then, about two years after the Six Day War, he stressed that Israeli diplomacy must act to prevent her being dragged to The Hague. She succeeded. Postponing the move until the Palestinians realized that they had no reason to wait, certainly not in light of the statements of the new Netanyahu government, and recently passed a resolution at the United Nations that placed Israel on the bench of those interrogated in the Hague. In voting, they answered with a sad smile.
"The mills of justice run slowly", but it is enough to look at what happened to South Africa and Serbia in The Hague to understand where things are deteriorating.
Panina Sharvit-Baruch, an expert on the subject in the IDF and in research, explained to Jonathan Lees in "Haaretz" that a harsh opinion is expected for Israel and there is a fear that it will be defined as an apartheid state. The opinion of the High Court will be influenced by its policy during the investigation.
Before the distant sanctions, a public atmosphere is taking shape internationally. The conduct of the investigation in itself will already give a boost to the movement to boycott Israel, to BDS. Norway hastened and withdrew its money from Israel, and this before the coup d'état that the government is preparing with a series of laws. If there are any professional remnants left in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , they should suggest to the government to convert its linguistic rant into a moderate formulation.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
