The role of the Palestinian Authority in Israel’s election results

If Israelis voted their fears, these were not entirely irrational fears, they were based on the history of the region.

By
March 18, 2015 19:47
4 minute read.
abbas

PA President Mahmoud Abbas (C) at a meeting for the Central Council of the PLO, in Ramallah, March 4, 2015. (photo credit: REUTERS)

Those around the world who are upset with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral victory over the Zionist Union should put much of the responsibility for Israel’s rightward turn squarely where it belongs: on the Palestinian Authority.

At least twice over the last 15 years, Israel has offered the Palestinians extraordinarily generous two-state solutions. The first time was in 2000- 2001, when Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem. Yasser Arafat turned down the offer and started an intifada in which some 4,000 people were killed.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


This self-inflicted wound by the leader of the Palestinian Authority contributed greatly to the weakening of Israel’s peace camp, most particularly of Ehud Barak’s Labor Party. The current Zionist Union Party, which is an offshoot of Labor, has continued to suffer from that weakening.

Then again in 2007, Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians an even more generous resolution, to which Mahmoud Abbas failed to respond positively.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
 
 


This failure also contributed to the weakening of the Israeli Center- Left and the strengthening of the Right.

Israel is a vibrant democracy, in which people vote their experience, their fears, and their hopes. In 2000- 2001 and 2007, most Israelis had high hopes for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict. These hopes were dashed by Arafat’s rejection and Abbas’s refusal to accept generous peace offers. It is not surprising, therefore, that so many Israelis now vote their fear instead of their hope.

The Obama administration also contributed to the election results in Israel by refusing to listen to Israeli concerns – concerns shared by Israelis of every political stripe – about the impending deal with Iran. Many Israelis have given up any hope of influencing the Obama administration to demand more from the Iranians.

The current deal contains a sunset provision which all but guarantees that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a decade.

Isaac Herzog made a serious mistake when he said he trusted President Obama to make a good deal with the Iranians. Few Israelis share that trust, as do few members of Congress, and few Sunni Arab governments. That lack of trust was reflected in voting for a prime minister who has been more confrontational and less trusting.

If Israelis voted their fears, these were not entirely irrational fears – they were based on the history of the region.

The international community, academics, and the media tend to have short memories. They will blame Netanyahu, and especially his campaign rhetoric, for a result of which they disapprove. But Netanyahu’s rhetoric found a receptive home audience, because many Israeli voters have long memories. They remember what the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, the Obama administration, the Iranian mullahs, and the United Nations have done and said with regard to Israel. They remember the lethal responses to earlier peace offers.

So let’s not look at a snapshot of these election results. Instead, let’s look at a videotape of the last 15 years in order to understand how Israel’s democracy produced the current election results.

Only time will tell whether these results will engender a better resolution of the Iranian threat, the Palestinian stalemate, and other issues of concern to the world. But history has shown that positive results can never be achieved by directing pressure unilaterally at the Israeli government, and not at the Palestinian Authority, the Iranian mullahs, the Obama administration, and the international community.

Already, the spokespersons for the Palestinian Authority have predicted that the reelection of Netanyahu marks the end of any realistic peace process, without reminding their listeners of how Palestinian intransigence marked the end of earlier peace processes and impacted this election.

They are once again threatening to bring their grievances to the International Criminal Court and other international institutions, which would surely be a setback to any realistic prospects for a resolution.

So instead of casting the blame on Netanyahu and the Israeli Right for all the problems of the Middle East, let all sides look at themselves in the mirror of reality and decide how they can contribute to making the world a safer place by preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear arsenal and by encouraging a compromise resolution of the Palestinian issue that protects Israel’s security while providing the Palestinians with a viable, demilitarized state.


Related Content

Executive director of JVP Rebecca Vilkomerson.
April 20, 2018
Column One: Time to cut JVP down to size

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

Israel Weather
  • 16 - 27
    Beer Sheva
    18 - 23
    Tel Aviv - Yafo
  • 16 - 23
    Jerusalem
    16 - 22
    Haifa
  • 23 - 36
    Elat
    17 - 28
    Tiberias