A confrontation with the US is not desired, but it is necessary - opinion

One of the guiding principles of the late Moshe Dayan was to avoid conflicts with the US unless forced by vital Israeli security interests. 

Plausibly, this principle may soon be put to a test. According to items leaked, or rather planted in The Washington Post, in the coming weeks, the Biden administration is going to “rush” a detailed plan including a clear timetable for the establishment of a Palestinian state that will “live in peace alongside Israel,” a routine wording in American peace plans which in today’s reality given the major support that Hamas enjoys in Judea and Samaria ignores the likelihood of such a state becoming another proxy of an aggressive Iran.

Incorporating plans of the past 

The plan is linked to ending the war in Gaza and to an agreement on the hostages – as one of the American officials involved in the planning said: “The key is a hostage deal – which means giving Hamas a front-row seat in the plan.

It also seems that America’s objection to an Israeli offensive in Rafah stems primarily from considerations related to the aforementioned plan, rather than from concerns for the population in Gaza.

As to some of the reported details in the plan, they would include, among others, the dismantling of most and perhaps all Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and establishing the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem – and most worryingly, unilateral American recognition of the Palestinian state. 

What is particularly jarring is the deviation from the principle of all previous US administrations, to wit making proposed solutions to the conflict contingent on direct negotiations without preconditions between the parties. The Bush (Sr.) administration and its secretary of state James Baker, for example – although relations with the Shamir government were far from plain sailing – regarded direct talks as a fundamental principle in any political process and coordinated with Israel terms for the Madrid conference – which, among other things, included the sentence “The US will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.” 

It is not just a matter of general principles as there are central issues such as borders, Jerusalem, relations between Gaza and the so-called “West Bank,” and the “right of return” of the Arab “refugees,” the canceling of the Palestinian National Charter which calls for the eradication of the State of Israel – and more. 

Nor is there any reference in the projected plan to the historical rights of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria. 

President Biden has stated more than once that peace is predicated on the Arabs’ recognizing the Jewish people’s right to their national state – and although one is confident that this indeed is his and his administration’s position, this expectation is not mirrored in the current proposals.

Nor, by the way, is there any reference to president George W. Bush’s letter to then-prime minister Sharon about the future borders to be different from the “green line” and the demographic changes that have taken place (i.e., the half a million Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria). 

To be fair, the proposed plan also includes important steps such as “normalization,” for instance the establishment of full de jure diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, a major political goal for Israel and, in different respects, also for Saudi Arabia and the US.

Most Arab leaders hope for a decisive Israeli victory over Hamas, part of the Muslim Brotherhood which also endangers them, hence an Israeli victory in the Gaza war also serves their interests.

Reportedly, the US in a rather strange parallelism, would offer security guarantees “to Israel and the Palestinians,” which could also be interpreted as limiting Israel’s freedom of action in matters of security – contrary to Israel’s fundamental stance that security must be its responsibility in all the territories.

At this stage, many things are still in abeyance, and considerations relating to the forthcoming US presidential elections could affect decisions one way or another, including matters on which President Biden may face problems with the radical and mostly anti-Israel part of his own Democratic Party.

Alas, this is not in Israel’s hands but in those of the citizens of the United States – and not only is the outcome of the elections unknown but also its possible repercussions on American future policy. In any case, Israeli diplomacy will have to attune itself to whichever future scenario exists in this respect and currently try to gain time.

While one shouldn’t, of course, make comparisons between the ideas in the proposed US plan and the delusional demands of Hamas in the hostage “deal,” both contain elements that are disturbing, to say the least:

Unfortunately, although the plan may offer practical solutions to the Palestinian problem, preferably in conjunction with Jordan, paving the way to an acceptable formula of self-administration, it may also miss fully realizing the prospect of a true regional arrangement. 

The need for such a wider consensus is crucial in the face of growing threats from an aggressive Iran – that is only an eye-blink away from a nuclear weapon – and from its proxies. The countries of the Middle East must be allowed to fulfill their economic and other potentials for which the Abraham Accords (envisioned by Netanyahu and furthered by Trump) have laid the groundwork.

Israel expects its American friends to thoroughly and openly discuss with it the proposed plan – with special emphasis on its unilateralism.

As in the past, Israel will call on the support of its friends on both aisles of Congress, in the media, and among Jewish organizations – in order to come to an understanding with its all-important ally and avoid confrontations that would only benefit the enemies of both.

The writer, a former MK, served as ambassador to the US from 1990-1993, and from 1998-2000.