Negotiations, stability, assets, conditions, interests, agreements: these terms are as familiar on the business pages as in political reports. No wonder: both processes are driven by the pursuit of mutual interests, commonly known as ?give and take?. A deal concluded is a deal maintained, or it is not a deal.
Thus, one never sees a business transaction described as follows: the tenant must pay more than the agreed price, while sooner or later the landlord will decide if he is willing to let him move in. Or: the tenant will show, sooner or later, if he is able to pay, but the landlord must permit entry now.
Indeed, there is something surrealistic in promoting an agreement wherein one side is fully accountable, while the other has the choice if, how, and when to deliver. Yet, there are those (?sooner or later, Arafat will have to demonstrate that he has the clout to rein in the men of violence?, Leaders, March 28) who would expect Israel to operate according to such inconsistent standards, and thus commit its security, indeed its future, to such a partner in such a deal.
Against the growing anger and despair, remembering two relatively recent developments will provide some much-needed perspective for events currently unfolding.
The historical handshake between prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn in 1993 was preceded by the Palestine Liberation Organisation reversing its inaugural policy, which called for the destruction of Israel. Moreover, the organisation formally renounced violence as a means to achieving future political ends. Simultaneously, Israel recognised Palestinian rights.
This led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, which was to negotiate the final settlement with Israel. Palestinian security forces were armed inter alia by Israel, to facilitate this peaceful agenda. Halting violence was not an option. It was a categorical and unconditional commitment.
It should also be remembered that less than two years ago we were in the midst of serious negotiations aimed at ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state next to Israel, with both capitals in Jerusalem. Notwithstanding problems in the negotiations, resorting to violence when they did not yield the desired results went counter to both the spirit and letter on which the Palestinian Authority was founded.
With regularity, subsequent escalations brought proposals for cessation. They all demanded a halt to terrorism as an essential step to restoring trust and resuming negotiations. Unfortunately, Palestinian calls for a ceasefire were directed primarily at the international community, but the tone and content for internal consumption were radically different: inciting a million martyrs to march to Jerusalem (a direct quote from Arafat) is clearly incompatible with ending the bloodshed.
If proof of this duality were needed, documents recently uncovered at the Palestinian Authority headquarters reveal that it bankrolled militants. Incitement in the official Palestinian press left little to the imagination.
It must also be remembered that during March, dozens of civilians were killed in the cities of Israel by individuals hailing from the armed wing of Arafat?s Fatah movement. Of about 20 attacks halted in time, at least two massive onslaughts originating from militias associated with Fatah were stopped at Israeli checkpoints. These included a car bomb heading for Israel?s biggest shopping mall and an ambulance that was transporting a suicide belt under the stretcher of a sick boy.
The perpetrator of the Passover Massacre (the ultimate trigger to recent Israeli responses) had been on Israel?s ?most-wanted? list but was released from a Palestinian Authority prison a few days before the massacre, even though his intended ?martyrdom? was no secret.
How would one view a business transaction in which one party changes its mind well into the process and drops its commitment to its part of the deal? Does this indicate that interim steps were merely a foothold for terror, intended to force Israel to change the mutually accepted rules?
By patronisingly deeming one party incapable of carrying out its commitments, the apologetic approach adopted by those who absolve the Palestinians of responsibility disrespects the signatories and the agreement they share. It effectively voids signed agreements of any meaning and undermines motivation to strive for others that are more comprehensive and thus riskier. Who would adopt a deal based on such terms?
Israel will not countenance these terms. It cannot accept a situation where choosing a restaurant is a question of life and death, where every bit of normalcy is fraught with danger. Someone must put an end to this. If the Palestinians consistently renege on their responsibility, and in fact do the opposite of what they agreed to, it unfortunately falls on Israel to do so.
We have no intention of harming the Palestinians or their leaders. We have no desire to control Palestinian towns. All we want is to enable Israelis to live in peace, side by side with Palestinians on the tiny piece of land that history has fated us to share. Israel wants peace. Israel knows that peace has a price and is willing to pay it. But it cannot be expected to give a blank cheque and receive nothing in return.
Striving for peace and engaging in terrorism are not compatible. They cannot exist simultaneously. To advance towards peace, terrorism must be stopped. The cessation of terrorism, of random violence against innocents, is a precondition for progress. Against the current anguish we can but hope and pray that the voices of reason, of negotiation, of cooperation will ultimately prevail.
Tova Herzel is Israel?s ambassador to South Africa