In a recent op-ed in this paper, right-wing activist Ariel Kallner presented what he said was the "false paradigm of the Left." According to Kallner, this misguided worldview comprises three principles: Peace is achieved through agreements, compromise and appeasement; economic growth depends on peace; and international legitimacy depends on the peace process.
But he is wrong, both on the merits of his analysis and by my own conclusions. He is wrong because the Left is founded on a completely different set of values, one that is based on cherishing human lives and ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish and democratic state.
The three tenets he talks about are part of the larger set of points made by the peace camp in Israel when they argue with nationalists. Even if they are part of the Left's so-called "misguided paradigm," they have not been proved invalid. The opposite is true.
The late Prime Minister Menachem Begin presided over the biggest territorial concession Israel has ever made for peace: He gave back Sinai, in the process uprooting Israeli towns and dismantling new and important Israeli Air Force bases. To obtain peace, he agreed to relinquish an area almost three times the size of sovereign Israel and agreed to demilitarize the area along the border with Egypt. He also agreed to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
That was not even a compromise – it was the original Egyptian demand.
When Begin returned from the 1978 Camp David summit, where a framework agreement was reached for peace with Egypt, his party railed against him. He thus had to rely on the Left to win a Knesset majority to pass the agreement. However, it is hard to find anyone on the Right who is still opposed to this important peace treaty.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin could not have signed the peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 had he not signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians in 1993. Israel had to make compromises for the peace treaty with Jordan as well. These were in the form of a limited demilitarization and the handing of two small patches of land over to Jordan, which were subsequently leased back to Israel by the kingdom.
The rapid growth in Israel in the 1990s was a result of the peace process launched at the Madrid Conference in 1991 that culminated in the Oslo Accords. During those years, the Arab boycott of Israel was partially lifted and international corporations that had shunned Israel decided to capitalize on the positive atmosphere by setting up shop in the Jewish state.
There is no doubt that if Israel was to reach peace with the rest of the Arab world, even greater economic growth would ensue. Peace cannot replace responsible economic stewardship and reforms, but it is definitely a growth amplifier.
As for international legitimacy, while it is true that the setbacks in peace have not stopped world leaders from engaging with and visiting Israel, the country has been continuously maligned by international organizations ranging from the United Nations to sporting associations. They continue to vote against Israel and criticize it in a mind-boggling way. The fact that the Muslim-Arab world, almost without exception, still boycotts Israel has hurt Israel immensely. Back-channel negotiations and intelligence cooperation between Israel and Muslim leaders are no substitute for official ties and recognition.
The Left's Zionist outlook is far from obsolete. Historically, whenever the Right comes to power it ultimately sheds its "zero-compromise" approach and gives up land, restrains settlement construction, and endorses the two-state solution. Hardly a quarter of the MKs support the hard-line approach. It appears as though the "crumbling" Left has actually managed to persuade the rest.
