On Sept. 26, 2018, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he planned to roll out his peace plan – "the deal of the century" – within two to four months. Four months were over this week, but the much-discussed plan is apparently still in the womb at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Last Oct. 23, the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee received a report that if Trump did not present his delayed plan, French President Emmanuel Macron would propose a plan of his own to the Israelis and Palestinians so as not to leave a diplomatic vacuum.
A little more than two months before our own Knesset election and the peace plan is still the elephant in the room. On the one hand, it's a subject of concern to everyone. On the other, no one is talking about it for fear that doing so will "paint" them in a particular political color and give them less freedom to maneuver. This relates to both the election itself, in which they want the support of those who do not agree with their political opinions, and after it, when they'll want to build a coalition or join a coalition whose basic principles are different from their own political declarations.
Political parties and their leaders usually choose to focus on minor issues or questions of style. That makes it easier for them to focus on party leaders themselves rather than what they are saying, and Benny Gantz took that to an absurd extent until he opted to share some of his thoughts with us this week.
Will Israelis head to the polls to decide whether the attorney general is right to announce that he would be indicting Prime Minister Netanyahu before a hearing was held and before the election? Will they be voting on haredi conscription, when it's clear that the conscription bill won't cause most young haredi men to enlist in the military? Will anyone be voting on the price of natural gas?
All the parties are looking at the Center, because that is where the votes that are less important to politics lie – these are the people who can't decide whether to vote or stay home, the ones who decide at the last minute, who don't believe they have the power to change anything, and who make the mistake of believing that all the parties are different versions of the same thing.
Of course, the truth is different. The difference between the camp that understands that it is worthwhile to pay a price for peace and the camp that sees a peace deal as a trap is like day and night. The chasm between the bloc that made an enormous effort to secure the future of the country as a Jewish, democratic state, and was ready to take personal risks to make that happen – including the murder of a prime minister – and the bloc that thwarted the peace process with a thousand excuses, intending – or at least willing – to leave the situation as it is, is the biggest one in politics. There aren't many democracies in the world in which it is possible to vote on a gap like that, one that personally touches the lives of every single person who casts a ballot. Evading the most important issue on the Israeli agenda in the past 52 years is a luxury.
The question is not whether a party led by two talented young people can include both the secular and the religious, but whether they will continue to lead Israel over the diplomatic edge of annexation – to retroactively approving Israeli homes built on privately owned Palestinian land, and a harsh blow to the status of the courts. The question is not about the cost of living but about life itself: Does our security depend on holding more territory or is our hold on that territory the source of our security problems?
That is the elephant in the room, and if we tiptoe around it to avoid calling attention to it, it would be best if someone else – possibly Trump, maybe Macron – reminded us about what is really important.
