If only Menachem Begin had known about Prime Minister Netanyahu's new idea of "peace for peace," he might not have given up a piece of territory that was three times larger than sovereign Israel, and demilitarized Israeli territory on the Sinai border, as part of the peace treaty with Egypt. But no Egyptian leader would have thought of agreeing to peace without a territorial concession.
We haven't fought wars with the Gulf States, we never occupied any of their territory, and in any case, any normalization agreement reached with them will not involve any territorial aspects that affect either side. The agreement to launch talks for normalization in order to get to diplomatic and other relations within a few weeks, in exchange for taking annexation off the table, was a praiseworthy move because it gave Israel two important advantages: it expanded recognition of Israel in the Arab world, and it helped us out of the corner of unilateral annexation, which could have decreased the chance of any mutually-agreeable solution with the Palestinians. But attempts to cast it as an innovative new approach to international relations is ridiculous.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
If the Palestinians were to adopt the new idea, Israel's worst nightmare would come true. What would Netanyahu do if the Palestinian leadership approached him and said, "We were wrong. We never missed any opportunity to miss an opportunity, and all we are asking for is peace in exchange for civil rights. You will have sovereignty, and we'll have civil rights." Because unlike the leaders of the far Right, Netanyahu opposes a binational state, because – unlike them – he understands the seriousness of the demographic issue, which is why he made his famous speech at Bar-Ilan University.
The worst thing we could hear from PA President Mahmoud Abbas would be an offer of "peace for peace," because that would pave the way to turn Israel into another Arab-majority state. It would be to Israel's benefit if the nascent agreement with the United Arab Emirates will serve as a precedent for other countries in the Gulf and North Africa, but woe betide Israel if it serves as a precedent for any deal with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu deserves praise for the move, but not for his pathetic attempt to convince everyone that – despite President Trump and the UAE leaders' explicit statements that one of the conditions of the deal was Israel taking annexation off the table – he has not reversed his position. It could very well be that the agreement will wind up being the jewel in the crown of his long term as prime minister, and if so, he should be congratulated. But because he places great importance on history, he should correct a few things.
Aside from the major difference between a "peace agreement" and the establishment of relations, the UAE isn't even the third Arab country to sign a treaty with us – it's the fourth. The third was Mauretania, with which Israel signed a deal for bilateral recognition and an exchange of ambassadors back in October 1999. That agreement was cancelled 10 years later because of Operation Cast Lead. The big economic conferences that took place in the Arab countries after the Oslo Accords were stopped when the Netanyahu government took a step back from the peace process. Even the important step of multi-national talks, which was born at the Madrid Conference when Yitzhak Shamir was prime minister and developed by the governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, stopped for the same reason.
In those talks, we reached out to many Arab states with which we had no diplomatic ties. It was clear that many of those countries wanted an excuse to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. That "excuse" was Netanyahu's willingness to give up the insane idea of annexation, and that's a good thing. But thus far, Netanyahu has been the one who for over 25 years has been holding up official ties with the Gulf State and North Africa.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
