In the past few weeks, there have been outcries in Ramallah over the Israeli government's intention to implement the US president's peace plan unilaterally and apply Israeli law to certain areas in Judea and Samaria.
At first glance, it is understandable how Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas feels, since Israel's fingerprints are all over the plan – it is almost an Israeli-American peace plan. The people in Israel and abroad who oppose the plan see it as something tailored to Israel's needs, or a move that serves only Israel's interests at the Palestinians' expense.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
But this view is incorrect and misses a big part of the story: for the first time in a long time, the Israeli political Right, or part of it at least, is presenting a coherent, well-ordered worldview about how Israel can ensure calm regarding security issues, economic stability, and also – mainly – a shared future and coexistence for Israelis and Palestinians living west of the Jordan River.
True, the plan first and foremost provides a solution to Israel's security needs and many of its national aspirations. In contrast to the past, this plan does not come with meaningless bombastic declarations about a historic breakthrough. What it does is lay down the path for a long, slow, and exhausting journey in the right direction. A journey at the end of which both sides will realize some of their goals, a journey at the end of which they will be able to coexist in peace and enjoy economic development, a journey that can prevent further devolution and bloodshed.
The outcry from Ramallah might be proof of this: they haven't yet gone all-in against the plan, and the Palestinian streets aren't agitated in Judea, Samaria, or the Gaza Strip. It appears that this time, the Arab world and some of the Palestinians themselves aren't rushing to join Abbas' war for the umpteenth time. Who knows? Maybe some of them even see the upsides of the plan.
The silence is notable given the bluster and fuss with which the Palestinians responded to previous peace plans, which were mostly offered to them by the Israeli Left. Offers of 95-97% of Judea and Samaria, including east Jerusalem and even the Temple Mount, were rejected out of hand and with waves of violence.
It may be that the Palestinians had previously hoped to secure additional concessions through violence, or maybe they were never looking for any real compromise and remained, as former PLO leader Yasser Arafat declared, committed to the dream of "liberating all of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the sea, and the return of all Palestinian refugees."
Either way, from the earliest days of the Palestinian national movement, the real Palestinian tragedy was, and remains, their policy of all or nothing. The lack of ability to correctly read the map of the region or even the world, along with the inability to understand the balance of power or reach a compromise, have been hallmarks of the movement. A compromise like this one might not be fulfilling everyone's dreams, but it could promote the interests of the residents of Israel much better than the path of violence the Palestinians ultimately opted for and to which they still adhere.
The Palestinians have tried violence countless times in the past, and every time, this path has brought disaster down upon their own heads. Perhaps the difference this time is that, in contrast to the past, the implementation of the first steps of the plan doesn't hinge on any Palestinian response or assent, but allows Israel to promote its own interests.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
