Gideon Levy, Haaretz, October 1:
What do you call a rejection of peace that is liable to lead to war? What is the term for a state that is not even willing to sit at the negotiating table with the head of a state who publicly issues an explicit peace proposal? If there is a positive angle to the Israeli refusal to consider the Syrian president’s proposals, it is the exposure of the bitter truth: Israel does not want peace with Syria - period. No linguistic trick or diplomatic contortion can change this unequivocal fact. We will no longer be able to declare that we are seeking peace with our neighbors; we are not turning toward them for peace. In the Middle East, a new rejectionist axis has formed: Israel and the United States, which is saying “no” to Syria. Not only is Iran endangering peace in the region, Israel is too. It would be best for us to admit this.
Common sense makes it difficult to understand and the heart refuses to accept how it happened that an important Arab state offered to forge a peace accord with us and we arrogantly rebuffed it. “It’s not the right time,” the statesmen in Jerusalem say. With Syria, it is not the right time. With the Palestinians, it is not the right partner. And when is the right time? Only after the next war. This type of refusal, which is liable to lead to another cycle of bloodshed, is a crime.
The problem for Israel (with Syria) and the US (with Iran), is that the minute they are seen sitting at the table and shaking hands with their enemies, the option to bomb that enemy becomes more remote.
Israel and the US have made their intentions clear - they want a wide and protracted war in the region.
Sadly this is confirmation of what multiple sources of comment and the simple evidence of recent history attests; that Israel is a state that draws its primary identity from conflict and does not know how to be a state in terms other than those of a besieged state surrounded by enemies real, or constructed. I keep thinking of Gush Shalom’s terminology in relation to the Palestinian conflict- the dialogue of two traumatised people’s who see each other as the author, in whole, or in part, of that trauma. If Israel was an individual then the solution would be simpler- the demonstration that not all who disagree or criticize mean you harm. Even for an individual this is a long, fraught process of establishing trust. For a state, how much more difficult? I continually get the impression that one of the sources of Israel’s addiction to militarism is the idea that her friends are no more to be trusted than her enemies. In these terms, I think that it is essential to continue to distinguish criticism from wishing harm. If Israel were to fail, a possibility which I never thought I would seriously contemplate, but if it did happen, then I think the damage would be irrepairable and far-reaching. I know that in these times this opinion might be somewhat unfashionable but I firmly believe that the stability of the middle east hinges upon the establishment of a secure state of Israel within recognized borders that do not impinge upon other states. Israel, in my opinion, has got into a position where all her “defensive” measure are undermining her security while imposing such harm upon her neighbours that it is difficult to imagine how the cycle can end.