With the collapse of the negotiations, it becomes clear that Minister Naftali Bennett and the Jewish Home Party came out on top. Anyone who follows the multitude of announcements, the quick responses, the agile control of the discourse could not help but notice how Bennett led the business forward (more accurately, towards the edge of the abyss, but that's his advance). He barely addressed Kerry's apartheid statement. Who needs to? Bennett already has one foot in the achievement. What difference does it make what was said after the talks ended in nothing? If Kerry had said these things ten days ago, we would have been bombarded with announcements and media interviews.
The threat of leaving the coalition if the prisoners of the fourth wave are released and even earlier: accusing Netanyahu of losing values when the prime minister played with the possibility that settlers would remain living in the future state of Palestine. The hesitations about Livni, the disdain for the essence of the process and the continued publication of construction tenders by the party's other arrowhead, Housing Minister Uri Ariel. Who is that there at the end of the room? The prime minister and his little partner Livni trying to lead some political move? The truth is, Bennett is convinced that he is going to be the next prime minister, for those who don't understand where the man is rushing.
And we have to admit: Bennett is one of the few who told his truth from the very beginning. He has no intention of establishing a Palestinian state, he will not hand over occupied territories, there is no occupation at all, there is no apartheid, and in any case there is no Palestinian people. The prime minister and the rest of his party, on the other hand, receive a low score for credibility. On the one hand, they follow the leader, who promises the two-state solution. On the other hand, they do everything in their power to thwart and sabotage.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
From the beginning, there were many (in the political arena, in journalism) who did not believe in the seriousness of Netanyahu's intentions - but felt obligated, at least of a moral kind, to wait nine months quietly, to give Netanyahu and Benny a chance.
What are the justifications for ministers Yair Lapid, Yaakov Perry, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni to continue to sit in the government now? How do MKs Ofer Shelah, Meir Sheetrit and Amram Mitzna feel about being part of a government that is pushing towards annexing Area C and is continuing vigorously with construction in the territories, in the same part designated (in their opinion) for the future Palestinian state?
In this context, for those who want the blame to be placed on Abu Mazen, at least partially, I recommend doing two things. One, read Raviv Drucker. The second, understand that as Israelis we can only blame our own side. We have no influence or impact on the other side. From our side, some of us are still expecting something. (In a side note, it should be said that there are also politicians, MK Meir Sheetrit, for example, who claim that only our side is to blame and that the blame game is not interesting anyway, because it is in Israel's interest to establish a Palestinian state.).
Last Thursday, about an hour after the end of the cabinet meeting at which it was decided to stop the negotiations, I was at a diplomatic event at the home of American Ambassador Dan Shapiro. Shapiro, who arrived at the event very late, apparently barely managing to hang up the phone at those sensitive hours. At the event, he spoke in honor of the departure of a senior diplomat, Hillary Olsen, who headed the Public Diplomacy team in Israel and is moving on to a similar, but more challenging, role in the next destination: Kabul, Afghanistan.
Shapiro didn't say a word on the podium about ending nine and a half months of inebriation, and then I managed to catch him off guard for a moment. I've known Shapiro for quite a few years. Back in 2007, when he was a senior volunteer in Barack Obama's (then) hopeless campaign. Let me tell you, Shapiro's face last Thursday night looked like someone who was going to Kabul himself that very evening.
The conversation between us was off the record, so I won't say anything, but I can mention here a detail that I presented to him:
The diplomatic approach of the previous Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to the issue of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was very different from that of the current Secretary of State, John Kerry. She left the stage to the White House, rushed with the demand for a freeze on settlement construction from the moment the decision on the matter was made within the White House (meaning she did not initiate it, but implemented it), almost completely boycotted Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and rarely visited Israel.
Kerry, on the other hand, from his first day in office, got in on the action, visited us countless times, spent an enormous amount of hours in meetings with each of the parties, sent an entire team to Israel, and seemed to be someone who was unafraid and believed.
So if we examine both approaches, what is the conclusion on the resulting level?
The answer is that there is no difference.
'The company'' by Tal Schneider
