Sunday, August 14, 2011

If Abbas goes to the UN for Unilateral Statehood (Part I)


By Tuvia Brodie

During July 2011—and now again in August—news reports in Israel have been telling us that Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority (PA), is fully committed to seeking statehood through the United Nations—or, maybe not. In the meantime, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after telling US President Obama that Israel will never negotiate a peace with the PA based on a pre-condition of pre-1967 borders, now says he will begin with exactly that pre-condition—or, maybe not. On one level, all of this illustrates regional diplomacy at its Middle East ‘best’; but on another level, it reveals a truth about how Israel reacts to Arab pressure.

Let's look at that truth and explore what that truth teaches us about Israel’s options.

Israelis today seem to talk about two things. Polls show that we are divided over the creation of a new Arab ‘Palestine’; and second, we are concerned about Arab hatred towards Jews and Israel. As a result, our national reaction to the yes-no dance of regional diplomacy we read about is perfectly natural: we freeze.

The biological response to a threat is to stop, just as a deer freezes when caught by the glare of your car’s headlights on a dark road. So, too, this has been our national response to the threat of a Mahmoud Abbas celebrating a victory by holding up a plaster map showing a new Arab Palestine in place of our Israel—something he has already done. It is important to recognize that this ‘freeze’ response is normal because if we believe that it is abnormal, we will begin to make our decisions based on an error; and when you are threatened and under pressure, the last thing you want to do is to make decisions based on an erroneous assumption. You may not get a second chance. That first mistake—thinking that freezing is bad—could be the last mistake we make because it could lead us to act impulsively, and impulse decisions made under pressure do not usually create a positive outcome. In the current diplomatic situation we are staring at, bad decision-making could be disastrous.

The natural response mechanism to a threat is simple. You freeze, and then you go to some variation of ‘flight and fight’. If you want to see this in action, the next time you see two of Israel’s ubiquitous street cats facing off, watch how they behave. They spend a lot of time (noisily) freezing, then—mostly—they flee. Their worst-case scenario is, they fight. That deer caught on the road in your headlights also freezes, but unlike those street cats, it does not stay frozen long. It has to make a decision. Its options are limited: stand its ground and confront your 1200-kilo car approaching at perhaps 80 kph; attack your car; or jump off the road. It has less than 3 seconds to make its decision; then, its options collapse to zero. You hit the deer.

The same is true for us. Under threat, we are caught ‘in the headlights’, frozen. Like that deer, we hesitate. Like that deer, our options are limited: we can attack by annexing the West Bank and Golan; we can say, ‘no’ (or remain passive) and wait to confront the consequences of a UN vote for a new state; or, we can surrender immediately and sign whatever Abbas puts in front of us. There are other options, of course, but our choices are definitely limited.

Unfortunately, our nation is, ultimately, not like that deer in the headlights. The option of jumping off to the side is not open to us. There is no place to jump. Israelis know this—and that is why, perhaps, we remain frozen: the best choice is closed. There is no safe haven. Since whatever decision we make seems likely to lead to something unpleasant, we remain frozen.

But even if we lack a safe haven, there is still good news for us: we do have options. Our problem has never been a lack of options. Our problem is, we do not like the options we have. We want different options.

This is not a thought-process that leads to success. Instead, it is a thought-process every parent of a 4-year old has seen. Did you ever see a 4-year old decide he does not want to get dressed on the morning that you are rushed and under pressure? What does a smart parent do in this situation? You change the subject, and you talk about choices: ‘look, do you want the red socks this morning, or the blue?’ This works—except on that one morning when your child decides he does not like the options and you know what happens next, right? Your personal family version of World War III.

Well, our nation is exactly like that child: red socks, blue socks; sign Abbas’ paper, wait for the UN, and neither one of us likes the options.

(Tomorrow: Lessons learned and a plan)

No comments: