The Informationist

Something vs. Something

Anyone watching Israeli politics these days would have to notice a shocking incoherence--even by Israeli standards. Most of the folks that I know figured that we were witnessing weak politicians jockeying for power amidst a failed government. Over the past couple of days though, I’ve seen a couple of people suggest something else. In their view, all of the talk about “achieving peace” by forcing Israel to commit suicide has motivated Israeli politicians to throw their own individual peace plans into the ring. After all, you can’t beat something with nothing.

While I’m not going to jump on that bandwagon to let a failed government off the hook, I do think that Israel needs to say something--particularly to counter the resurgence of PR surrounding the non-serious “Saudi Plan.” Here’s my suggestion:

The State of Israel is prepared to extend mutual recognition to every member-state of the United Nations, and to exchange ambassadors immediately with any state that accepts our offer. We extend this offer with no preconditions. As soon as we accept an ambassador’s credentials, we invite the ambassador to raise any and all issues of concern to his (or her) government; we will instruct our own ambassadors to do likewise. We can then address all issues of mutual concern through the normal diplomatic process.

As far as I know, this statement not only captures Israeli policy, it has always been Israeli policy. It seems to me that such a statement, repeated often enough, would do more than simply counter the image of Israeli intransigence or rejectionism; it might even shift parts of Western opinion to recognize the absurdity of viewing recognition as a matter to be negotiated. So why don’t we hear it?

This is a serious question; I welcome all answers.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 01/10 at 11:31 PM in Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders