As part of the events this week to mark the 30th anniversary of the first Lebanon War, the film "Shtei Etzba'ot Metzidon" (titled "Ricochets" in English ) was screened at the Jerusalem Cinematheque. The 1986 feature film, which was produced by the Israel Defense Forces, faithfully reflects Israel's embroilment in Lebanon. I was pleased that my teenage son agreed to join me for the screening, and to learn a chapter in the contemporary history of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians. At the end of the film and an accompanying lecture that clearly brought home the Lebanese quagmire and the high price Israel paid, my somewhat shocked son asked me if he could ask a stupid question: I know who the minister of defense is - or the minister of war - but who is the minister of peace?
Well, son, we don't exactly have a minister of peace (though for war, strategic affairs and intelligence we have three ). We do have a minister of foreign affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, who is supposed to foster ties with other countries by peaceful means, but peace does not interest him all that much. However, the person who is really responsible in Israel for working toward peace is the prime minister. According to a tradition that has been honored since the day the state was founded, at his inauguration in the Knesset the incoming prime minister states that he or she will act for peace and extend a hand to our Arab neighbors.
Marking the anniversary of the painful war that aimed to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon and establish a pro-Israeli government in Beirut, a conflict that dragged on for 18 years at the cost of 1,217 dead Israeli soldiers, is a reminder from history to examine who has made good on the solemn statement at the swearing-in ceremony at the Knesset.
So which of our prime ministers has tried - even if unsuccessfully - to reach a peace agreement with the Arabs and which of them did not make it a high priority, thus proving that his statement in the Knesset was nothing more than lip service? Obviously Israel's strategic situation and the other side's position have been different at different times and not everything has depended upon what the prime minister has or has not done. However, a student of the history of the conflict is able to cite many cases in which an Israeli prime minister has played a pivotal role in advancing or stalling peace in the region.
The current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who according to public opinion polls has a good chance of being elected for a third term in 2013, could well go down in history as the prime minister who served for the most years, even exceeding the first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. However, with respect to his diplomatic achievements toward resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, Netanyahu now appears to be filling the shoes of another of his predecessors, Golda Meir, with a policy of "sit and do nothing" that is liable to culminate in a war with many casualties on both sides.
Strategically, Israel's situation today is excellent, despite the daily warnings concerning the Iranian threat. The Arab world is tattered and torn by internal conflicts, and the Palestinians have again been left to their fate. President Bashar Assad's regime in Syria is on the brink of collapse and in the midst of a civil war; Iraq is outside the Israeli-Arab conflict thanks to the United States; Egypt is mired in its own internal struggles; Hezbollah in Lebanon has gone on the defensive in the wake of its weakening Syrian and Iranian patrons ; and the Iranian nuclear threat is being handled with some measure of success by the United States and Europe.
With respect to the Palestinians, it is doubtful Israel will ever have a more convenient moment to reach an agreement with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank and a weakened Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In terms of internal politics, Netanyahu enjoys a wall-to-wall coalition - every prime minister's dream. Had he wanted to, he could have crossed the Rubicon and attempted to achieve a historic agreement with the Palestinians of a two-state solution and still remain in office.
In light of these circumstances, the question arises as to whether this isn't the time, from Israel's perspective, to sit down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians in the spirit of Netanyahu's 2009 Bar-Ilan speech, on the basis of the Clinton outline, and/or a continuation of the talks that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni conducted with the leadership in Ramallah in 2008.
Apropos Iran: In a position paper published recently at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, Prof. Yehezkel Dror recommends a combined strategy for Israel: an attack on Iran in conjunction with a regional peace initiative. The idea is that the existence of an active peace process with the Palestinians will enable us to confront the Iranian nuclear threat from a stronger strategic position.
"Our situation has never been better" was the phrase that reflected the diplomatic and strategic conception of the government headed by Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan - a conception that collapsed in October of 1973. Spending year after year in the Prime Minister's Residence in Jerusalem without initiating a solution to the conflict with our neighbors is the kind of leadership that led us to the Yom Kippur War. The only question that remains open is the price we and our children will pay for those years.
Front Page Features