We already know that the Obama-Netanyahu meeting last week did not end very well. We also know what ruined it – or do we? When the Prime Minister left the White House he still thought that the visit went relatively well. But minutes later all hell broke loose when the administration harshly judged Israel for deciding to build in a neighborhood called Givat Hamatos in east Jerusalem. “This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies, poison the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which Prime Minister Netanyahu said he wanted to build relations, and call into question Israel’s commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with Palestinians,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.
So the building project ruined the meeting, or maybe it was the timing of the approval of the construction plan, or maybe the timing of the publication of the plan. Maybe it was the government which approved the plan that ruined the meeting, or the American administration which condemned it, or maybe it was Peace Now, the organization that brought the project to the attention of the world.
Netanyahu had a clear and quick answer to all these questions: “This is irresponsibility on the international level – for some element to publish a statutory plan in order to sabotage a very important meeting that dealt with the Iranian nuclear program, our basic security questions and Islamic State (ISIS)”. Peace Now was the target of his criticism. The group responded exactly as you'd expect: “Netanyahu has only himself to blame. He is responsible for authorizing building in sensitive areas like Givat Hamatos”. On Thursday of last week I sat in a TV studio next to a Peace Now representative who was asked to defend his group's actions. The discussion between him and one of the anchors was contentious, but he seemed to have no doubt: the ones who do the building are the ones with the responsibility.
The allegations by Netanyahu are interesting for several reasons. First, because they expose his level of frustration with the outcome of the visit. This was not supposed to happen. Second, because it is not common for a powerful Prime Minister to get into the ring with a small and politically inconsequential organization. Third, because it is typical of the times. Fourth, because it raises questions about the responsibilities, or lack thereof, of organizations such as Peace Now.
The first and second reasons are, of course, closely connected: Netanyahu's frustration was exposed by the fact that he did the uncommon – possibly unhealthy – thing of getting into a fight with the organization. An attack by the PM on Peace Now doesn't weaken it – it strengthens it. It makes it seem much more significant than it really is. And it gives it the opportunity to play the victim of a silencing campaign – a measure that has been popular with leftist groups in recent years.
That is one aspect that made the Netanyahu-Peace Now incident so reflective of current Israeli currents. But there is another, more important aspect that stands out here: the extent to which the majority of Israelis – represented in this case by Netanyahu – are impatient with dissent that aims to smear Israel abroad. Whether it is good for Israel to be impatient with dissent is an important question, and a serious one, but being accurate about the description of this phenomenon is important too: Israelis aren't necessarily impatient with internal dissent and internal debates. They are impatient with dissent that pretends to be internal but really strives to hurt Israel's image around the world.
Is that what Peace Now was trying to do? The Prime Minister seems to think so, and the evidence supports his suspicion. In fact, it is not unreasonable to argue that the whole Peace Now operation today is geared more toward convincing the world that Israel is at fault than toward convincing Israelis to change their government and their policies. It might even be a logical strategy for the organization: having failed to make Israelis adopt Peace Now policies, the only available venue it found to keep having influence is to take its case abroad. The world can be more easily convinced that Peace Now has the answer and could be relatively easily convinced that Israel is at fault; and it could also – not as easily, but possibly – be convinced to put serious pressure on Israel to change its policies. A change from without – that's the Peace Now recipe.
Israelis are frustrated with such recipes for two reasons: A. because they feel that there is enough hostility for Israel and enough bias against it even without the contribution of Israeli organizations. B. because they would like to make their own decisions and not be forced by external forces, encouraged by internal dissenters, to adopt policies in which they do not believe.
All this is potentially a dangerous mix. The more the dissenters are frustrated with the policies in which they do not believe, the more desperate they become, the less they have inhibitions as they consider their strategies for changing Israel's behavior. On the other hand, the more other Israelis feel threatened by external forces, the more they feel that these pressures are the result of internal dissent, the less they have inhibitions as they consider their strategies for reducing the impact of marginal dissent on Israel's behavior.
That is why I did not much appreciate the decision by Peace Now to provoke the Prime Minister during an important visit. It was irresponsible. It was also impolite. That is why I also did not much appreciate the decision by Prime Minister Netanyahu to point his finger at Peace Now with such precision. It was also irresponsible. It was also inelegant.
For people who truly want Israel to be a better place and for Israeli society to be better, the responsible thing to do in a very delicate situation is to more frequently hit the brakes. To be more polite, and more elegant. For Peace Now this means remembering that most Israelis disagree with their actions and not crossing a fine line that makes their legitimate dissent too provocative for Israelis to be able to tolerate. For the Prime Minister it means remembering that he, well, is the Prime Minister and that it is his duty to accept as much dissent as possible (and then some). That is, because he has real power and Peace Now only have press releases.
