The Changing State of Israel's Peace Plans

Glen Segell

Secureity, Middle East

In the past Israel acted in the belief that it was better to deal with the devil you know, that is to say, the leader of a terrorist organization, and to wait until he was ready to negotiate peace. But those days seem to be over.

Achieving peace is harder than waging war because it requires others to consent whereas war can be a unilateral act. Recently, Israel assassinated the Islamic Jihad leader in Gaza, Bahaa Abu al-Ata. It marks a change in strategy.

In the past Israel acted in the belief that it was better to deal with the devil you know, that is to say the leader of a terrorist organization, and to wait until he was ready to negotiate peace. For example Yasser Arafat of the PLO. The assassination of Islamic Jihad leader Bahaa Abu al-Ata indicates that Israel is following the United States’ policy and practices, that of targeted killings. Behind the change in policy and practice is a sense that peace hasn’t been achieved by waiting and even in signing international treaties.

This year Israel’s marks twenty-five years of a peace treaty with its eastern neighbor, Jordan. It was signed sixteen years after a Peace Treaty was signed with its southern neighbor, Egypt. The two treaties have similarities and differences.

The most prominent similarity is the recognition of the Jewish state of Israel by a neighboring Muslim state and the end of a state of war. Next down the list of similarities are those that few wish to proclaim at any anniversary ceremony. Both treaties saw the assassination of one of its signatories by its own citizens. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was gunned down a few years after signing the treaty with Israel and so, too, was Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin a year after signing the treaty with Jordan.