Israeli Diplomat Argues "No Partner" Claim Masks Intent to Avoid Agreement

Former Israeli diplomat Nadav Tamir argues that the recurring claim of having "no partner" for peace is a deliberate tactic used by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Tamir contends that Netanyahu has transformed security demands from prerequisites for a settlement into obstacles preventing one, effectively making policy serve as an excuse for inaction rather than facilitating progress.

Tamir draws a parallel between the approach of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Netanyahu. Rabin, he explains, viewed security as a condition for progress and was willing to help create the conditions for Palestinian security. In contrast, Netanyahu, according to Tamir, sets demands as hurdles, not genuinely intending to facilitate their fulfillment, thereby using security as a pretext for stagnation.

The article cites examples, including a past interview with Dan Meridor who stated that Likud members believed Netanyahu's support for a two-state solution, as declared in the Bar-Ilan speech, was not genuine. Tamir also references current discussions within the Foreign Ministry where, despite accepting plans like the Trump administration's 20-point proposal, the focus remains on Palestinian failures, such as Hamas's armament, rather than on enabling implementation.

Tamir asserts that this strategy, which he claims has persisted even after the October 7th attacks, perpetuates Hamas's rule by demanding its surrender before any Israeli steps, while simultaneously engaging in actions that undermine such a possibility. He argues that this approach is mirrored in dealings with Hezbollah, where demands for disarmament precede any progress, contradicting proven diplomatic methods.

Furthermore, Tamir criticizes the government's inaction regarding Jewish terrorism in the West Bank, suggesting it creates a scenario where Palestinian escalation can be blamed on them, reinforcing the "no partner" narrative. He concludes that this cycle of policy designed for failure, used to justify inaction, and then cited as proof of the policy's correctness, is a disingenuous public relations strategy. Tamir questions why the Israeli public and the Trump administration continue to accept this pattern, urging a shift in focus from finding a partner to Israel being willing to be one by actively fostering conditions for a moderate and capable Palestinian leadership and a viable political framework.