A Brief Lesson in Political Logic
A question has arisen regarding my December 29 critique of the Yaalon Plan on Israel National Radio. That plan, recall, is based on General Yaalon’s policy paper “Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy.”
Yaalon opposes the Oslo Agreement because its architects favor withdrawal from Judea and Samaria before the Palestinians develop the economic, political, and judicial infrastructure required to make the Palestinian Authority a reliable negotiating peace partner with Israel. But this implies that Yaalon is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state—to put it in negative terms.
It may therefore be logically assumed that anyone who understands and endorses the Yaalon plan is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state.
In contrast, Moshe is opposed in principle to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria for religious reasons.
Meanwhile, Arieh is opposed in principle to a Palestinian state for geo-strategic reasons, since he regards Judea and Samaria essential for Israel’s survival now and in the foreseeable future. Since Moshe agrees with Arieh’s assessment, I would call both “realists.”
However, Avigdor, while discussing Yaalon’s plan, asserts that neither Moshe nor Arieh is a “realist.” Given this assertion, it would be reasonable to conclude that Avigdor is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state.
If Avigdor denies this, either he is not being logical, or he has other reasons or motives for not opposing a Palestinian state. Two are indicated in my above-mentioned report of December 29.