For Israel's peace camp, the people responsible for the forthcoming failure of the Annapolis conference are those who warn of it

The fog surrounding the upcoming Annapolis Conference is starting to clear a little.  Ehud Olmert will go to Annapolis and take care to mention Palestinian rights to a state, including rights in Jerusalem.  He will not say what Israel plans to do about those alleged rights.  His coalition partners, Avigdor Lieberman of Yis
For the Israeli Left, the "people to blame" are not those who cause the conference to fail, but those who warn that it will.
rael Beitenu and Eli Yishai of Shas, will proclaim themselves satisfied.  If Abu Mazen makes trouble, Olmert will ask him before the international press, "are you prepared to say right now that you acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state?"  If Abu Mazen says "no," as he must, the conference will collapse and the onus will be on Abu Mazen—for 24 hours, at any rate.  The "Jewish state" question is Olmert's ace in the hole.  It means that he won't have to shoulder all the blame when the conference becomes a bust.

What Olmert will say about a Palestinian state and Jerusalem is bad enough, and we will hear about it henceforth in every international conference and from every foreign ambassador.  But nothing will really happen in Annapolis, nor result from it.  Both the wild hopes raised in some quarters by the conference and the dire predictions of the consequences of failure will prove empty.  The Palestinians will not "lose hope," because no rational human being ever vested much hope in Annapolis.  They will not take a new turn to violence, because every element in Palestinian society capable of harming Israel and Israelis is already doing everything within its power right now to encompass the downfall of the Jewish state. 

What will happen is that there will be a lot of disappointed people on the Left of the Israeli political spectrum. They will start looking around for someone to blame, and in doing so reveal an interesting psychological phenomenon:

For the Israeli Left, the "people to blame" are not those who cause the conference to fail, but those who warn that it will.

The reason for failure is the complete unwillingness of Palestinian society to come to terms with a Jewish state.  From this position flows Hamas' commitment to neverending Jihad against Israel until all its Jews are dead, fled or converted to Islam.  From this stems the fact that Abu Mazen—who would gleefully join Hamas' Jihad if he weren't totally dependent for his life on Israeli protection—refuses to acknowledge that such a thing as a Jewish state can actually exist.  As a result, any steps Israel takes toward ending its military rule of the Palestinians will lead to Judaea and Samaria becoming a base of operations meant to destroy Israel.

Mind, these are not necessarily the reasons I would give for not cutting a deal with Abu Mazen.  I believe that Judaea, Samaria and Gaza, to which the IDF will soon return, belong to the Jewish people, and that if any accommodation with the Palestinians is possible it has to start with their acknowledgment of that fact.  But these are the reasons why any rational Israeli leftist ought to concede that we will not see a Palestinian-Israeli agreement, or a Palestinian state, in our time.  Some of these points were made last week in an article by MK Gidon Saar, head of the Likud Knesset faction, in a Hebrew daily.

The reaction of the Israeli Left was explosive.  An editorial in Ha'aretz equated Saar to Haled Masha'al, the head of Hamas who hangs out in Damascus.  Saar was the equivalent of a world-class terrorist, not because he is trying with blood and fire to sabotage the Annapolis conference, but simply because he refuses to believe in it.

A similar point of view is expressed by Uzi Benziman, writing in the same journal this week.  Benz
I have often wanted to ask an Israeli Leftist, "Under what circumstances would you believe an Israeli-Palestinian peace not possible within a reasonable period of time?" I've never had the opportunity. I suspect that anybody with a reasonable answer to that question thereby disqualifies himself from membership in the Israeli Left.
iman notes the repeated assessments of Israel's military establishment that Annapolis will go nowehere.  "The problem," writes Benziman, "is that this opinion, even if entirely accurate, reflects not just intelligence assessments regarding the Palestinian position but the spiritual and ideological state of its holders in the Israeli establishment."  What Benziman is demanding is not a changed assessment of the facts, for which there is no warrant, but for Israeli generals to undergo a spiritual conversion and be born again as unconditional believers in peace.
 
What this means is that when it comes the Israeli Left's views on Israeli-Palestinian relations, we are not dealing with a foreign policy perspective but with an act of faith.  In the real world, opinions on things have to be falsifiable in order to be considered seriously.  If someone asks you, "what would have to happen in order for you to change your mind?" you have to have an answer.  Otherwise your opinion isn't based on reason.  It's just a belief, which nobody but you is required to take seriously.  I have often wanted to ask an Israeli Leftist, "Under what circumstances would you believe an Israeli-Palestinian peace not possible within a reasonable period of time?"  I've never had the opportunity.  I suspect that anybody with a reasonable answer to that question thereby disqualifies himself from membership in the Israeli Left. 

The Israeli Left likes to describe itself as the "rational camp."  There doesn’t seem to be anything rational about it, however, just a blind faith that cannot be challenged by any facts, no matter how persuasive.  In this "spiritual and ideological state," the people to blame are not those who are responsible for making dreams impossible but those who dryly point out the facts.  These people are heretics, and we know the punishment for them.