For years, it was convenient to blame Israel for "fleeing from peace." It was convenient to blame Netanyahu for "freezing the process." It's a neat story, with clear culprits, that allows continuing to speak in the same old language even when reality has long moved on.
In practice, what happened was much simpler and much less ideological. Israel stopped dealing with the Palestinians. Not out of vengeance and not out of a fantasy to conquer or control, but out of an almost quiet decision to focus on itself. A small country, surrounded by problems, that understands that if it doesn't take care of its economy, technology, health, education, and civilian life, no one will do it for her.
Netanyahu didn't try to "destroy" Oslo. He simply didn't believe there was anything there to build on. Not peace, not dialogue, not a process. Like most Israelis, he preferred to manage a country rather than manage an illusion.
And so, without dramatic declarations, Israel moved forward. Hi-tech, startups, medicine, science, regional collaborations. Citizens living here and trying to live normally, with all the complexity involved. The Palestinians were not part of this story, not because someone "erased" them, but because they chose not to be part of any story not based on confrontation.
October 7 did not change the direction. It simply removed the mask.
The murder of the Bibas family was a moment when even those still clinging to the idea of "maybe after all" had to stop. Not because of symbolism, but because of the dry facts. A mother and two babies were kidnapped, held, and murdered. Not in a secret basement of an imaginary terror organization, but within a society where no moral outcry arose to stop it. On the contrary. There was pressure. And that pressure was heard loud and clear.
After such a moment, talking about renewing trust or a gradual process no longer sounds moral. It sounds detached.
Oslo, in retrospect, did not collapse because the Israelis "didn't want it enough." It collapsed because on the Palestinian side there was no genuine agreement to end the conflict. There were tactical agreements, useful ones, that allow moving on to the next round. This is not a matter of interpretation. It's the result of a pattern that repeated itself over and over.
And while the world continued to insist on the same script, the region itself chose differently. The Abraham Accords were not born out of romance, but out of interests. Muslim countries that chose stability, progress, and open relations with Israel, even if it is a Jewish state and even if it doesn't meet the ideological expectations of others.
The Palestinians were not invited there, not because someone wanted to punish them, but because they offered nothing to work with. The demand to remain at the center, to stop every process, and to drag the entire region into an endless struggle was no longer taken for granted.
And yet, the accusing finger continues to point at Israel. Almost automatically. It's easier to demand that a democratic country explain itself than to demand that an entire society take responsibility.
After October 7, Israel did not "close the door to peace." It simply stopped pretending that there is someone on the other side trying to open it.
Comments
Post a Comment