+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The mirage of Israel's 'diplomatic horizon'

The term ‘diplomatic horizon,’ a catch-phrase among Israeli politicians and the media, points to the need to offer a viable diplomatic plan together with military efforts against Palestinian violence. But can it offer Palestinians a real vision for their longing for statehood?

By Prof. Elie Podeh

Israeli political jargon occasionally invents “laundered” terms designed to create an illusion of a reality that does not exist. Such is the concept of the “diplomatic horizon,” which has become popular among politicians and the media. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during Operation Protective Edge, said on August 20 that “dramatic changes in the region promise a new political horizon.” What is this political/diplomatic horizon that has become such a catch-phrase?

It is difficult to trace the term’s origin. Haaretz’s archive, which provides statistical testing from only as far back as late 2001, reveals that since then the phrase has appeared hundreds of times in the paper, and in various political contexts.

In an editorial dated May 5, 2002 – during Operation Defensive Shield, at the height of the Second Intifada – and titled “Diplomatic Action Plan,” we learn that “in the past year the term ‘diplomatic horizon’ has taken root as an expression used commonly to describe the need to accompany military efforts against Palestinian violence with a viable diplomatic plan. Behind this phrase lies the recognition for the need to present the Palestinians with a vision – a goal – that can answer their longing for statehood. Such an initiative has been absent until the present from the stockpile of the Prime Minister’s [Ariel Sharon] ideas.” It is therefore reasonable to assume that the disappearance of the policy option – the failure of the Camp David talks (July 2000), the Clinton Parameters (December 2000), the Taba talks (January 2001) and the onset of the Second Intifada – has generated the need for a glimmer of hope in the form of a “diplomatic horizon.”

Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in Tel Aviv, December 16, 2001. (Photo: Moshe Milner/GPO)

Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in Tel Aviv, December 16, 2001. (Photo: Moshe Milner/GPO)

In general, the term was employed in the past by media pundits and politicians who identified as left-of-center. For instance, Joel Marcus and Aluf Benn in Haaretz once criticized the Sharon government for its lack of a diplomatic horizon in its policies. Shimon Peres, as the foreign minister in the Sharon government, and Tzipi Livni, then the foreign minister in the Olmert administration, both bemoaned the lack of a diplomatic horizon for the Palestinians. Livni even talked about the importance of creating an “economic horizon” for them. Even Ehud Olmert was once quoted as saying, “the Palestinian government is not able to be sustained for long without a diplomatic horizon.” Of particular interest was a letter from a group of reserve paratroopers returning from duty after Operation Defensive Shield addressed to Sharon in May 2002 that complained that his government “has neither leadership nor a diplomatic horizon.”

With this understanding, when Netanyahu used the term “diplomatic horizon” he was actually appropriating a term from the lexicon of the Left, albeit in its broadest usage.  Ostensibly, this should come as good news, since if Netanyahu is drawing from the ideological discourse of the Left, perhaps it signifies a change in his views. However, this is also what was said of him after a speech at Bar-Ilan University five years ago on support for a two-state solution. Yet, in all likelihood, Netanyahu understands the positive winds the term elicits in the media, raising some hope for the future. However, only a few days after his use of the term for the first time, he told journalists that “the diplomatic horizon can wait.” Thus, Netanyahu’s diplomatic horizon became something of a chimera.

The term “diplomatic horizon” is one that says a lot about nothing. It raises hopes for the future while allowing those who speak about it to do nothing concrete here and now. The term is meant to throw sand in one’s eyes, to create a mirage. It is somewhat reminiscent of the “light at the end of the tunnel” – an expression that, incidentally, has likely lost its positive connotation in the wake of the recent operation to destroy Hamas’ tunnels.

The term is probably meaningless to the other side of the conflict. Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians are not interested in a “diplomatic horizon,” but rather a significant change – both political and economic – in their lives here and now.  Too many generations of frustration, despair and disappointment have caused them to lose faith in the future; the question is what to do in the present. As it turns out, there is little that is being offered to them.

What we and the Palestinians need is leadership with a vision, leaders that see the dangers of the demographic trends that would lead to a one-state solution, and are ready to adopt policies aimed at creating a new reality, here and now, even if it requires taking some risks. “Where there is no vision, the people perish,” a passage in the Book of Proverbs reads. To this David Ben Gurion added in 1964, for “a vision is the secret of our existence, the secret of our being.” Is there a horizon for this vision?

Professor Podeh teaches in the Department of Islam and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is a board member at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies. A Hebrew version of this article first appeared in Haaretz.

Israel’s watershed moment that wasn’t
One- or two-state solution? The answer is both (or neither)
This is Netanyahu’s final status solution

Newsletter Banner 2 - 540

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Whiplash

      Professor Podeh:

      “the question is what to do in the present. As it turns out, there is little that is being offered to them.”

      There is a fundamental problem in looking at the problem in this fashion. This thinking assumes that Israel and the world must offer Palestinians an inducement to get them to secure their futures. The truth is that the Palestinians need to do much for themselves if they want a better horizon for their political and economic futures. They need to stop endemic financial corruption, they need to build out infrastructure for a modern economy, they need to upgrade substantially their educational system to match future needs in the marketplace, they need to promote free speech and democracy and they need to create an environment in which a desire for a true peace can grow among the Palestinian population. This means ending incitement to hatred and violence against Israelis. This means an end to demonization and boycotts of Israel. This means seeking co-operative solutions.

      If the Palestinians want peace they should negotiate with Israel and not make speeches at the UN. They should fight terrorism instead of forming unity governments with terrorists. They should be pragmatic in what they can achieve and what they have to give up in terms of allowing Israel security. They need to abandon violent resistance, accept that there is no right of return, and Israeli communities will remain in the West Bank with land swaps.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Why is Israel’s approval needed for Palestinians to do what you describe they need to do? Economy, educational system, infrastructure, etc. They can’t do it unless Israel says they’ve met Israel’s criteria, unless they negotiate with Israel? Where do you get off telling another country what to do or not to do? How pompous, arrogant.

        Reply to Comment