Rivlin seeks to eliminate geopolitical reality

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin’s op-ed in the Washington Post has clarified another issue that was always implied within the diplomatic negotiations that have deprived Palestinians of their territory. Discussing the current absence of negotiations, Rivlin stated: “Israel must take steps to improve the situation independent of the geopolitical territorial debate – steps that every sensible person understands serve simultaneously Israel’s moral and practical interests.”

While it is obvious that any mention of morality on Israel’s behalf is a sinister euphemism for the planning of further restrictions, especially alongside the concept of “practical” as articulated by Rivlin, the brief op-ed clearly describes how Israel manages such dissociation tactics. “Morality” is an enhanced manner of seeking to promote Israel’s demands at the expense of Palestinians at a time when, despite repeated insistence upon a return to negotiations, the international community is set upon delaying its perfunctory role.

However, whether the international community actively seeks rapprochement or not, bolstering Israel’s supremacy remains a priority. The current impasse and slight shift in what is visible of diplomatic engagement will ultimately convey another series of restrictions imposed upon Palestinians. Rivlin’s tactic of addressing specifics away from the wider context is one that the international community has consistently applied. While seemingly veering away from previous reservations regarding the hypothetical two-state compromise – Rivlin has actually echoed Martin Schulz’s idea of a confederation – the underlying rhetoric still builds upon the foundations of colonialism.

Read: Obama calls on Abbas to condemn violence in Israel at a meeting with Reuven Rivlin

An example of self-serving interests is Rivlin’s mention of Rawabi – the new Palestinian city in the West Bank that, in Rivlin’s words “is in Israel’s interests”. Hailed as an epitome of economic cooperation, the op-end seeks to use the example of Rawabi to gloss over other discrepancies that are of greater importance to Palestinians and which affect a greater percentage of the indigenous population. Issues such as US non-profit organisations funding settlements and the families of Israeli settlers convicted of terror attacks against Palestinians are sidelined to pave the way for an illusory alternative which, despite its purported innovation, is still a derivative of the initial expansionist plans.

Rivlin has also embarked upon the incitement discourse, attempting to portray an equivalence between Israeli settlers and the Palestinian population that places the blame upon Palestinians, even though settler-terrorism was one of the factors that sparked the current uprising. Israel’s retaliatory policies have included home demolitions, barricading Palestinian towns and conducting mass-arrest raids.

In the absence of the usual foreign support for Israeli colonisation, Rivlin has embarked upon selective tactics prior to his meeting with US President Barack Obama regarding ongoing security issues and the alleged “common values of freedom and democracy shared by the two countries,” as reported in the Times of Israel.

It is abominable to even consider eliminating the geopolitical aspect. However, to expect an op-ed conveniently penned prior to scheduled engagements in the US to shift perceptions is nothing more than arrogant Israeli ambition. Rivlin has simply added another Israeli narrative to the mix, one that does not even seek to conceal its fake altruism and intent to jeopardise any semblance of Palestinian self-determination.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.