PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania — It must be wearying and frustrating.
Amid the quest for a two-state solution, Israel and the Palestinians have engaged in military confrontations; Israel threatened West Bank annexation; the Palestinian Authority pays off terrorists or their families; America moved its embassy to Jerusalem; pro-Arab forces promote the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions; and President Trump is advancing a peace plan that would offer the Palestinians less than they would have been awarded two decades ago.
It is indeed wearying and frustrating to follow these ludicrous sideshows from 5,400 miles away – the latest being legislation in Congress challenging the annexation plan.
There is only one way to break this cycle: Return to the negotiating table. It is far more up to the Palestinians than Israel. If they are serious about seeking an independent state.
The conflicts described above are among a long series of developments that have raised tensions during the 20 years that followed the peace summit in Camp David. That is where Israel’s then-prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians a state comprising Gaza, 93 percent of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the plan.
No matter who is provoking the other, none of these moves bring Israel and the Palestinians any closer to a resolution. All they do is elevate tensions.
A fresh issue seems to arise or an old one is revived every few months. Both Israelis and Palestinians are guilty. They each blame one another for causing trouble and when caught they concoct excuses.
Palestinians and Israelis alike, and their advocates elsewhere, consistently engage in sideshows. The contemporary roots go back to the summer of 2000, when President Clinton sought to fashion a deal between Barak and Arafat that would end the hostilities.
What was wrong with the plan? It would leave the Palestinians with their own state: what they need yet less than what they want. Barak took a political risk by offering them a portion of Jerusalem. Many Jews would have adamantly opposed it and others would consider it a sacrifice to give up East Jerusalem or any other part of the city.
Arafat, who died in 2004, charged that the plan would split the West Bank into three separate territories with no connection points. How do they divide 93 percent of the West Bank so neatly? Dennis Ross, Clinton’s Middle East envoy, subsequently explained that Arafat was describing an initial offer which Barak subsequently expanded upon.
Last week, three Democratic senators distributed a much-revised letter warning that Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank would bring bipartisan support for Israel to an end, Jewish Insider reports.
The original version of their letter warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Benny Gantz that annexation would threaten the commitment to Israel’s security. Composed by Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland; Chris Murphy of Connecticut; and Tim Kaine of Virginia, the latest version reads: “If you move forward with unilateral annexation, we could not support that action. This is consistent with long-standing American policy opposing unilateral actions by either party to the conflict.
“Pursuit of a viable, negotiated two-state solution is essential,” the letter continues, “to ensuring our shared democratic values and lasting bipartisan support for Israel in Congress.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden intervened late last week with the following statement, as quoted by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “A priority now for the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace should be resuming our dialogue with the Palestinians and pressing Israel not to take actions that make a two-state solution impossible.
Biden adds, “I will reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem, find a way to re-open the PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington, and resume the decades-long economic and security assistance efforts to the Palestinians that the Trump administration stopped.”
The Palestinians dropped out of the Trump peace process in December 2017 due to the president’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. While the status of Jerusalem is part of the dispute, the Israeli government has since its inception established Jerusalem as its capital. Israel’s parliament, known as the Knesset, meets in Jerusalem. What is it about Jerusalem that does not make it Israel’s capital?
If the Palestinians object to annexation, a Trump-inspired peace plan or even recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, they can always resume negotiations. That would be the only realistic road to a resolution, or so it seems.
All these issues and more can be hashed out at the negotiating table. I do not see how else the Palestinians can hope to get what they need.
The Palestinians might complain that the deck is stacked against them because Trump will side with Netanyahu on whatever the current Israeli government wants. Some advocates for Israel have voiced the same complaint.
Pressure will probably be applied in one direction or the other, but that will not require either the Israelis or Palestinians to accept every demand that is plopped onto the negotiating table. The process may well be excruciating for everyone.
We must wonder why the Palestinian leadership has avoided the negotiating table. A strong possibility is their insistence on allowing all descendants of refugees to flood into Israel, which would automatically shatter the population balance. Israel will never agree to it.
The Palestinian leadership’s view of the right of return is not certain, but at the very least I suspect that they know an influential and dangerous segment of Palestinians would never accept anything less. If this is true, how can anyone be optimistic?
*
Bruce S. Ticker is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. he may be contacted via bruce.ticker@sdjewishworld.com