By Steve Kramer
ALFE MENASHE, Israel –In a recent speech to a Jewish audience, Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated, “We are running out of time [for the 2-state peace solution]. We are running out of possibilities.” How many times have we heard this tired refrain? I disagree with Kerry (and others) and continue to believe that forcing Israel into a bad deal with the Palestinians is worse than no deal. (The same goes for the West vis à vis Iran.)
According to Kerry, there are no other possibilities than the trite “2-state” or (worse) “1-state” solutions. The first solution, preferred by America, the EU, liberals everywhere, and (purportedly) the Arabs, is supposed to result in two democratic states, one Jewish and one Arab, coexisting peaceably. The second solution is less popular with the above-mentioned parties because it supposedly will lead to either an apartheid Israel ruling over the Palestinians or, on the other hand, the destruction of Israel by means of the Arab “population bomb.”
I reject the above scenarios. Fundamentally, I don’t believe the Palestinians want a state next to Israel; they want a state of their own to replace Israel. I also think that to act unilaterally, such as when Israel annexed the Golan Heights (1981), is unwise while the entire region is in turmoil .
Regrettably, I don’t have a wonderful solution to propose. Nevertheless, the status quo as unpalatable as it may be, is the best we can do for now. In a region fraught with mayhem and warfare, a decision by Israel to make radical offers to effect radical change is not wise. There are others, in fact experts, who have come to the same conclusion. Recently I read two articles, each of which disagree with the conventional wisdom as uttered by Secretary Kerry.
On May 15, Efraim Inbar of Bar Ilan University wrote, “Let’s Do Almost Nothing” (Israel Hayom newspaper). Inbar notes that while the Kerry initiative has ended in failure, the sky has not fallen. But various Israeli politicians have advanced plans to annex Area C, the largest and most “Jewish” part of the Palestinian Authority-designated area, while others advocate a “coordinated” withdrawal from parts of Judea and Samaria. In any case, it is said that Israel must “do something.”
Inbar says, “Probably the wisest course of action for Israel is a patient and cautious ‘wait and see’ approach. Resolving the conflict is impossible, but attempting to manage it – minimizing the suffering to both sides as well as the diplomatic costs to Israel – is within reach.”
He continues, “Pressure on Israel to change the status quo is unlikely. Actually, it serves Israel’s interests to keep the status quo, to hold onto its bargaining cards. The assumption that time is running against Israel is simply wrong. As a matter of fact, the Palestinian issue is likely to become less salient in the international arena over time.” [emphasis added]
Inbar doubts that the Obama administration will pursue the matter further [a crucial congressional election is set for November] and the American electorate has long tired of foreign interventions. Not only that: the importance of the Middle East to America is receding, because of significant, recoverable energy sources close to home. Therefore, at this juncture Israel has little fear of American intervention, if Israeli refrains from taking unilateral steps.
Inbar foresees little pressure on Israel from Arab states, which have other, more urgent and threatening situations to deal with. These include Iran’s potential nuclear breakout and more significant disputes over sovereignty such as in Ukraine and Crimea, which worry Europeans, Americans and Arabs.
The Palestinian “cause” is no longer at the top of the list for the rest of the world (nor for Israelis). There is little to fear from a major outbreak of terrorism, says Inbar, because of the fear of awesome Israeli retaliation and the Palestinians’ continual need for foreign aid. Plus, the Palestinians have a habit of “shooting themselves in the foot.”
As for the diplomatic isolation of Israel, there is no need for panic: “Israel is a strong country, possessing a remarkable web of international interactions. Significantly, Israel’s relations with the world are only marginally affected by its conflict with the Palestinians.”
To paraphrase, Inbar sees the waning of power and interest from the Palestinians’ greatest friends, the Europeans. It is likely that the situation which so consumes the Left has passed its peak. Now, it’s better for Israel to do almost nothing and wait to see how the world and regional situation evolves.
On May 7, Jonathan Speyer (Gloria Middle East Research Center & Middle East Forum) wrote, “Palestinian Magical Thinking.” Speyer notes the predictable failure of Kerry’s peace initiative, due to the irreconcilable positions held by Palestinians and Israelis. In fact, Speyer says that the two sides are not even close to coming to an agreement.
Speyer sees a consistent Palestinian pattern of constant attempts to win the battle with Israel without compromises resulting from peace negotiations. “For the Palestinian Authority, the [recent] nine-month period of negotiations came as an unwelcome interruption to a very different strategy to which it will now return. This strategy consists of an attempt to place pressure on Israel through action in international forums to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state. Presumably the intended result of this is to induce Israel eventually to make concessions in return for nothing. The struggle would then continue for further concessions.” [emphasis added]
The Palestinians (overwhelmingly members of the Sunni Muslim movement which dominates most Arab countries) have never felt the need to reconcile with the Jews and have always believed that they would find a “magical solution” to rid “Arab land” of the accursed infidel intruders.
Nothing has worked. Initially, terror was thought to be the tactic that would defeat the Israelis, driving them out of “Palestine” as happened to the French in Algeria, 1954-1962. Then came the hope that Saddam Hussein (1991) would “burn” Israel and force the Jews out. After the brief Oslo fantasy (1993-2001), the Hezbullah model was tried (Gaza, 2006-2012) but ultimately failed.
Speyer says that placing pressure on Israel through activism on the international stage is the latest example of this Palestinian magical thinking. Success is unlikely, however, because of Israel’s strong global position. Despite the utter lack of warmth from the Obama administration, the alliance with America remains strong, both militarily and economically.
Lately, Israel has been building strong ties with India, China and Latin American countries while maintaining close, warm relations with Canada, Australia, Germany and other western players.
Palestinian optimism regarding the diplomatic offensive against Israel [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)] is hard to understand. The automatic majority the Palestinians enjoy at the United Nations, because of the Arab and Muslim blocs, will not overcome Israel’s economic and military strength. Speyer feels that the diplomatic offensive will be no more effective than previous Palestinian tactics.
Speyer believes that a return to large-scale political violence is unlikely and that there is little energy for a return to war. He writes: “The Palestinian elite and their children live comfortable and privileged lives in Ramallah and elsewhere in the region and beyond it. Combining this with diplomatic and political activity can be pleasant and rewarding. Combining it with military activity, by contrast, could be harmful and has already been proven not to work.”
Speyer expects more furious denunciations of Israeli crimes from various UN committees largely staffed by the representatives of sundry dictatorships; yet more inventive reasons as to why Islam and Arabic are “indigenous” to Jerusalem while Judaism and Hebrew represent foreign implants; etc. In conclusion, Speyer foresees more Palestinian failure and bewilderment, until the next alternative to compromise is chosen.
I believe that there is no rush to give in to Palestinian demands, because the Palestinians will never agree to accept a state other than one that guarantees the demise of Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu once knew it, but he seems to have forgotten this crucial tenet. For Israel, it’s better to wait and see than to act without a dramatic Palestinian Kulturkampf (conflict between cultures or value systems). While Israel goes from strength to strength, the Palestinians suffer. But their suffering is the fruit of their own actions, or lack thereof.
The future of the explosive Middle East, as well as places such as Ukraine, appears unpromising. Notwithstanding Secretary Kerry’s energetic efforts, Israel is exceptional, not running out of time and certainly not running out of possibilities.
*
Steven Kramer is the Israel correspondent of the Jewish Times of South Jersey and is based in Alfe Menashe, Israel. His works may also be read on the website, www.encounteringisrael.com
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s concern as expressed in his just-published interview with Bloomberg, that “something must be done to prevent the collapse of Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation, is clearly addressed in “Common Lands, Common Ground” @ http://goo.gl/XZIKoa
The answer to why Islam and Arabic are “indigenous” to Jerusalem, as well as Judaism and Hebrew, can be found in my “Common Lands, Common Ground: The indigenous agenda, Israel, Palestine and breaking the post-Oslo Peace Accords logjam” @ http://goo.gl/XZIKoa
The essay encapsulates many ideas similar to those expressed repeatedly by Pope Francis, underscoring his powerful message of interfaith respect, as he goes to Israel with a rabbi and a sheik as traveling companions. …
http://www.jta.org/2014/05/19/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/on-popes-trip-to-israel-rabbi-and-sheik-will-be-traveling-companions
Recently, the following story, “Netanyahu’s Blood and Soil: The Racist-Nationalism of his ‘Jewish State’ Ideal” was posted on the Internet.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/netanyahus-nationalism-jewish.html
For me its importance lies in the fact that it is based on a very common but nonetheless breathtakingly clueless ideas about indigeneity, and is the type of derogatory and misleading rhetoric that both defames Israel and keeps a focus off real possible solutions to the peace talk impasse–solutions based in part on First World experiences and lessons learned that cannot be denied either in the geopolitical North or in the South.
Key to the new construct in “Common Lands, Common Ground” are assumptions firmly rooted both in history and in current social science theory–that the Jewish state of Israel is arguably the first modern indigenous nation-state, and that the just demands of Palestinians are also those of a traditional people seeking a homeland.
By getting both sides to understand their common and mostly unrecognized perspectives of challenges as peoples, perhaps the necessary recognition of each other as “nations” first will put their communities on a better track for a viable two-state solution.
After listening to former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Oren’s historical tour de force at the Atlantic Council a few months ago, I came away feeling even more strongly that a special focus on an explicit mutual acknowledgement of the existence of two nations and its peoples would be an innovative, constructive and necessary way forward towards a real (acceptable) two-state solution.
One very important consideration is that using the indigenous argument would not only safely shelter Israel’s right of self determination as a Jewish state; it would also put the country in a far better position in the court of world opinion, particularly in regions/communities where it exists only in the negative.
Not merely a “propaganda” effort (in the original sense of the word), the focus can offer additional critically needed security guarantees. For example, properly framed, it could greatly reduce the marketplace appeal of Iranian/Islamist arguments among those still sitting on the fence as to which way to go.
An indigenous focus can help fortify both sides with a far better and more nuanced understanding of the many experiences they share (and need to work through) in common, rather than be hoisted on the petard of a continuing ritualistic but empty political face-off that sets them apart.
In his talk Ambassador Oren eloquently pointed to the U.S. contribution to the formulation of Arab sentiments on nationalism and independence.
In following that line of thought, it should be pointed out that Benjamin Franklin found in the Iroquois and neighboring Native American societies tangible examples of working democracies, particularly in terms of personal freedoms and representation in government. If Indian lessons served so well in the creation of the world’s oldest democracy, they can also be justified being employed now on an issue of such importance to the United States.