...to be an ambivalent Israeli is to be torn between two conflicting certainties. As an ambivalent Israeli, I know that a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for me—saving Israel from the untenable choice between being a Jewish and a democratic state, from the moral erosion of occupation, from the growing movement to again turn the Jews, via the Jewish state, into the symbol of evil.
But I also know that a Palestinian state is an existential threat to me—forcing Israel back into eight-mile-wide borders between Palestine and the Mediterranean Sea, with the center of the country vulnerable to rocket attacks from the West Bank hills that overlook it.
This is the fundamental dilemna for Israel. The Palestinians are not a negotiating partner at this time- Hamas is still dedicated to Israel's destruction, and therefore peace with that entity can not really be considered (not that Hamas would consider it anyway). But endless occupation and subjugation of millions of Palestinians can not be accepted either. When Left and Right argue about this, they invariably talk around each other: "We have no partner for peace!" .... "We can't continue to occupy people without giving them rights!". Both statements are true.
The Jewish Right along with the more general US Right has followed the lead of Bibi Netanyahu and condemned Obama's speech yesterday as a cave-in to Palestinian demands. This seems preposterous to me when looking at what he actually said.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
That just doesn't sound to me like "throwing Israel under the bus". It sounds like what everyone knows has to be the basis of eventual peace. I mean everyone: Ehud Olmert, Avigdor Lieberman, past American negotiators, George W. Bush, basically everyone. (These links are all to Jeffrey Goldberg's blog, which has lots of great posts up on the topic). It acknowledges Israel's major dilemna I started off with, and tries to square the circle as best as it can be squared.
My question for the Right is this: What is your plan for long-term peace and prosperity between Israel and the Palestinians? There are over 4 million Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza, under occupation. If we can never trust the Arabs to make peace, then what are we going to do with these people?
Of course, someone on the Left can be asked: What makes you think we can trust the Palestinians enough to allow them sovereignty, given their history of terrorism and implacable opposition to our very existence?
My answer is this: right now we can't trust them. But forever is a long time. Israelis should openly acknowledge what it will take to make peace happen, even if they know it's not possible now. When I was growing up, the violence in Northern Ireland had been going on for centuries and looked like it would never end. Now there's peace there. South Africa looked like a hopeless case- and then there was an orderly transition to Black rule. Things change, sometimes when we don't expect it (look at the "Arab Spring" we've just seen and could never have predicted). Israel's position should be the one Obama enunciated: sovereignty and land for peace and security. After all, in the long run, what other option is there?
No comments:
Post a Comment