Israel’s national security and self-preservation as a democracy, if not its very
existence, depend on its ability and willingness to come to terms with the
reality of coexistence with the Palestinians on the basis of a two-state
solution.
Unfortunately, instead of seeking to promote the creation of a
Palestinian state, the current government has sought to impede
it.
Although Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s endorsement of the
two-state solution at Bar-Ilan University last summer offered a good start, it
fell far short of the kind of vision needed to achieve a sustainable, lasting
agreement.
What he and his government have proposed amounts to an
autonomous Palestinian entity, lacking territorial contiguity, with ultimate
security responsibility remaining in Israel’s hands.
Today, few Israelis
view the establishment of a Palestinian state as a national security imperative,
and a growing number have resigned themselves to supporting the idea of conflict
management rather than conflict resolution.
They simply do not believe
that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel as an independent state. This
particular view gained tremendous currency following the eruption of the second
intifada beginning in September 2000 in which more than 1,000 Israelis were
killed, many by suicide bombers. The intifada prompted prime minister Ariel
Sharon to reoccupy much of the territories from which Israel had withdrawn as
part of the Oslo Accords, and fueled disillusionment with the peace process.
This skepticism was reinforced after the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza
Strip in 2005. Instead of using the withdrawal as an opportunity to build the
foundation for a future state, the territory was used as a staging ground for
rocket attacks, ultimately leading to Operation Cast Lead. These events, coupled
with growing fears of Palestinian militancy following Hamas’ takeover of Gaza,
have moved the political pendulum in Israel to the right of center, even as the
concept of a two-state solution has moved more and more into the
mainstream.
As Israelis have become disillusioned with the peace process,
the country has strengthened its formidable military power and economic
development, creating the false impression that it can sustain the status quo
indefinitely.
Meanwhile, the settlement movement has gained significant
political power, enabling it to exert immense influence on successive
governments. The settlers’ commitment to territorial expansion that is driven by
a belief in their divine right to settle the West Bank, coupled with widely held
deep skepticism about the Palestinians’ intentions that is fueled by legitimate
security concerns, have led the public to seemingly become immune to the plight
of the Palestinian people.
Against this backdrop, the right-of-center
government appears to be committed to disfranchise Palestinians, suppress
opposition, undermine democratic values and forsake the moral tenants on which
the state was created.
IN THIS regard, the introduction of two abominable
measures in the Knesset speak volumes about how far this government will go to
advance the right-wing “Greater Israel” agenda, however perilous this prospect
may be. The first bill requires every individual seeking Israeli citizenship to
declare his loyalty to a “Jewish democratic state,” specifically designed to
discriminate against Palestinian citizens.
The second bill would punish
anyone calling for a boycott of any Israeli individual or institution, whether
in Israel or in the territories, with a fine of NIS 30,000 plus any proven
damages.
In addition to such legislative efforts, the government has
continued to demolish Palestinian houses, force eviction, seize land and
deliberately disrupt communal life.
Indeed, there is no internationally
orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Israel as many claim. By its own actions
and policies, the country itself is doing a very good job at that. Rather than
address Palestinian national aspirations for statehood in the context of a
secure and independent Israel, the current government erroneously views
maintenance of the occupation and expansion of settlements as synonymous with
long-term national security.
The Palestinians have joined in choosing a
convoluted course of action that has undermined their aspirations for statehood.
Their intense and often violent factionalism has prevented them from adopting a
unified purpose and an effective strategy vis-a-vie the occupation. In addition
to the political rivalry for power, the dispute between Fatah and Hamas, which
intensified following Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, is a battle of ideas
over whether a militant or nonmilitant strategy would have greater effect on
Israeli policy.
The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, although skeptical
about the prospect of an agreement, still opts for a nonviolent strategy
having
concluded that violence provides justification for Israel to maintain
the
occupation. However, its inability to make significant progress at the
negotiating table has served to further Hamas’s contention that Israel
is not
interested in peace and that only a militant strategy will force it to
change
course.
Although Hamas has suspended violence following the conclusion of
the Gaza war in January 2009, the Netanyahu government has made no
effort to
explore a possible rapprochement with a group that it dismisses as an
irredeemable terrorist organization that must be eliminated.
The building
and expansion of settlements in the West Bank – even as Israel has
declared a
moratorium on such construction – has further strengthened the hand of
those who
argue that Israel has no intention of allowing Palestinians to establish
a state
of their own in the West Bank and Gaza.
WHILE THE two sides remain in a
deadlock, Palestinians recognize that the status quo cannot be
sustained, and
that the international community is on their side. It is with this
recognition
that Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has begun to build the infrastructure
for a
future state with the goal of ultimately declaring statehood with or
without
Israeli cooperation.
In so doing, he and President Mahmoud Abbas have
disavowed the use of violence, thereby evoking tremendous international
support
and pressure on Israel to ease the occupation. In many ways this has
created an
historic point of departure in Israeli-Palestinian relations by offering
the
Israelis what they have always wanted – a nonviolent approach to reach a
lasting
solution. The Palestinians are thus demonstrating that, contrary to
Israeli
claims, there is indeed a partner ready and able to negotiate an end to
the
conflict.
That being said, their ability to negotiate is constrained by
time, and it is unclear whether the current Israeli government will be
willing
to offer the minimum they can accept. The Palestinian public, like that
in
Israel, is disillusioned with failed peacemaking efforts. The leadership
in
Ramallah cannot afford to enter into negotiations unless they can
demonstrate to
the people that such talks have a real chance to succeed. Meanwhile, the
more
time that passes, the more the cases for a nonviolent approach and for
continued
peacemaking efforts are undermined. As such, it is no wonder that the
Palestinian leadership is increasingly looking to the option of a
unilateral
declaration of statehood, supported by the international community.
The
current deadlock does not change the reality that Israelis and
Palestinians must
coexist in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean
Sea.
In one form or another, and regardless of any political and
territorial configurations, Israelis and Palestinians are stuck with one
another. The welfare and well-being of both nations are
interdependent.
Now they must make that fateful choice: Do they want to
live in hatred and debilitating hostility, leaving a shameful legacy to
the next
generation, or do they want to live in amity and peace, and become a
model of
prosperous, neighboring democracies? Should Israel forfeit this historic
opportunity to negotiate a conflict ending with an agreement with the
leadership
in Ramallah, the Palestinians will have the right and the obligation to
move
with full speed to coalesce international support for a declaration of
statehood, with or without Israel’s consent. To avoid this scenario, the
government must recognize that the national security of the State of
Israel is
dependent on the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian
state,
and work accordingly to achieve this objective and market it as such to
the
public.
I maintain that Israel’s and the Palestinians’ long-term security
and prosperity are interdependent, and that the establishment of an
independent
Palestinian state is central to this equation.
The writer is professor of
international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He
teaches
international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.