The current crisis in the Obama-Netanyahu relationship should propel both leaders to reassess their basic policies toward Palestine. They must redefine their targets, to think realistically but also creatively.
Ending the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not an attainable goal. What is attainable is a clear and dramatic decrease in tension in the conflict—a goal that would, indeed, serve the necessities of American foreign policy on Iran, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Now is the moment to go back to the drawing board and to examine every option in search of a practical policy.
For all their recent disagreements, Israel and the United States share a common view of the Palestinians. They have jointly affirmed their resolve to coax the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) to the negotiating table, while ignoring Hamas. This is a policy that has now lasted close to four years—with, by and large, the support of the international community. Hamas, it is commonly agreed, will only make an acceptable partner for negotiation if it undergoes an ideological transformation, a transformation that is very unlikely to ever occur.
But now might be the right time to reconsider this policy, especially in light of the recent behavior of the PA. To take one recent example: When the Israeli cabinet recently designated two sites in Hebron and Bethlehem to be preserved as national heritage landmarks, the PA joined Hamas in issuing inflammatory statements exhorting the populace to demonstrate against the Jewish appropriation of Muslim holy sites. Stone throwing and violence quickly ensued. Abu Mazen, the self-styled moderate president of the PA, provocatively warned of an impending religious war. Only a stern warning sent by Israeli security authorities brought the “moderate” Palestinian leadership to its senses. And even then, it was only the Israelis who were capable of becalming Jerusalem and the West Bank, with sustained and daily operations in Palestinian-controlled areas. In a time of crisis, the shortcomings of the ruling Palestinians were exposed.
It can be difficult these days to distinguish the PA from its Hamas rivals in the West Bank. The festive inauguration of the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City brought nearly identical statements from the two groups. Just like the Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, key members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and aides to Abu Mazen argued that the reconstruction of this synagogue posed a serious threat to the Al Aqsa mosque. It all raises the question: If the Palestinians in the West Bank won’t make for good partners, then what?
Gaza hardly seems a more promising place to answer this question, at least at first blush. Every time a rocket is launched from the Strip, Israel holds Hamas responsible for the acts and justifiably retaliates. But Israel has also imposed an ironclad siege on Gaza—and, in so doing, it fails to acknowledge that Hamas also has a legal responsibility for the well-being of the ever-increasing population there.
What can change this state of affairs? The rump Palestinian Authority in Ramallah will never be able to restore its authority there. There’s no sign that the population of Gaza intends to rebel against the Hamas regime. And nobody on the outside—not Israel, not the international community—has a coherent policy that will redress this situation. Thus, the people of Gaza are condemned to endure the present state of affairs indefinitely.
Something wrong here. Page 1 comes up twice.
Israel should announce a broad change in policy toward Gaza: That it will do nothing to impair normal life there, including ending much of its embargo, but will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure its own freedom from attack, including the interdiction of arms and the prevention of direct commerce that is not controlled by Israel. It should explicitly declare that it demands no commitments whatsoever from Hamas, rhetorical or otherwise, but that any violence or preparations for violence will be met as Israel deems necessary for its own protection. Violence will not be tolerated. It can also declare that it welcomes the time when the ... view full comment
Something wrong here. Page 1 comes up twice.
Israel should announce a broad change in policy toward Gaza: That it will do nothing to impair normal life there, including ending much of its embargo, but will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure its own freedom from attack, including the interdiction of arms and the prevention of direct commerce that is not controlled by Israel. It should explicitly declare that it demands no commitments whatsoever from Hamas, rhetorical or otherwise, but that any violence or preparations for violence will be met as Israel deems necessary for its own protection. Violence will not be tolerated. It can also declare that it welcomes the time when there is no threat of violence emanating from Gaza so it can reduce or eliminate security measures.
And that's it. As long as the Gazans respect the "no violence" redline, they should be allowed to live their lives and establish their politics as they see fit. If they want to continue their rhetorical war with Israel, they can do so, but of course that will necessarily prolong Israel's control over their external commerce. The minimum necessary for security, but whatever is necessary for security. That should be the goal so that Israel can justly claim that it is not in the business of overseeing the lives of Palestinians, only of making sure that it is not itself subjected to threat or attack.
You seem to condemn the PA because it does not issue celebratory statements in response to ever more assertions of Israeli permanent control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank (or at least choice bits thereof). You also blame the PA for not having the command and control capability of a mature state. The PA was intended to be a short-term negotiating platform for the Palestinians to last five years. It was never intended to be a de facto Palestinian government for decades. There is one and only one solution to this problem, an Israeli decision to fully evacuate the West Bank and Gaza and accept a fully sovereign Palestinian state on that land. The reason why this peace process is takin ... view full comment
You seem to condemn the PA because it does not issue celebratory statements in response to ever more assertions of Israeli permanent control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank (or at least choice bits thereof). You also blame the PA for not having the command and control capability of a mature state. The PA was intended to be a short-term negotiating platform for the Palestinians to last five years. It was never intended to be a de facto Palestinian government for decades. There is one and only one solution to this problem, an Israeli decision to fully evacuate the West Bank and Gaza and accept a fully sovereign Palestinian state on that land. The reason why this peace process is taking decades is that Israel has up till now refused to take that decision. It took the first 10 years for the Israeli center to even accept the concept of a two-state solution (the phrase "Palestinian state" was still anathema to even Labor leaders in the 1990's), and the Israeli version of a Palestinian state remains a moth-eaten sham. Makes no difference, in the end the Israelis will do what the British did in India, they will simply leave, because they have no other option. Well, except for granting the Palestinians full and equal citizenship. However, that notion appears to scare Israelis for some reason.
As before, I agree with nayyer_ali in part and also disagree. It is not the case that Israeli refusal to withdraw is the only or even the chief reason there is no peace. Immediately following the Six-Day War, Israel offered complete withdrawal in exchange for peace. The Arab response:
"The Arab League summit held in the aftermath of the massive Israeli victory in the Six-Day War established the Khartoum Resolution in September 1, 1967 with the "three No's" that was to be the center of all Israeli-Arab relations after that point: No peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, and no negotiations. UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for normalization of Israel with the Arab states ... view full comment
As before, I agree with nayyer_ali in part and also disagree. It is not the case that Israeli refusal to withdraw is the only or even the chief reason there is no peace. Immediately following the Six-Day War, Israel offered complete withdrawal in exchange for peace. The Arab response:
"The Arab League summit held in the aftermath of the massive Israeli victory in the Six-Day War established the Khartoum Resolution in September 1, 1967 with the "three No's" that was to be the center of all Israeli-Arab relations after that point: No peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, and no negotiations. UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for normalization of Israel with the Arab states and for Israel to give up territories taken during the war, was enacted on November 22, 1967 and faced initial rejection by most of the Arab world."
Long before Palestinians accepted the reality of Israel and agreed to negotiate, they first conducted a long campaign of terrorism that has yet to end. While I do not accept the Israeli narrative that Israeli policies are no obstacle to peace, it is certainly not the case that they are the only or even the principal obstacles to peace. The principal obstacle remains the unwillingness of Palestinians to abjure violence in pursuit of their political goals. There is no principal that permits such violence except in self-defense, and if Palestinians, and Arab neighbors, would desist from violence, no one would be seeking to perpetrate violence against them. They would substantially achieve their political goals in relatively short order.
roidubouloi -- I'm picturing (with a grin) the reaction in Ramallah, and the Oval Office, and elsewhere, if Netanyahu announced tomorrow the decision to begin implementing that policy in 2 weeks. Abbas and his boys would freak out and demand peace talks without preconditions, Washington wouldn't dare continue sneering, and the Damascus Hamas crew would be left scrambling for a way to refuse this opening without really pissing off the Gazans.
Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move.
roidubouloi -- I'm picturing (with a grin) the reaction in Ramallah, and the Oval Office, and elsewhere, if Netanyahu announced tomorrow the decision to begin implementing that policy in 2 weeks. Abbas and his boys would freak out and demand peace talks without preconditions, Washington wouldn't dare continue sneering, and the Damascus Hamas crew would be left scrambling for a way to refuse this opening without really pissing off the Gazans.
Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move.
"Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move."
Absolutely pw. As someone who wants Israel to flourish, what drives my nuts more than anything else is the passivity of Israel's policies - waiting for the Palestinians to have a come to Moses moment as long as Israelis can persuade themselves that the fault lies with the Palestinians. I don't really care whether blame can be pinned on the Palestinians (something that the world at large increasingly rejects). Israel needs peace too. And when one is tactically passive, events have a way of getting out of control, as is happening.
More than anything else, I want Israel t ... view full comment
"Israel needs to change how the game is being played, and putting down a whole new game-board would be a take charge move."
Absolutely pw. As someone who wants Israel to flourish, what drives my nuts more than anything else is the passivity of Israel's policies - waiting for the Palestinians to have a come to Moses moment as long as Israelis can persuade themselves that the fault lies with the Palestinians. I don't really care whether blame can be pinned on the Palestinians (something that the world at large increasingly rejects). Israel needs peace too. And when one is tactically passive, events have a way of getting out of control, as is happening.
More than anything else, I want Israel to take charge of its own destiny. That does not assure its success, as life is always full of contingencies. But at least with an affirmative strategy that seeks to command events, there are fewer nasty surprises and many more opportunities to see things to a successful conclusion or avoid the worst.
Read Full Article »