If you think Israel's problems with Gaza are difficult, take a look at the West Bank.
Gaza is the easy part.
There are no Jewish settlements in Gaza (an advantage of the Disengagement in the summer of 2005), and a relatively small population of Israelis live within easy striking distance of Gaza. The area is surrounded by Israeli or Egyptian barriers. Airborne Israeli cameras cover much of the area, attack helicopters are not far away, and Israel can adjust the food, fuel, and other supplies according to its concern to punish or reward the regime in charge.
The extremism of Hamas makes them easy to oppose, and irrelevant to the larger story.
Gaza is not a piece of cake for the Israelis, and certainly not for the residents of Gaza, but in comparison with the West Bank . . . .
The security barrier is creeping along. Now I can see pieces of it from my balcony. In the best of conditions, assuming it inches its way to completion with no gaps due to continuing suits in Israeli courts, there will still be more than 200,000 Arabs on our side of the barrier in East Jerusalem and elsewhere, and numerous Jewish settlements on the other side of the barrier.
Should the Arabs of the West Bank start lobbing homemade rockets into Israel, it will be major cities and more than a million Israelis who become vulnerable, at least ten times the numbers vulnerable to missiles from Gaza.
For some time now there have been discussions between Israeli authorities and the Palestinians in nominal control of the West Bank. Both sides express their commitment to two-states that will solve disputes peacefully. Small Israeli forces continue to enter the West Bank and bring back prisoners, doing their bit to help the weak Fatah government hold off the threat of a takeover by Hamas and its extremist allies. A new cadre of Palestinian security personnel, trained, equipped, and positioned by cooperation between the United States, Jordan, and Israel has shown some capacity for the Fatah government to contribute to its own security, and to lessen intimidation and violence against Palestinians.
Talks between Israel and the Palestinians occur under a heavy cloak of secrecy. We can hope that the lack of a public spotlight will enable both sides to give up some of their nonnegotiable demands. Here and there we hear of partial draft agreements, and maps showing what may become the international border.
We also hear that Palestinians are sticking to their historical narrative: the conflict derives entirely from Israeli conquest, and it is necessary to turn back to what existed before 1967 or even 1948. We also hear from Israeli politicians and activists that Jerusalem must remain united under their control. Efforts to dismantle Jewish settlements have not gone well, even in the case of the smallest and most exposed set up by squatters on land owned by Arabs.
How long can talks continue without results?
It may be too early to run up the flag of frustration. It has only been a year since the two sides pledged themselves to peace in Annapolis. Us old folks remember the on again, off again efforts of the United States to leave Vietnam, which extended from sometime in 1968 to 1975. Israelis can hope that their exit from the West Bank, if it occurs, will be more elegant than the American exit from Saigon, or the earlier Israeli exit from Jewish settlements in Gaza.
We are coming to a political confluence that may impact on the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas' term as president of the Palestine National Authority ends in January. Barack Obama enters the White House in the same month, and Israelis hold national elections in February.
Benyamin Netanyahu's Likud is currently leading the polls, but that may reflect a public relations bonanza focused on several older stars who signed onto his party in advance of primaries that will rank its candidates for the Knesset. Netanyahu has been the most outspoken among the potential prime ministers for not dividing Jerusalem and assuring other arrangements that will maximize Israel's security. Ranking Palestinians have made it clear that he is their least favorite candidate, which may add to his allure among Israelis who worry about the peace process.
Tzipi Livni has committed herself to continue the peace process, but has distanced herself from the most accommodating proclamations of Ehud Olmert.
Ehud Barack is also positioning himself to be an accommodationist, but one skilled in dealing with national defense. That may not be relevant in light of recent polls showing him leading the Labor Party to an all time low in Knesset seats. Labor had 56 seats in the 120 member Knesset elected in 1969. Currently it has 19 seats, and may get as few as 8 or 9 in the next Knesset.
Obama is the great hope of Israeli and overseas Jewish leftists. They quote him as seeing good prospects in a plan out of Saudi Arabia that offers wide recognition for Israel in the Muslim world in exchange for a complete pull back to the borders that preceded the 1967 war.
If that happens, the Sharkanskys and some 165,000 other Jews may have to leave their homes in neighborhoods of Jerusalem constructed after 1967.
We are not packing.
Tzipi Livni has come close to ridiculing the Saudi solution. She warns that Israel has its own interests, and that one should not begin negotiations with a "take it or leave it" offer. The group of states the Saudis claim to be endorsing their plan does not include Iran.
There is coolness at best in the center of Israeli politics for the Saudi plan, and even less enthusiasm further to the right. And the great hope focused on the Obama administration that he will save Israelis from themselves must reckon with problems likely to be closer to the top of his agenda. The latest news from the American economy is that the stock market has sunk to where it was more than ten years ago, and other economic indicators are pointing to a serious recession.
Palestinian politics are even murkier than those in Israel and the United States. They are arguing over whether there will be an election in January, some other arrangement to continue the term of Mahmoud Abbas, or to name a replacement. Hamas is talking about declaring its own president, perhaps with authority limited to Gaza, or with claims to be the ruler of all Palestine.
Israelis who say, "So far, so good" provoke stories about the person falling from a tall building, who was heard to be saying the same thing part of the way down.
However, the analogy is flawed. We are not falling from a tall building. Only a few of us have aspirations for an imperial Israel. Carl von Clausewitz is likely to be a better guide to our future than selective quotations from mythic sections of the Hebrew Bible. The goals that attract the majority of Israelis are the modest ones of security within something close to the present outlines. There is likely to be a bit of international politics, and a bit of warfare in our future. Some of the politics, and some of the rough stuff may be with Israelis who want a lot more.
Jews consider the prophet Malachi to be the last human to hear the words of the Lord. Like other prophets, he saw doom and reconciliation in his people's future. Since his time, perhaps 2,400 years ago, we have been on our own, without heavenly guidance. We have not done badly. There remains work to be done.
Due to spam, I do not permit comments on the blog. I do welcome comments sent to my e-mail address below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il