Urging great efforts and outside pressure to reach a peace between Israel and the Palestinians is like going to church or synagogue. Many decent people do it. Few should expect any tangible results.
This is the season for renewed efforts. Hanukah and Christmas are upon us, and the next president of the United States campaigned on the theme of Change. The appointments and statements he has made since the election imply something else. Advocates hope that he will stick to the theme as it will apply to Israel and Palestine.
It should be no surprise that we have heard from Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as from liberal Jews who are positioning themselves for a return to the top, like Martin Indik and Dan Kurzer. The Saudis remind us that they have obtained widespread Arab agreement to recognize Israel in exchange for its return to the borders prior to 1967, and doing something acceptable about Palestinian refugees.
Like the Book of Common Prayer and the Hebrew Sidur, the words are the same from one occasions to the next. Palestinians must recognize Israel and desist from terror. Israel must make painful decisions about retreating from the West Bank.
As in religion, there are differences among those who utter spiritual doctrines about the Middle East. Unitarians are not Catholics. Reform Jews do not pray like the Orthodox.
The biggest difference in the Middle East, it should be no surprise, is between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinians in nominal control of the West Bank recognize the legitimacy of something they call Israel. Hamas and its friends in Gaza have not gotten to that point. Differences among Israelis are more subtle. None with a chance at attaining leadership denies the need for negotiations and difficult decisions.
We can estimate the chances of expectations expressed by concered outsiders by considering what seem to be the positions of the West Bank Palestinian leadership, and the two prominent candidates in Israel's political campaign. "Seems to be" is an important qualification. The language of politics is seldom precise, especially when it touches on a subject of great sensitivity.
Palestinian leaders called moderate have not conceded the designation of Israel as a Jewish state. Their Palestine will be for Palestinians, apparently without Jews, while Israel will be for all its citizens, Arabs as well as Jews. The Palestinian capital must be in Jerusalem, and there must be an solution for the refugees. The borders must be those of pre-1967, perhaps with some adjustments and territorial compensation for whatever Palestine loses.
The Palestinians in charge of Gaza may be too extreme, in both religion and politics, to qualify as partners in any negotiations.
On the Israeli side, Binyamin Netanyahu emphasizes the need for security, and his refusal to divide Jerusalem. Tzipi Livni is quiet about Jerusalem, but has recently disturbed the Palestinians by saying that Israel must remain a Jewish state. She went on to commit herself to democracy and equal rights for minorities, but said that Israel's Arabs must pursue their national aspirations elsewhere. Presumably she meant in the as-yet to be created Palestinian state. It is anyone's guess what she means by "national aspirations."
Are the differences between Palestinians and Israelis small enough to be bridgeable by pressure from Americans and other enlightened people?
The devil will be in the details. There are many, as well as countless proposals.
Jerusalem, for example, may offer enough opportunities to satisfy both parties.
It is Israel's largest city, whose borders have changed many times since the reigns of ancient kings. The Palestinians can call their section "al Quds" (the Holy City), and all will be well.
Opps. That overlooks the problem of the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary, and the Muslim view that Jews were never more than marginal tenants in the city's history. That means no rights to the Temple Mount. Also a problem is Israeli distrust. Yassir Arafat is the Palestinian icon. To Israelis, he is the man who could speak of accommodation in English, sign agreements, receive a Nobel Peace Prize, and provoke violence in Arabic. The Jewish experience with their Palestinian neighbors since the beginning of the 20th century includes multi-year periods of violence separated by relative calm. The most recent violence began in 2000, and may not be over. Its casualties have been greater in number than any conflict other than wars with Arab armies in 1948 and 1973. It should be no surprise that suspicion remains.
Proposals to deal with Israeli distrust involve positioning American or other reliable troops in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and along the Jordan River. The principle has worked between Israel and Egypt. However, the Sinai is a sizable desert, with few inhabitants. It provides a buffer between Egyptians and Israelis. The West Bank and Gaza have sizable populations, right up against Israeli cities. The Palestinians would not be enthusiastic about foreign troops patrolling their cities. Israelis have few complaints about the Americans in the Sinai, but many complaints about UN troops in southern Lebanon. Israelis are united in seeing Jerusalem as their capital. Some might agree to hiving off of Arab neighborhoods for the sake of peace. The vast majority reject any "internationalization" of the city.
Urging peace in the Holy Land is a ritual on the borderline between religion and politics. Evidence is that people who pray are happier and healthier. Some expect the Almighty to help in a time of distress. Along with a minimum degree of piety, working for peace is expected for those who aspire to leadership. It is risky, however, to rely on others. My Grandmother prayed on a regular basis. She also said that God helps those who help themselves.
Due to spam, I do not permit comments on the blog. I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Dept of Political Science
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax: +972-2-582-9144