Is now the right time to pursue a peace agreement? This question is being debated vociferously in Israel today, not only by academics and pundits but by Israel's own president and prime minister. In a recent visit to Madrid, President Shimon Peres stated that "Now is precisely the time to resume the talks between us and the Palestinians ... this storm (of protests in the region) is also an opportunity for peace." However, days later in remarks to the Knesset, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu squirmed at the thought of negotiating during a time of such upheaval. "There may be debate regarding a peace partner today, but there is uncertainty regarding the existence of a partner tomorrow," he said. "We do not know what will happen to our west, and we do not know what will happen to our east, and who can determine whether the Palestinian state -- in the middle of it all -- will hold on?" So which perspective is correct? Do the current regional crises provide a moment of opportunity for Middle East peace? Or does the regional uncertainty require peace efforts to be placed on hold?
If there has ever been a time to push for a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement, the beginning of 2009 appeared to be it. A new U.S. president had just come into the Oval Office, committed from day one to help the parties reach a two-state solution. Israel had re-established its deterrence against rocket fire from the Gaza Strip following Operation Cast Lead. Hezbollah was also deterred, a fact illustrated by its silence during Israel's campaign in Gaza. By many accounts the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had come very close to concluding a peace agreement with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just a few months earlier, yet was hesitant to do so knowing that Olmert would soon be indicted and out of office. Meanwhile, security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was soaring to new heights, mirroring the rapid growth of the West Bank economy. The Arab League continued to stand by its pledge to normalize relations with Israel upon a successfully negotiated agreement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. A new Israeli government was soon formed with a solid coalition. That summer, President Barack Obama made a historic overture to the Arab world in his speech in Cairo, and the right-wing Likud Prime Minister in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, accepted the principles of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a speech at Bar-Ilan University. With so many ingredients in place, 2009 appeared to present a genuine opportunity to achieve a long sought-after regional peace that would finally safeguard the independence, security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
In the end, however, all of the parties failed to seize the moment. The reasons are many, and have been analyzed and re-analyzed by pundits ad nauseam for the past two years. Ever since, the prospects for peace have appeared to significantly regress. Gone are the high hopes that accompanied President Obama into the White House. Hezbollah has re-emerged as a major political force behind the government in Lebanon, reconstituting a significant threat to Israel from the north. At the same time, Hamas remains entrenched in its control of the Gaza Strip and empowered by the Egyptian revolt to the south. Israelis and Palestinians are refusing to budge from their current positions, and are accusing each other of not being a partner for peace. Iran continues its march toward obtaining nuclear weapons, and Israel is under attack by a considerable international delegitimization campaign that is leaving the Jewish state more isolated -- and therefore, more defensive -- than ever before. Meanwhile, the future of the Arab League's Peace Initiative, like the status of the regimes throughout the region, may be in doubt as the Middle East undergoes an historic and unprecedented wave of unrest, revolution and reform.
If on the surface the ingredients were in place for a breakthrough in 2009, the recipe today appears to have the region headed for disaster -- or is it? There are two main schools of thought with regard to the "window of opportunity" for Middle East peace:
The first argues that there is never a perfect time to pursue peace, to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, and therefore opportunities for peace must be continuously pursued and even created. Furthermore, moments of crises could in fact lead to moments of opportunity for peace. This view is most often predicated on the belief that if Israel does not achieve a two-state solution soon, it may face dire consequences. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is among the adherents of this view, once telling reporters that "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished." This "now or else" approach considers that the long-term challenges that will face Israel if it does not achieve peace are likely far worse than the short-term risks posed to the Jewish state by pursuing an agreement.
On the contrary, the second argument posits that without necessary assurances -- whether security, political, economic or social -- pursuing peace is an unnecessary risk and a distraction to securing short-term national objectives. This perspective generates the commonly heard arguments that peace cannot be pursued until Israel's neighbors take specific actions to ameliorate the regional atmosphere to be conducive to successful peace talks. Unlike the first perspective, this view fears the risks of the present far more than those of the future, and therefore adherents are reluctant to change a status quo that appears manageable, if not ideal, especially since any peace agreement requires significant Israeli concessions.
The debate between these two arguments can be easily resolved today with an additional question: Is Israel better off than it was two years ago? The answer is unequivocal -- no. Israel is more isolated in the international community and more threatened from all sides than perhaps ever before.
But what can and should Israel do amidst unprecedented regional turmoil and uncertainty? Any major Israeli concession now would be viewed as a sign of weakness. Throughout the Middle East, autocratic regimes are bribing their people with money and instituting some reforms in a blatantly transparent attempt to sidestep the revolts. Any major move by Israel would similarly be viewed as a desperate measure to ride out the current storm. However, Israel cannot afford to do nothing and allow its position to deteriorate even further. The new governments formed in Egypt and elsewhere will eventually address domestic discontent and refocus their attention on foreign policy matters. They will be especially susceptible to populist demands to aggressively counter Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, leaders of nations with which Israel must make peace: Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians, have thus far been immune to the revolutions sweeping the region.
Rather than making a major concession under pressure, Israel should send signals that - consistent with Prime Minister's speech at Bar-Ilan University - Israel is 1) committed to maintaining peace with Egypt and welcome its continuing mediating role with Hamas, 2) ready to negotiate with the Palestinians regarding future borders, and 3) prepared to engage the new-look Arab League on its Peace Initiative. All three steps would represent a change of tone and substance, but from a position of strength.
The Israel-Egypt peace treaty is critical to Israel's security calculations. Nearly 70 percent of the Egyptians were born after the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed and have lived under conditions of peace with Israel. But inevitably the new Egyptian government will be pressured to downgrade its relations with Israel should there be no movement toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace. It is critical that Israel give the Egyptians no pretext that justifies the diminution of Israel-Egypt ties.
The Palestinians have refused to negotiate despite Israel's claim that it is ready to negotiate unconditionally. That is because few among the Palestinians and in the international community believe Israel's calls for negotiations are sincere. Furthermore, Israel has privately insisted that any negotiations start with security matters. By indicating its willingness to begin talks on borders, a key issue of concern for the Palestinians would signal that Israel is indeed serious about returning to peace negotiation, and place pressure on the Palestinians to respond. While the unrest in the region is creating an uncertain future, it is clear that without a change to the status quo, Israel will be more isolated than ever. By September, the Palestinians plan to seek a United Nations General Assembly Resolution declaring Palestinian statehood in conjunction with the completion of Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad's state-building plan. Avoiding such a prospect will require Israel to demonstrate seriousness about peace talks, and in so doing disabuse Palestinians and the international community of the belief that Israel is completely opposed to peace.
If the Arab League meets as scheduled on March 29 in Baghdad, it will be addressing unprecedented challenges. However, in the dust of the regional turmoil, Arab confidence is also shining. The future may be murky, but at the moment the peoples of the Arab world appear more hopeful and optimistic. Israel should capitalize on this moment by providing the Arab League another issue to think about in Baghdad: an Israeli overture praising the Arab Peace Initiative and a declaration that Israel is prepared to discuss its contents with Arab representatives as a basis for a comprehensive regional peace. If it does not seize the Arab Peace Initiative now, and the prospects for peace further deteriorate, the opportunity may be lost. Israel should therefore send an unequivocal message: it welcomes the more transparent, accountable and democratic trends in the region and is prepared to engage the Arab states to reach an historic peace agreement. However, if, as reported, Netanyahu comes up with his own peace plan, it must be compelling so that the Palestinians take it seriously. Any unilateral steps taken by Netanyahu -- presumably to advance the peace process -- will fail and will be counterproductive, just like the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 by former Prime Ministers Barak and Sharon respectively. Only through a negotiated agreement will an Arab-Israeli peace endure.
In navigating the current regional environment, Israeli leaders today should reflect on the famous saying by Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" There will never be a perfect time to make peace with enemies. However, there is never a bad time to take steps toward peace that could ensure Israel's security as a Jewish, democratic state living alongside its neighbors in peace. Now is the time.
Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir
And if you read the speech you will read all the revisionist history, preconditions and classic Zionist references to "Judea and Samaria and Eretz Israel." The coup de grâce to anything pretending to sound like a peace opening was the precondition that Jerusalem "remain undivided"; a proposal only the most frothy Israeli fundamentalists believe to be debatable.
The repetitive attempts to introduce this mendacity into the international conversation is the primary source of what Israel refers to as de-legitimization.
[http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-dismiss-netanyahu-s-talk-of-interim-peace-plan-1.347939]
Meanwhile, Khaled Meshal talks about uniting with Fatah in jihad against Israel
[http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-chief-egypt-revolution-brought-us-back-to-life-1.347462]
Israel dismantles settlements and orders all illegal settlements gone by year's end, , but Abbas says no to Peace talks.
[http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=211133]
Palestinians are not interested in peace.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/israel-may-ask-u-s-for-20-billion-more-in-security-aid-barak-says-1.347866
If the word chutzpah did not already exist we would have to invent it just for this occasion
-Egyptian Pride
There was no peace when the Arabs had the West Bank, Gaza, and EJ. How can you make the case there will be peace after they get those areas back?
Under current Israel laws Palestinian can not become citizens, period. An article in Haaretz today talks about a Palestinian with Jewish wife and IDF veteran son still denied permanent visa after living for years in Israel.
Israel will have to take some refugees to reunite families but not all since that would put Jewish control in question and in effect destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
"Palestinian diaspora (Arabic: الشتات, al-shatat) is a term used to describe Palestinians living outside of historic Palestine - an area today known as Israel and the Palestinian territories or the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[12] Of the total Palestinian population worldwide, estimated at between 9 to 11 million people, roughly half live outside of their homeland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_diaspora
This just must be the very same law that has allowed over 1.5 millions of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens! I'm telling you, a strange law it is for sure!
Israel should not swap horses while ME crossing its stream of political turmoil
because it could be a way to poison more the unstable situation in the M-E by adding more fuel to the boiling situation. the risk is that the local population will see it as another way to take over their sacrifices for a better future.
and not doing anything but occupation and oppression injects no poison in the environment and puts Israel in a stronger position..
not. Israel is heading backwards in comparative STRENGTH and SUPPORT. They only way to cut the trend and avoid the one-state democratic solution is to step up and sign while you can.
That's the only reason they're in this mess.
"There will never be a perfect time to make peace with enemies."
But - making peace with indigeous people on their land which you oppress - is different. Israel has made ITSELF the enemy by its actions since 1967. I do not think when you violate int'l law everyday - by occupying territory belonging to others, you have earned the right to call them your enemies. Israel is Israel's worst enemy.
Israel never even mentions unilateral action to get into compliance with int'l aw becuase they see their own violations of the Geneva Conventions as something "to negotiate". That's why Israel has lost the hearts and minds of the world (an impressive task over 60 years). You don't use the fruits of crimes to better your negotiating position. You really don't do it when you're starring down the barrel at tens of million of wealthier and emboldened Arabs who see you doing it.
But now is very different from them. But withdrawal cqan't be unilateral. Look what happened in Gaza. A negotiated peace treaty is necessary.
No more talk. Let the world community handle it.
Of course....the use of the hot term "indigeous" is a way to delegitimize the entire Jewish people's very existence. After all, the Arabs refused to even sit in the SAME ROOM as the Israelis (aside from the UN General Assembly) for 30 of those 60 years, and with the exception of Egypt 45 of those 60, well....
The people who settled Israel were Eastern European, not Middle Eastern.
Israeli genetic scientists already PROVED that the Arabs are not only indigenous, they are the inheritors of the DNA of the Israelites,
They also proved that most of the Israelites were NOT driven out. Their descedants still live there as Palestinian, Negev Bedouins, and Yemeni.
Russians are no more indigenous to the Middle East than Arabs are to Russia. Nothing anyone can do about that.
False.
"The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[16][17][18]
After Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[19] Palestinian American attorney Gregory Khalil said “Israel still controls every person, every good, literally every drop of water to enter or leave the Gaza Strip. Its troops may not be there... but it still restricts the ability for the Palestinian authority to exercise control.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Legal_status
That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. You're playing an awfully "cute" game, aren't you? Simultaneously lauding Hamas as the democratically elected gov't of the Palestinians and claiming that, despite having such a gov't, that Hamas can't actually be in control.
Sure seems like they have control to anyone looking rationally at the issue.
I am against violence, by both sides, and condemn Hamas and IDF terrorists.
"despite having such a gov't, that Hamas can't actually be in control."
Democracy is good, but, it does nothing to stop Israel's denial of basic human rights as the occupying force in Palestine.
"Overview: On 2 November 1991, Israel ratified the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) without reservation.1 However, since becoming a signatory to the UNCRC, Israel has failed to uphold the standards put forth by the Convention in its treatment of Palestinian children. Although numerous articles of the Convention have been breached, one of the most grievous is the violation of Palestinian children's right to liberty. Israeli treatment of Palestinian child prisoners is in direct violation of all the provisions of the UNCRC Articles 37, 38, 39, and 40.2 According to documentation complied in 2004 by the Defense of Children International/Palestine Section (DCI), 479 Palestinians under the age of 18 are currently held in Israeli prisons.3 Furthermore, DCI, which also provides legal assistance for child prisoners, found that most children who are arrested, and subsequently tried by the Israeli military courts are imprisoned.4 According to the Convention, imprisonment as punishment is explicitly stated as being the "last resort" for child perpetrators,5 yet the imprisonment of Palestinian children is always the first resort by Israel.6 "
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/2202/pid/2254