Wake Up, Israel

I am departing from my usual analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict as I profoundly feel that these are neither ordinary times, nor ordinary circumstances. The challenges and opportunities that Israel faces today will undoubtedly lay the ground for its future coexistence both in the Middle East and as an ally to the West. With new US and Israeli leadership in office comes a renewed prospect to solve the old struggles, and to address once and for all the Palestinian question of statehood. Israel must wake up and heed the call of the international community, rise to the occasion and use the support it has now and its overwhelming power to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. Above all though, Israelis must look introspectively and ask themselves where they want to be in 10, 15 or 20 years from now. Do they want to live in peace with security and prosperity or do they wish to continue the struggle, which is becoming increasingly more threatening if not existential? I believe that Israel is approaching that fateful hour.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington raised many hopes-but then quelled just as many expectations. It appears he was neither ready to deal with the hard choices presented to him by President Obama, nor was he prepared to offer credible alternatives to deal with the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point in the process, coming to Washington to discuss Arab-Israeli peace without acknowledging the two-state solution only hurt Netanyahu's standing with the new American administration. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made it clear that there will be no peace without a Palestinian state, and there will be no Palestinian state with the continued expansion of the settlements. President Obama's demand that there will be a moratorium on settlement building and expansion is rooted in the simple logic that the settlements not only impede the viability of a Palestinian state, but they rob the Palestinians of any hope that they have a partner in peace who respects their claims to the land. The settlements, furthermore, tell twenty-two Arab states that Israel is not interested in their peace initiative. Continued expansion signals to the United States that Israel does not take seriously American strategic interest and friendship, and it tells the European Union to mind their own affairs. Most importantly, Israel's inability to control its settlers conveys to the majority of Israelis who are yearning for peace that they should expect nothing but more violence and bloodshed for decades to come.

The Obama administration has stressed that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the top of American national strategic interests, and that the US will provide the utmost security for Israel. Successive American administrations have committed themselves to Israel's national security and President Obama's commitment is as unshakable as any of his predecessors'. The difference today is that the president has inherited a region in turmoil with an alarming rise in Islamic extremism, terrorism and sectarian strife as well as a daunting Iranian nuclear threat capable of destabilizing the region in a fundamental way. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict only feeds into this frenzy, edging ever closer to the precipice. Caring about Israel's national security requires more than supporting Israel's policies and providing it with the military means to defend itself. Support for Israel will not come with a blank check and a blind eye. President Bush offered unmatched cooperation, but he failed miserably to deal effectively with Iran as it threatened Israel existentially time and again. Bush also neglected to pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the majority of his two terms, and thereby undermined Israel's only prospect for peace and real security.

Israel has every right to thwart any potential Iranian nuclear threat, but it must first exhaust every peaceful option with its closest and most trusted ally the United States. President Obama has come to the conclusion that isolating Iran is not making Israel or the US any better off. He offered a direct dialogue with Tehran and established the end of 2009 as the time to determine whether or not Iran is willing to commit to negotiations on its nuclear program, leaving all military options on the table. But he has also committed to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem that has eluded all of his predecessors. The president knows as well as any one that there is no issue that has helped Iran undermines Israel's national security concerns more than the Palestinian conflict. He appreciates Netanyahu's legitimate concerns about Iran, and thus reasons that dealing more effectively with Iran and weakening its resolve in the Mediterranean would in effect distance Iran's mischief from the Palestinian interests. Netanyahu must do better than dismantling a few illegal outposts, offering a lip service to a president who believes in Israel's destiny and is ready to commit time and treasure to insure it as a safe and thriving state.

Netanyahu is correct when he suggests that Israel and the Arab states share a common Iranian nuclear threat, and it would seem logical to invite the Arab states to join hands in dealing with Tehran's bellicose policies. What Netanyahu fails to understand is that while the Arab states-led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt-are gravely concerned about the Iranian nuclear program, they will not cooperate with Israel as long as the occupation persists and Palestinian plight continues to haunt them. Leaving the Palestinians at this stage to their own devices after sixty-two years of debilitating struggle would challenge the legitimacy of the Arab states' government. The Arab countries do not wish to see Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, but the prospect of provoking en-masse anti-government sentiments throughout the Arab world is deemed considerably worse. From their perspective, continued Israeli occupation has not only displaced the Palestinians but provides a constant reminder of Arab humiliation, and nothing reinforces that more than the building and the expansion of settlements. More so, if they were to see a moratorium on settlements while negotiations began, they are very likely to offer major concessions, such as state visits to Israel or the opening of economic trade talks.

The Arab states came full circle when their League passed the Arab Peace Initiative (first in March 2002 and again in March 2007) that offered Israel a comprehensive peace with all twenty two Arab countries in return for territories captured in 1967 and a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Regardless of the imperfections of this resolution (such how to deal with the refugees, which both sides know cannot be solved in their right to return to Israel proper) it represents nothing less than a historical transformation, especially when compared to the 1967 Arab League resolution which proclaimed no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. The Arab Peace Initiative should be a major triumph for Israel; after more than six decades of violent rejection the Arab nations are ready to embrace Israel as a member Middle Eastern state to live with its neighbors in peace and security. Israel must know by now the implication of making real peace with each and every Arab state, something that has eluded it for over sixty years. True, the Israelis have many reasons to be skeptical; decades of enmity and bloodshed have left an indelible mark etched in the memory of countless Israelis who suffered tragic losses. But now the Arab states, perhaps out of the desire for self-preservation, have come to accept the inevitable: Israel is here to stay and they must live with it in peace or continue a fruitless struggle that will only endanger the security of their own regimes.

In one form or another Israel must face the reality of the Palestinian people and commit to finding an equitable solution that can endure long-term. Like several of his predecessors came to understand, Netanyahu must realize that this is not a matter of blame or right versus wrong. No solution will be based on such a judgment. The Palestinians have been dispossessed, just as the Israelis have been denied the right to exist and had to assert their right. No party involved in the Palestinian plight is blameless: the Arab states, Israel and the Palestinians have all contributed to the tragic unfolding of events. Now it is time to put an end to this saga that has dehumanized both the occupied and the occupier. Each Palestinian has an inherent right to his homeland, and no one can understand this better that the Israelis who equally feel that deep attachment to the land of their forefathers. Now that the parameters of two-states have been repeatedly established and accepted by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians--as well as endorsed by the International community and the Arab states--the Israeli government is duty bound to move expeditiously to implement a negotiated agreement. And if Netanyahu's current right-wing coalition is not fit for the task at hand, he still has the option of forming a government with Tzipi Livni's Kadima party on the premise of a two-state solution.

Netanyahu can no longer use the Palestinian disunity or Hamas as an excuse for not negotiating a final status agreement. The Arab states through their Peace Initiative are committed to providing Israel with the security it seeks and can tame Hamas once the territories are evacuated. However legitimate Israel's national security concerns may be, the Israelis cannot live in fear with paralyzed leadership unable to act in the best interest of the country. The process of developing adequate security and confidence building measures will take few years to develop, and Israel will not be required to withdraw its forces from the West Bank before such measures are in place. But then again, Israel under no circumstance will relinquish its national security to any other agent and will remain militarily vigilant to deter any future enemy. That being said, the Israelis must face the inevitable and begin to build trust with their neighbors. But how they can engender trust by building more and more settlements, by impeding Palestinian movements with hundreds of road blocks, by incarcerating thousands of Palestinians, demolishing homes and above all by denying psychologically any future prospect of letting the Palestinians live as they see fit?

Every day, every month or year that passes will only add to the alienation and disdain toward Israel which has become ingrained in the Palestinian psyche. The zealot settlers have wrested the political agenda, and now Israel's leadership has allowed itself to become woefully misguided by a group endangering the very premise of why Israel was created in the first place. Israel was meant to provide a home, a refuge for the Jewish people, not to rule other people against their will. Why have there been no demonstrations in the street by Israelis demanding an end to the occupation? How can Israelis revel in the plenty of today and forget the scarcity endured by multitude of Palestinians? Imagine peace with fifty seven Arab and Muslim states and the renaissance that could usher into the region. Imagine Israel and its neighbors engaged in business, cultural and academic exchanges, imagine the power of Israeli and Arab resources put together and the incredible prospect of reaching a new high never known before between both peoples.

It is time for Israel to wake up; do not allow this historic chance for peace to slip away because of complacency or lack of courage. The US and international communities are offering an unprecedented opportunity that cannot afford to be squandered this time around. America has offered its utmost support and the Arab states are ready to assume their responsibility. If Israel is destined to bring light onto other nations, this is the moment.

Comments

[Rafi Schutzer]

Alon,

I think you should be the one waking up right now after your little day dream about another Palestinian state. There already is a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan. After the next war all Israeli and "West Bank" moslems will be living there.

All the best,

Rafi Schutzer

[Justtellthetruth]

Everything, EVERYTHING is about removing the settlers. They are, and have been, the main impediment to peace for decades. Their presence is the only reason the occupation is necessary, and the anger of most Palestinians is born out of the forge of the brutality and violence of the settlers and the occupation.

The settlers must be dealt with harshly and quickly, as they value little else but their fanatical ultra nationalist vision. They do not care how many others die and suffer as the result of their actions. Israeli deaths, Palestinians, Americans, it does not matter to them.

[Sentientbeing09]

True. The settlers need to be isolated and marginalized. Quickly and forcefully.

The extremist settler movement makes liars of Israeli government commitments to peace and Palestinian self-determination.

[Aziat]

From 1949-1967, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. From 1967-77, the Labor party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel. In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt. One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would. In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue; if anything, the number of jews living in the territories was growing.Between June 1992 and june 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent.This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in september 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict. In August 2005, Israel evacuated all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in Northern Samaria, but terror attacks continued.

[stpmdn]

so what is your suggestion? status quo?

[Justtellthetruth]

None of this makes apartheid and ethnic cleansing acceptable. You must see that Isreal went from being feared and hated for it's initial forceful entry into the region, to being hated for it's settlements and occuaption of FURTHER land grabs.

Almost everyone has gotten over the institution of Israel (green line Israel, that is) No one will ever get over ongoing practices of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and the US will be the one to push the hardest against them noe, because after 9/11, it has become clear that we are suffering blowback terrorism as the result of our association with these practices.

The best way to support Israel is to RAZE the settlements and forcefully remove any settlers that refuse to go.

[Sentientbeing09]

The Israeli settlement on occupied Palestinian land is illegal and illigitimate.

Removal of the illegal Israeli settlements is now a matter of US national security.

Israel should start paying attention.
Reign in the setter exremists and start planning a peace.

[BubbaC33]

Your point is no Jews should be allowed to live on the West Bank. Does that mean you believe Israel has the right to tell all of its Arab citizens and residents they have to leave? It is a very simple question. If you believe ethnicity is a good way to determine where a person lives, as you do for the West Bank, then it follows you must adhere to that thinking extended beyond the West bank.

[Sentientbeing09]

When Palestinian statehood is accepted and recognized by the international community, Israeli settlers would be recognized in Palestine as foreign passport holders and residents. I would predict that as resident foreigners they would not necessarily expect guaranteed ownership rights of occupied land.

I would also expect a Palestinian state to offer Palestinian citizenship to any former Israeli settlers with the mutual obligations and responsibilities that came with that arrangement.

This would Include giving up Israeli citizenship, passports and membership of the israeli army..

[Freenation]

One thing which author does not mention is the settlers are bold because they are supported by IDF, check out the article by Max on HP...he mentions while the Palestinians camps are swiftly demolished by IDF on the othe hand settlers are permitted to keep building, only during the media presence they are asked to go somewhere else to avoid any controversies...

[bluecanarygm]

It is arguably too late for Israel to wake up. It has manoeuvred itself into a corner from which the only way out will be by the use of its WMD. And that will endanger a far greater region than the ME. The only solution now is for the US to grab the nettle and impose a solution on all the warring factions both within Israel and without.

The international community has, or should have, far more issues of global importance to deal with than to continue to pander to Israeli intransigence. Global warming is one and global economic stability is another. The world should not be wasting all this continuous energy and effort on Israel. Banging heads together is the no-nonsense answer now and the puncturing of puffed-up pride.

[GKJames]

A noble thought. But hasn't the appetite for land consistently trumped other interests? Given that tangible down-side consequences have been few -- and whatever their extent, they've not caused a change in the policy on land expropriation -- what would make one believe that appeals to our better nature will compel such change now? Particularly when someone with the worldview of a Netanyahu is in charge?

[Sentientbeing09]

Israel is the worlds only expansionist democracy.

Annexation of foreign land is a characteristic of dictatorships. Not an inclusive member of the international community.

[Aziat]

Israel's boundaries were determined by the United Nations when it adopted the partition resolution in 1947. In a series of defensive wars, Israel captured additional territory. On numerous occasions, Israel has withdrawn from these areas. As part of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Israel returned territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars to Syria. Under the terms of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula for the third time. In september 1983, Israel withdrew from large areas of Lebanon to positions of the south Awali River. In 1985 it completed it's withdrawal from Lebanon, except for a narrow security zone just north of the Israeli border. After signing peace agreements with the Palestinians, and a treaty with Jordan, Israel agreed to withdraw from most of the territory in the West Bank captured from Jordan in 1967. A small area was returned to Jordan, and more than 40 percent was ceded to the Palestinian authority. In August 2005, all Israeli troops and civilians withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Israel's willingness to make territorial concessions in exchange for security proves it's goal is peace, not expansion