I returned July 3 from an Americans for Peace Now mission to Israel. We met with dozens of Knesset members, security analysts, journalists, government ministers and Palestinian officials.
A common wisdom in Israel these days is that it’s easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but there is no tunnel. In other words, most Israelis perceive that the broad outline of a final settlement is a two-state solution with some kinds of agreements on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and Israeli security requirements — but they see no way to get there.
The reason behind this near consensus was driven home by Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan, head of Israel’s National Security Council. When asked what were the Israeli security requirements for a Palestinian state, he gave a tutorial on population growth rates of the various groups in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
“Jews will be a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean in 20 years,” he said. “We need to decide what kind of state we want to live in in 20 years.”
Israelis increasingly recognize that the choices are driven by demographics. If you want a Jewish, democratic state, it must be side-by-side with a Palestinian state. One Jewish state encompassing all the land would have to deny some residents the right to vote — apartheid, neither a moral nor a secure condition.
So why is no tunnel apparent? Moshe Halbertal, Jewish moral philosopher who consults with the Israel Defense Forces, explained that more than 60 percent of Israelis accept some variation of former President Clinton’s two-state plan, but 80 percent of them see terrorists in Tel Aviv and don’t believe the Palestinians really want just the West Bank and Gaza.
Similarly, he said, more than 60 percent of Palestinians are willing to have two states, but 80 percent of them see Jewish settlements expanding and don’t believe the Israelis want just pre-1967 Israel.
Somehow we must build trust between the two “good” constituencies. Trust is currently hard to come by.
Ferment of activity
We met with Al-Quds University president and Palestinian Authority representative Sari Nusseibeh in the People’s Peace Campaign headquarters in the Old City of Jerusalem. He recently published a letter in an Arab newspaper calling for a reassessment of suicide bombings. Six hundred others eventually signed.
He also went on international Arab cable TV and radio call-in talk shows “causing an intellectual commotion in the Arab world.” He is trying to build trust.
Recently Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government closed the Peace Center and Nusseibeh’s university office. But without mutual trust, what can be done? The answer to this question is where the action is now in Israeli political life.
Most Israelis agree with the government’s military responses that slow or stop terrorist attacks for a while. But for many reasons the current curfews are unsustainable and the Palestinian fighters will eventually regroup.
Thus Sharon’s essentially military-only response is coming under increasing scrutiny. Alternatives fall into four categories.
First is unilateral disengagement. Israeli citizens’ demands for security have prompted the construction of a fence along the Green Line and throughout Jerusalem. At issue is whether to dismantle the settlements on the other side of it.
Yossi Alpher, former Mossad security analyst, believes that in the long run the Israel Defense Force cannot defend both a long fence and scores of isolated settlements. Polls show a majority of Israelis favor withdrawal from the settlements.
Second is some form of interim agreements. The Labor Party, led by current Defense Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezar, has plans to put out a peace feeler and before year’s end withdraw from the unity government. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres talks of a limited interim Palestinian state with a tight timetable for further discussion. Even Sharon himself has spoken recently of more clearly explaining his peace strategy.
Third is a bi-lateral deal. Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the Oslo Accords, is trying to resurrect the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians with the aim of actually getting signatories to a complete deal.
Lastly, some are hoping for external deliverance. They believe international pressure is needed to break the impasse, secure an interim agreement or even impose a solution.
Some members of our group felt it was a disheartening trip. I was actually encouraged to discover the ferment of activity and ideas generated around finding creative solutions to the quagmire.
It is all the more depressing to return to the U.S. and find that a party line in the organized Jewish community of unquestioning support for every current Israeli policy seems to be the only acceptable support for Israel.
Those who love Israel should take a lesson from the Israelis and realize that honest, respectful and vigorous debate in the quest for Israeli peace and security should be welcome.
Milwaukeean Max Samson is treasurer of Americans for Peace Now.
Loading ...