There is a big peace assault in the Middle East. Everyone is talking about the Arab peace initiative, and a few
Western governments are caving in to the demands of the Hamas - dominated Palestinian government for recognition. In the
face of all this, the Israeli government is doing nothing. That is not too surprising, since they aren't doing much of
anything in other fields. The excuse or reason in this case is that Fatah have joined the Hamas government. But there
has to be some action to pry the Hamas out of their anti-peace position.
Most Israelis
disagree with the Israeli government position that it not going to talk to any ministers in the Palestinian unity
government, only to Mr. Abbas. 40% said Israel should be talking to the Palestinian government, and an additional 17% percent favor
talking with Fatah members only. The poll asked about "talking," not about peace negotiations.
This attitude may be surprising given the recent surge in support for the Likud and other hard
line parties reported in other polls, but it reflects reality. Of course, "talking" doesn't necessarily mean negotiating
peace. However, for example, Israelis want to get Gilad Shalit out of captivity. It is impossible to imagine how that
would happen without negotiations, and since a Hamas faction is holding him, it is hard to see how there could be a deal
without involving the Hamas. So we may expect that Israeli policy will be circumvented by the Israeli government by having Abbas or another person act
as a go between, of the kind well known in family fights:
"Tell the benighted terrorist genocidal warmonger, that we will give him 100 prisoners for Shalit."
"Excellency, Olmert says to tell you that the Israelis will give 100 prisoners for Shalit."
"Tell the infidel son of dogs and apes, that we want 2,000 prisoners for Shalit, plus right of return
for refugees and Sandy Bar to be married to Khaled Meshal, and a Palestinian state with its capital in Tel Aviv."
"Excellency, Prime Minister Hanniyeh says to tell you that the Hamas want 2,000 prisoners for Shalit, plus right of
return for refugees..."
This charade will not fool anyone. Israel can only get back Gilad Shalit, negotiate a real truce
in Gaza and attain other diplomatic goals by talking to Palestinians. On the other hand, the
platform of the new unity government creates an impossible
situation for peace. The Palestinians insist that they have the right to continue "resistance by all means" until their
demands are met. If all their demands are met, then the Hamas will grant a "truce."
Haaretz, for example urges that this truce is better than
war. But the truce is only offered if all the demands are met, and the demands include withdrawal of Israel precisely to
1967 borders, evacuating about half a million people who have settled in the greater Jerusalem area and the West Bank,
and allowing several million Palestinian refugees to enter Israel as well. The last condition would mean the end of the
Jewish state. Every fair person understands that these are not realistic conditions for peace and certainly not
conditions for any cease fire. War is bad, but suicide is worse. The Palestinian government must adopt realistic
policies if it really wants to unfreeze the current situation.
Israel however, cannot expect the Palestinians to change policies unless it offers some quid pro quo, a
concrete goal that is realistic, desirable and yet attainable, to counter the dream of destroying Israel held out by the
Palestinian unity government. Israel can't hope to dig itself in forever behind the wall of no negotiations
with the unity government, and to maintain the support of the US and European governments for this position, unless it
offers something in return. The Arab League will most certainly give support to the Palestinians at their upcoming
summit, and hold out Israeli concessions as the price of cooperation regarding Iraq and Iran, as well as those nice low
oil prices. The US, Russia and Western Europe will be tempted by these pressures, as well as lucrative trade
opportunities. The Arab peace plan calls for recognition of
Israel, but like the Palestinian unity platform, it insists on return of all territories conquered in 1967 and may be
interpreted as insisting on right of
return for Palestinian refugees. It is not a realistic basis for peace, but it is attractive as "the only game
in town" and as a "basis for negotiations." While neither the Arab plan or the Palestinian plan are a basis for peace,
the current situation cannot continue indefinitely, nor can the Palestinians be moved from their intransigent folly by vague
talk about a political horizon or generalities about a better future.
Most of the non-Muslim nations of the world are probably agreed that a reasonable solution to the
conflict will be along the lines of the Clinton bridging
proposals or the Geneva accord or the
Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan, which are different ways of stating
approximately the same thing. They all posit a territorial exchange that will give the Palestinians a demilitarized
state in about 100% of the pre-1967 territory, a capital in Jerusalem, and settlement of Palestinian refugees outside of
Israel, in return for a formal and genuine peace agreement. In return, Israel will get an end to the conflict that has plagued both peoples for
nearly a hundred years. A real and final end, not a "Hudna" like the Hudna of Hudibiyeh that will be terminated by a
Muslim conquest. Palestinians must understand and accept that there will not be a second
battle of Khaybar, in which the Jews are
vanquished, not now and not in the future.
Israel accepted the Clinton bridging proposals in principle, but the precise offer was never made
publicly and was never official. Now is the time for Israel to launch a broad, detailed public peace offensive on those
lines, and to seek the support of the Quartet, the EU and all fair-minded countries for the same program. The proposal
should be sufficiently detailed so that everyone can understand what it entails. Maps and major proposals must be
spelled out publicly, so that people like Jimmy Carter cannot falsify the truth. There will be no "Bantustans" in the
offer and no possibility to dismiss it as Bantustans. Everyone will know exactly what they are being asked to support.
Negotiations, when they are held, will be within a framework that is known in advance. The Palestinian side will
understand that they cannot get a state without offering peace, and the Israeli side will understand that they can't get
peace without ending the occupation. If a large coalition unites behind the same plan it has a reasonable chance of
success. If it fails, if the Palestinians do not agree, at least there will be an international peace camp that is
united around a concrete program and holds out that program as a goal.
But what if it succeeds? The conclusion of such an agreement should be a victory and a cause for
national celebration by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The occupation will come to an end. The Palestinians
will get their own state at long last, and the refugees will end their long exile. The Israelis will get the peace we
have dreamed of since 1948 and before, the negotiated settlement that was the stated object of the
Six Day War. The Middle East and the world will
be able to turn their attention to other more urgent problems.
Ami Isseroff
A version of this article was originally published at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log. Adapted by Permission. Copyright by the author.
what's on
PeaceWatch
