The best we can get

I refer to them collectively, lumping them together indiscriminately in a quasi-xenophobic way. Furthermore, I tend to place them beyond the pale, over the divide which was once demarcated by an imaginary green line and is now, for much of its length, a very tangible barrier, part fence, part wall.

However, these extraterritorial beings are everywhere! Not only there, but here too. Look and you will find them in Israel proper, in towns and cities throughout the country, in my kibbutz, even in my family. They come in several varieties, religious and secular, some are intransigent unwilling to compromise on principles, whereas others have mellowed with the passage of time and have become more pragmatic and flexible.

I suppose every Jew living "beyond the divide" could be called a settler;

However, not all the Jews living in the West Bank settled there for ideological reasons.

Therefore, I'm wrong when I refer to them as one homogeneous group.

Measured by every ideological yardstick Elayakim Haetzni is a settler!

He is the firebrand variety, identified with the settlement project from its very inception.

I've tried hard to be objective, but my efforts to regard him dispassionately have failed, I simply don't like the man. The mere mention of his name or the sound of his voice brings me out in a rash. Whenever I see his name in print, I turn the page and dismiss him out of hand.

However, last week when I saw his article entitled "Peace is not a must," published in Yediot Ahronot curiosity got the better of me, so I read on and found myself agreeing with some of the things he wrote. Haetzni quotes from Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled, “Call White House, Ask for Barack” in which he surveys the sorry state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "Friedman" states Haetzni "came up with the insight that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are interested in a peace process, and that American pressure on both sides merely hinders them from getting along on their own for lack of any other choice.

Well, welcome to the club. After all, this is what the rightist camp has been warning of all along."

While Friedman despairs of the peace process Haetzni has rejected it.

Tom Friedman maintains, "The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left the realm of diplomacy. It is now more of a calisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen." I quoted similar remarks from the same article three weeks ago.

Why should I bother quoting the conclusions of one despairing American journalist?

Professor Zaki Shalom a research worker at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an independent Israeli think tank, believes Friedman's conclusions are significant, mainly because of his close ties with leading figures in the American administration, especially with Secretary of State Clinton. It's reasonable to suppose that Friedman's column reflects the current administration's prevailing mood.

"As a veteran columnist well versed in the intricacies of Middle Eastern and American arenas, Friedman knows full well that an American withdrawal from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is not realistic. American internal considerations, pressures from the Arab world, the European states, international organizations, and various peace movements obligate American involvement. The administration does not have a real option to withdraw, even if it wanted to. Friedman’s call to the administration to withdraw from the process, therefore, indicates rage and frustration among administration members in light of the present situation rather than a genuine proposal."

Zaki Shalom believes the public's lack of in interest in the peace process stems from the fact that since the security fence was erected Palestinian suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism, are a rare occurrence. In the past they motivated public interest in the peace process. Many people believe it's possible to suppress terrorist organisations without a political settlement.

In addition Israel has succeeded in creating a balance of deterrence vis-à-vis Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Over the past year the West Bank economy has improved, and it seems unlikely that the Palestinians will risk jeopardising this prosperity by embarking on another Intifada whose outcome, from their point of view, is liable to be disastrous.

Tony Blair often cites the Irish conflict as a case in point when he claims a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement is attainable. Over the past nine years negotiating teams have come tantalisingly close to reaching an agreement only to withdraw at the last moment. The Israeli parallel negotiating teams led by Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni were said to have been “only a hair's breadth" away from initialling an agreement. Well a miss is as good as a mile.

Elyakim Haetzni explains this near miss as an intrinsic Arab failing, namely the repeated inability to compromise on territory and the refugee question “Any Arab leader who attempts to do this will forfeit his life."

“I’ve grown so pessimistic about Israel-Palestine that I find myself agreeing with Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman:” complains Roger Cohen in his article ‘A Mideast Truce’ published two weeks ago in The New York Times. Cohen quotes Lieberman “Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions.”

Cohen adds “Israelis have walled themselves off from Palestinians. They are less interested than ever in a deal with people they hardly see.” ……

“The United States condoned the construction of this settlement-reinforcing barrier. It cannot be unmade — not for the foreseeable future. Peace and walls do not go together. But a truce and walls just may. And that, I must reluctantly conclude, is the best that can be hoped for.”

Roger Cohen advises President Obama “ratchet expectations downward. Stop talking about peace. Banish the word. Start talking about détente. That’s what Lieberman wants; that’s what Hamas says it wants; that’s the end point of Netanyahu’s evasions. It’s not what Abbas wants but he’s powerless.” Cohen quotes political scientist Shlomo Avineri, “A nonviolent status quo is far from satisfactory but it’s not bad. Cyprus is not bad.”

Cohen adds wistfully “I recall my friend Shlomo dreaming of peace. That’s over. The last decade destroyed the last illusions: hence the fence. The courageous have departed the Middle East. A peace of the brave must yield to a truce of the mediocre — at best.”

This week Prime Minister Netanyahu has been trying to enforce his construction freeze in the West Bank settlements. The settlement leadership is determined to oppose the freeze even if it means clashing with the government building inspectors serving the infringement notices.

Knowing that the settlement leadership doesn’t subscribe to the “Two State Solution,” observers beg the question – What do they want? The answer is simple and concise – “A One State Solution!”

A few weeks Carlo Strenger a psychology professor at Tel Aviv University, and a member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists noted that. “The continued failure of the Mideast peace process and the escalation of violence from the second intifada to the Gaza war have led many to think that the two-state solution is pedestrian, unimaginative and inhuman.
Many Palestinians and a small but vocal group of Jews back Edward Said's claim that a one-state solution with full right of return for all Palestinians must be endorsed. This, they say, would finally lead to absolute and full justice.”

Strenger quoted veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat who recently recycled Said’s one state solution.

”The Palestinians should give up seeking an independent state and pursue a single country in which they would enjoy equal rights with Israelis.”

Even the late Edward Said couldn’t claim patent rights for the idea of one state for two peoples.

The one state bogey doesn’t scare the settlers or anyone else who subscribes to the Greater Israel concept. They too support a one state solution citing the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs in Israel, and propose something similar in the West Bank. Of course they don’t want the Palestinian refugees, but who does?

In the meantime the argument is no more than an intellectual exercise. And until something better comes along we will continue to maintain a “ nonviolent status quo.”

Have a good weekend

Beni