"The Conflict" is a good provider. It gives sustenance to a multitude of think-tanks, university faculties and research institutes. Many, analysts, commentators and journalists depend on it for their livelihood. So why bother to end it?
Cynicism aside, it seems we are getting nowhere. All the routes and road maps are leading us to a virtual cul de sac . It's no wonder some observers say the time has come to consider a different approach
Author, journalist and TV compere Yair Lapid believes the Conflict is here to stay. Well maybe this revelation is not groundbreaking news. He is not the first person to advocate that we learn to live with it.
When he was interviewed recently on a Channel 2 TV programme, National Security Adviser Uzi Arad said that an interim agreement with the Palestinians cannot be ruled out.
"It is unclear whether we have a partner for a permanent agreement," said Arad,
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon claims it is time for Israel to write off attempts to reach a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians and instead seek a long-term interim agreement. Ayalon's comments echoed statements made by Israel Beiteinu leader, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman during a speech to the UN General Assembly at the end of September.
New York Times' Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner observed that the United States is far more interested in getting peace talks under way than the two sides involved in the conflict:
"In many ways, the United States feels a greater urgency and drive for the peace talks than do the Palestinians and Israelis themselves. Here, neither side believes the other is serious about real compromise and each actively cultivates a sense of historic victimisation. Washington, by contrast, deeply believes that ending this conflict is the key to unlocking its own regional strategic dilemmas."
The construction freeze, originally proposed by President Obama has only served to complicate matters and delay the negotiations. Last year Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas negotiated without a construction freeze. Some say they were only a hair's breadth away from achieving an agreement. Nevertheless, a miss is as good as a mile.
Now the US is proposing a new deal. The Economist explains it using its inimitable economy of words, “Israel will agree to a 90-day re-freeze in return for a generous package of military and diplomatic goodies from America. These include an additional 20 F-35 stealth fighters, worth $3 billion, to be added at America's expense to the original 20 ordered by Israel. America has pledged, too, to stiffen its backing for Israel at the United Nations and to work for tougher international economic sanctions against Iran.
What happens on the 91st day? The Americans are committed not to seek another extension. They say that they hope that by then the two parties will have agreed on the borders of the future Palestinian state, so that further argument over the settlements will be unnecessary. “
In another lead article The Economist describes what it believes the nature of the prime minister’s ideological dilemma - “When Mr Netanyahu tries to make his coalition partners agree to a freeze by using imprecise wording, he wants to defer the day when this fundamental ideological conflict in his cabinet is laid bare, between pragmatists who are reconciled to an independent Palestine and the ideologues who still want a Greater Israel. He also means to defer the day when he must himself decide which camp he belongs to.”
So far Netanyahu hasn’t managed to gain the support of his unruly coalition government for proposed package deal.
Lapid ignores the American proposal and explains where we went wrong in our dealings with the Palestinians. Instead he examines Israel's left and right wing parties' mistaken assumptions. Taking the Left to task for its naïveté he claims the Palestinians show little enthusiasm for the peace process. First and foremost they want to achieve their national and religious aspirations. They are less concerned about building a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In fact they would prefer to build it on the ruins of the Jewish state.
"The unpleasant truth is that they don’t want us here; they wouldn't want us here even if they stood to gain from our presence."
In his criticism of the Israeli right wing parties Lapid says, "The Right is wrong because in the 21st Century national struggles cannot end in victory or defeat, for the simple reason that they cannot end at all. The old, conservative and absolute world where the winner takes all has gone.
Today every minor flare-up is recorded electronically and relayed live-time to millions of viewers all over the world.
The Right’s mistake is especially grave because it refuses to understand that we live in an era where the weak party has no less power than the stronger adversary. The media and global terrorism – two forces that feed each other – changed the rules of the game. The harder we hit the Palestinians, the stronger they become and the support for them grows."
The commonly expressed opinion held by some of our right-wing politicians that Israel can ignore Washington, the notion that we can go it alone, annoys Lapid. "The idea that if need be we can manage without US patronage is no more than empty arrogance. Six months without the Americans will turn the Middle East’s strongest army into a warehouse of rusty spare parts.
None of these facts is especially pleasant, and its only natural that we prefer to turn a blind eye to unpleasant facts, and especially ones that contradict our worldview. The Left’s tendency to disregard the true nature of the Palestinian struggle and its real motives is reckless. Likewise, the Right's irresponsible tendency to disregard the fact that perpetuating the existing situation would lead to the demise of the Jewish state."
Well, says Lapid it's time to face reality.
"Both sides, each for its own reasons, insist on ignoring the fact that the conflict is here to stay. It has no absolute solution – neither through peace nor through war. The Palestinians are not about to disappear, as the Right hopes, and they won't turn into easy-to-live-with Scandinavians, as the Left hopes. The only thing we can do – and must do – is to find a way to manage the conflict as best we can."
Therefore, says Lapid it's time to separate the question of establishing a Palestinian state from the question of peace.
He says Israel must work towards the establishment of a Palestinian state not because it would bring peace, but rather, because it would be much easier to manage the conflict vis-à-vis such state.
The establishment of a Palestinian state would take the world off our backs, curb the process of turning us into a pariah state, enable us to maintain our security with fewer restraints, lift the burden of controlling three million Palestinians, and enable us to manage the negotiations on our final-status borders and the settlements’ future with the Palestinians, rather than negotiating with ourselves.
In Lapid's scenario the problem of the settlers in the West Bank/Judea & Samaria is resolved as follows:
"Instead of being the disruptive element, the settlers will turn into what they really are: Israeli citizens whom someone wants to expel from their homes."
Furthermore, he says we should call the Palestinians’ bluff:
"Twice in the past the Palestinians threatened to declare a state unilaterally, and twice we responded as if we were bitten by a snake. Instead, had Israel said 'please inform us of the ceremony’s date and we’ll be the first state in the world to send an ambassador to Ramallah,' what would have happened?
In practical terms, very little would have happened. As it is, the Palestinian Authority has a flag, weapons for security purposes and the right to manage its affairs across Areas A and B of the West Bank. If they wish to call this area 'Palestine' they can do so.
In diplomatic terms, the Palestinians would shift at once from being the world’s victimised child to being a state – another state – that has a border conflict with one of its neighbours. Similar conflicts exist in many countries, and they are all equally boring. With their very declaration of statehood they would lose their main weapon – the fact that they are being perceived as the victim.”
Lapid admits that the disadvantage of his proposal is that it would deprive us of a genuine peace, “but we don’t have genuine peace now either. It’s also true that terrorism won’t disappear, yet terror won’t disappear whether we secure an agreement or not. There will always be enough madmen here who will want to ignite the region, yet if a Palestinian state is established, it would have to take responsibility for its own madmen at least. Should it fail to restrain them, no Goldstone would be able to complain should the IDF respond in full force.”
Since Yair Lapid published his article in Yediot Ahronot last week the news media and the public have either ignored it or dismissed it as a test balloon flown in advance of launching a campaign to enter politics.
Have a good weekend
Beni 25th of November, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment