Many observers, Arabs included, think that Israel has some legitimate security demands. But not all agree on the course adopted by successive Israeli governments, which only perpetuates the Israeli presence in the Palestinians territories.
A few days ago, David Brooks from the New York Times wrote, “Israel is caught in a tragic situation. It’s surrounded by an Arab world that is largely hostile to its existence. No Arab leader has enough legitimacy to make peace. It is in a region marked by failed states, decentered radical Islam and rampant turmoil.”
If one takes this characterization at face value, then he or she will not understand how to mitigate the situation and create the conditions for peace in the region. What escaped David Brooks is the fact that we had in the past three Arab leaders who tried to make peace amid similar political environment. President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan signed and upheld peace treaties with Israel. Arafat tried but he was not given enough to end the state of war between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Meanwhile, successive Israeli governments never put a cap on settlement activities thus sending a clear message to the Arabs that Israeli leaders have only been paying a lip service to the notion of the two-state solution.
Brooks points out to an interesting book written by a renowned Israeli journalist Ari Shavit of Haaretz. In his book, “My Promised Land,” Shavit writes, “If Israel does not retreat from the West Bank, it will be politically and morally doomed, but if it does retreat, it might face an Iranian-backed and Islamic Brotherhood-inspired West Bank regime whose missiles could endanger Israel’s security. The need to end occupation is greater than ever, but so are the risks.” According to David Brooks, this is a tragic situation with which the Israeli leaders should grapple.
There is one notion on the part of many American intellectuals and politicians that sums up the American official reading of the Arab-Israel conflict. Ideology aside, the vast majority of American politicians seem to be interested in only ensuring Israel’s security. The American administration position boils down to this vital issue. The problem with this simplistic notion is that it does not distinguish between the security and survival of Israel and the latter’s expansion at the expense of the Palestinians land.
Some American observers criticize the American approach to the peace process and indirectly blame the American naïve position for the perpetuation of the conflict. In his gripping book “The Much Too Promised Land,” Aaron David Miller accuses the American peace team of being “Israeli Lawyers.” Just for the record, Aaron David Miller was part of the very peace team he criticizes.
The point that Brooks and others should think of is that for Israel to enjoy peace, it should give up Palestinian land and allows the Palestinians to establish their own independent and viable state. Short of doing that, Israeli will always be caught in a tragic situation.
More often than not, the American presidents try to force the Palestinians to conform to Israeli positions. When they fail, they blame the Palestinian leaders. President Clinton just did that! But no American president reminds the Israeli that the root cause of the conflict is occupation and putting and end to the occupation is the prerequisite for lasting peace with the Palestinians. In fact, the ineffectiveness of the American administrations to pressure Israel has made it pretty difficult for moderate political forces in Israel to challenge the rightwing position that has dominated Israeli politics for almost 13 years. Worse, Israel may soon contend with a different tragic situation if the notion of two-state solution becomes impractical.
The logical conclusion of Ari Shavit’s book is different from what Brooks wants us to see. Shavit warns against the one-state solution in which Israeli will lose its demographic superiority in a decade to come. In this case, a bi-national Greater Israel will lose its Jewish character. For Zionists, this will be an anathema that should be fought tooth and nail. To avoid this grim scenario, Israel is better off to take the risk of peace. In his memoires published in 1979, Rabin wrote, “There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the risks of peace are preferable by far to the grim certainties that await every nation in war.”