Jews in Palestine: Why Not?

The Milwaukee chapter of Americans for Peace Now (APN) sponsored a program at UWM on March 9 featuring Ghaith Al-Omari, former security advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, and Steve Masters, President of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom. Most of the audience was Jewish, including a former Israeli, but there were also a few Muslims and Christians present.

The speakers urged American Jews to support the current negotiations between Abbas and Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert . Mr Al-Omari outlined a proposed two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, similar to the offer that Yassir Arafat rejected in 2000. To his credit, he asserted unequivocally that there would be no "Right of Return" of Arabs to Israel (1). The discussion following the formal presentation was very amiable until I asked this provocative question:

"Mr Al-Omari, over a million Arabs live in Israel, and they are not considered an obstacle to peace. Why, then, do Palestinians insist that every Jewish settler leave the West Bank before a Palestinian state can be set up there? Why must the area be Judenrein?" (2)

The Arab spokesman bristled at the reference to "Judenrein". He insisted that the issue is not religion, but citizenship. "The settlers are Israeli citizens---that is the problem! Jews could apply to immigrate to Palestine (after independence) and they could be admitted on a case-by-case basis."

"But why couldn't the settlers become Palestinian citizens, and be governed by the same laws as everyone else?" I inquired.

"Because there would be attacks on the settlements, and maybe the settlers would attack the Palestinians. Every time the idea was discussed,it was shot down. Even the Israeli negotiators shot it down!" Al-Omari replied.

The Palestinian speaker admitted that the proposed state could not (or would not) protect Israeli settlers from terrorists. ( If he is really afraid that the settlers would harm Palestinians, he should be glad that the Israeli Army is there now to stop them, but he is not. ) In Al-Omari's view, there should be no "path to citizenship" in Palestine for Israelis now living in the West Bank.

There are about 250,000 Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; many younger residents were born there, some older ones have lived there up to forty years. The idea that these people would leave their homes and fields to seek housing in Israel (or elsewhere) is a "poison pill" for the peace-talks. Expelling a just few thousand settlers from Gaza in 2005 was a painful process, and the consequences have not been encouraging. Imagine dragging a quarter of a million from their homes!

APN and Brit Tzedek believe that Israelis and Palestinians can and should work together for a peaceful resolution to the ongoing crisis. They say that both sides should sacrifice for peace. But the plea is deceptively symmetric: Israel is asked to give up land that it has; the Arabs are asked to give up only demands for what they do not have, such as the "Right of Return." If even the most moderate of Palestinians, such as Ghaith Al-Omari, are adamant that no Jewish settlements should be permitted in the proposed State of Palestine, then how can Israelis trust their Arab neighbors to enforce a peace treaty? Will they stand up to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and tell them that absolutely no terrorism against Israel will be tolerated?

Many countries have either become independent or undergone fundamental political change in the past few decades: Lithuania, Serbia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), to name a few. All of these nations have included sizeable ethnic minorities . Those that have become true civil societies have accorded citizenship and equal rights to the minorities; those that have chosen the path of "ethnic cleansing" are justly reviled for their actions.

If the proposed State of Palestine is to become a civil society, it should accept all persons living on its territory at the time of its inception as full citizens. Dual citizenship should be permitted. All should enjoy "equal protection of the laws." Jews who would not feel safe under Palestinian rule could leave, but neither the Government of Israel nor that of Palestine should evict them.

But will the ongoing negotiations lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state at all? As noted in our January 1 Glazerbeam ("Dr No"), I do not believe that President Abbas has any intention of making the kind of concessions that would be necessary to achieve an agreement. Moreover, his term as President of Palestine expires in 2010, and he has already declined to seek another term. By that time, US President George W Bush, the prime mover behind the current talks, will also be out of office. I do not know who will succeed Abbas (if he actually completes his term), but my guess is that the next leader will not be more conciliatory toward Israel.

Though the Fatah leadership in Ramallah apparently does not realize it yet, Gaza has effectively withdrawn from the Palestine Authority and is waging its own war against Israel. If only a "peace now" movement would take hold there!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) It is a lot easier to forego this "Right" in Milwaukee than it would be in Ramallah. Last I heard, the Palestine Authority is still advocating it, though perhaps only to trade it for some other concession.

(2) German for "Free of Jews", a Nazi term.

Abbas: The New "Dr No?"

"Palestinian violence could make it difficult for Abbas
to concentrate on talks with Israel."
Associated Press, January 1, 2008

Fighting in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas forces this week has killed four Arabs and wounded another 60. Next week President George W Bush is scheduled to visit the area to talk-up his Annapolis initiative for re-starting negotiations about establishing a Palestinian state. I can save him the energy (both personal and jet-fuel) by informing him right now that the peace-talks are already doomed, and there will be no Palestinian state during his term of office.

A dispute between parties I will call A and B can be settled only if both parties view a settlement as an improvement over the current situation. The classic case is that of a labor strike: the workers will be better off earning a paycheck , and the employer will be better off if the firm is again producing goods for the market. But what if one party, say A, is actually better off without a settlement?

One possibility is that A will refuse to negotiate at all. This is the position of Hamas, which openly rejects any settlement with party B: Israel. But what if A seeks favorable treatment from a third party C, which is pushing for a settlement to the dispute? Then A will likely enter negotiations to impress C, but constantly make outrageous demands which B is certain to reject, thus creating the impression that it is really B that is wrecking the negotiations.

In 2000 C stood for Clinton, who (like George W Bush) spent his final year in the presidency trying to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. Then A stood for Arafat, who rejected a very generous offer to establish a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and about 97% of the West Bank, including limited sovereignty in Jerusalem. But Arafat demanded the Right of Return (of Arab refugees to Israel), a known deal-killer, and walked out when it was refused. Arafat returned to the comfortable scenario of "armed struggle" (terrorism) against Israel, which he apparently preferred to a settlement that would have created a Palestinian state in his lifetime,

Mahmoud Abbas (the new A), a technocrat with none of Yasser Arafat's popularity or ability to dominate all Palestinian factions, is now called upon to reach the kind of settlement that his predecessor rejected nearly eight years ago. Unlike Arafat, Abbas is contending with a challenge from the militant Hamas movement that controls Gaza and also threatens Fatah rule in the West Bank.

The only force in the world that could have stopped Hamas from seizing control of Gaza in 2006 was the Israeli Army. Since all Jews had been removed from Gaza by then, Israel did not "have a dog in that fight" and did nothing. (1)

Fatah is known to be stronger in the West Bank than it was in Gaza, but the prospect of a Hamas revolt in the former area would still be a nightmare for Abbas and his followers. Right now that is impossible because the Israeli Army would crush Hamas. But if Israel withdrew from the West Bank and recognized an independent Palestinian state there, Abbas and Fatah would be on their own. Defeat by Hamas would not only cost these men their jobs, but also their lives! In contrast, Israeli occupation, with all the humiliating checkpoints, does not look so bad, after all.

The mortal combat in Gaza this past week underscores the need for Israel to remain in control of the West Bank for the foreseeable future: not only for the protection of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers living there, but also for the sake of Fatah and Abbas. Paradoxically, a movement launched to destroy Israel (in 1964) now depends upon Israel for its own survival. Stranger things have happened, especially in the Middle East.

And so, Mr President, there will be long and laborious negotiations, but no settlement and no Palestinian state any time soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Constant rocket attacks from Gaza have been met with Israeli airstrikes and brief incursions into northern Gaza. Apparently,the present Government of Israel does not consider the rockets a serious enough threat to warrant re-occupation of the areas from which they are launched.