The apparent breakdown
in the American-brokered Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is a good time
to re-evaluate basic assumptions of the diplomatic process.
Such an evaluation
inevitably leads to the conclusion that a comprehensive agreement to end
the conflict is not within easy reach. The Palestinians long ago took a
decision to reject the two-state solution as Israelis and most American
policymakers envision it.
The Palestinian state
that Israelis might be able to support in Judea, Samaria and Gaza cannot
threaten Israel's security -- meaning that it must be truly
demilitarized, cannot form hostile foreign alliances, will dismantle the
Hamas army and hand over its weaponry, agree to Israeli monitors on all
its external borders, and accept a permanent Israeli presence in the
Jordan Valley to prevent the emergence of another radical Islamic
bastion on Israel's eastern border. (Sinai-stan, Hama-stan,
Hezbollah-stan, and Syria-stan are already more than enough for Israel
to handle).
The Palestinian state
that Israelis might be able to support in Judea, Samaria and Gaza must
be also a reasonable neighbor and willing to compromise -- meaning that
will not contain any large Israeli settlement blocs, cannot control and
destroy Jerusalem, and must share its airspace, natural resources, and
historical and religious sites with Israel.
The Palestinian state
that Israelis can envision, if at all, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza has to
agree to a permanent end to the conflict and all claims on Israel --
meaning that it renounces the right of return, inculcates reconciliation
and not anti-Semitism on its airwaves and in its schools, and
recognizes Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
But the Palestinians
reject this vision. They view Israel's contours for a two-state solution
as a "sovereign cage." They are simply not interested in such a
solution. They do not crave a "statelet" on the 1967 borders (or less).
They certainly feel no urgency about achieving it. I have yet to meet or
hear from a Palestinian leader who is prepared to settle with Israel
along these lines, even if Israel hands over 100 percent of the West
Bank.
As the prominent
Palestinian advisor Professor Ahmad Khalidi has said: "The concept of
Palestinian statehood is nothing but a punitive construct devised by our
worst enemies -- the United States and Israel -- to constrain
Palestinian aspirations and territorial ambitions."
Or as Palestinian
Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear to U.S. President Barack Obama
last month, the Palestinian liberation movement will never recognize
Israel as a Jewish state or agree to forgo the so-called "right" of
refugee return. He wants his state, but without an end to the conflict.
He wants a state, rather, in order to continue the conflict.
In fact, there is no
internal Palestinian constituency whatsoever pressing Abbas to
compromise now and cut an end-of-conflict deal with Israel. Instead, the
Palestinians really think they can pressure Israel by recourse to
international institutions, in order to push Israel back from its red
lines.
Given this reality, and
given the Arab earthquakes that are destabilizing Israel's borders, it
is folly to shoot for an unattainable "historic" breakthrough in
Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy.
Rather, what is now
required are strong Israeli and international countermeasures against
the punch-drunk Palestinian leadership. Israel must act to knock some
realism into Palestinian thinking.
It is time to dial down Palestinian expectations and to roll back Palestinian maximalism.
Before any realistic
peacemaking might possibly emerge, Palestinian leadership must be
disabused of the notion that it can harm and coerce Israel by appealing
to international courts and tribunals.
Time is on Israel's side, as
Israel is the stronger party. Israel should flex a bit of muscle and
evince perseverance in this battle of wills.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario