A few weeks back I suggested a somewhat tongue-in-cheek solution to the long-standing quagmire involving Israel and Palestine. Wouldn’t you know it, I caught flak from both camps. Some who responded were put off by my suggestion that the problem lay in Israel’s occupation of land that is not theirs, but they claimed that my criticism was ill-founded because Israel is continually being assaulted by rocket fire, and so has a perfect right to defend itself. Clearly Israel exists in a part of the world that is hostile to its presence. Others who responded took exception to my suggestion that equal blame lay on Palestinian rockets, but insisted that these very small devices caused little, if any, damage and were only a modest reaction to Israel’s bombardment from sea and air resulting in the slaughter of two thousand Palestinians, including hundreds of children.
Since I offered that column a month ago, I have being doing considerable reading and study of this issue and have come to a somewhat different set of conclusions. They boil down to what I think may be the ultimate question: which side really wants a two state solution, and is willing to take the steps that would make that solution possible?
It seems clear to me that the central problem, which prohibits any resolution, lies in Israel’s illegal occupation of significant portions of the west bank. The United Nations thinks so, as does the United States, no matter which party has controlled the Administration. Every time anyone suggests that this is the core of the problem, Israel takes over more territory and builds more settlements. Just two weeks ago the Israeli government announced that it was seizing an additional 900 acres for another massive settlement. A substantial minority within Israel, backed up by American evangelicals, believes that every acre from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean rightly belongs to Israel. Netanyahu has hinted that he and his party also hold that opinion. It is why Israel consistently refuses to define its own borders. Once they declare just what they believe to be their legal territory, they can longer claim what is not within that perimeter.The implication is that there can never be a two state solution, but only one state only for Jews only , and the non-Jews who were exiled would never be welcomed back. The Palestinian Authority has recognize Israel’s right to exist ever since the Oslo accords, but insists that Israel grant the right of return to non-Jewish former citizens.
No one could untie the Gordian knot and Alexander the Great, so the story goes, simply took his sword and cut it down. For generations the world has tried unsuccessfully to untie the knot which is the dilemma of the “holy land”. It is doubtful that will happen any time in the future. But what if in exchange for other land, Israel abandons the settlements and agrees to defined borders thus creating a two state reality? That is what the Palestinians have wanted for decades. If that were to happen, the conditions set down at Oslo, the resolutions of the United Nations and the position of the American government would be met. Hamas would be immediately discredited, and would lose all support for its overt belligerency.
What prohibits that scenario from taking place? It is not at all clear that Israel—or at least powerful forces within Israel—really wants a two state solution, but are committed to occupying the whole territory. What might convince Israel to accept the reality of two nations side by side? The loss of the military and financial support which continues to flow from the United States would do it. The possibilities for this to happen are remote as long as AIPAC—The American Israel Public Affairs Committee— controls enough members of Congress to prevent it. So when you get right down to it, the solution lies right in our own back yard.
Charles Bayer
No comments:
Post a Comment