The Obama administration’s resolute focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue has generated a wave of predictions of an imminent end to the conflict. President Obama himself foresees a solution by the end of his first term and talks of setting a deadline. Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad says the job can be done in two years, while Quartet representative Tony Blair says one year. European Union foreign and security affairs coordinator Javier Solana wants the United Nations to set the deadline.
As a veteran campaigner for a two-state solution, I would like to be so optimistic. But I’m not. Ratcheting up expectations with no basis in on-the-ground realities could quickly generate not hope but anger, frustration and violence.
Here are five reasons why a more cautious approach is advisable:
First, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is apparently unable to bite the bullet and accept a reasonable agreement. His blatant rejection of former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s best offer nearly a year ago is shocking and discouraging.
According to Abbas himself, Olmert offered him territory equal to 100% of the West Bank with land swaps and a vital Gaza-West Bank land passage, Israeli recognition of the Palestinian “right of return” in principle and the actual repatriation of a small number of 1948 refugees, and an international consortium with an Arab majority to manage the Jerusalem Holy Basin (the Old City, City of David and Mount of Olives). Yet Abbas declared: “The gaps were too big.” But that was as generous an offer as any he’ll get. (Olmert, incidentally, denies he recognized the right of return but otherwise confirms Abbas’s description.)
Second, Israel’s electoral and coalition system would not enable any prime minister to deliver political approval for the kind of deal Olmert offered Abbas. Because of the settlers and their supporters, the Palestinian issue has brought down nearly every Israeli ruling coalition for the past 20 years. Its interaction with Israeli politics is poisonous.
Third, current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to demonstrate that he means it when he talks about a two-state solution. Netanyahu’s demand that an agreement include Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state may be an understandable reaction to the delegitimization of Israel implied by Palestinian insistence on the right of return and exclusive ownership of the Temple Mount. But it’s also as much of a deal-breaker as the Palestinians’ right of return demand. And an Israeli leader who simultaneously demands recognition of a Jewish state yet insists on building settlements that undermine the country’s Jewish nature is not a candidate for a peace process.
Fourth, the reality is that we are dealing with not two but three states or potential states — Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The Fatah-Hamas gap damns the peace process any way you look at it. If current attempts, backed by Washington and Cairo, to reunite the West Bank and Gaza succeed, they would be liable to yield a more extreme Palestinian negotiating line or even an elected Hamas leadership in the West Bank as well as Gaza. More likely, the deep chasm separating Islamists and nationalists will continue to paralyze Palestinian politics for the foreseeable future.
Finally, the Arab states that Obama seeks to integrate into American-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts are weak and in disarray. The Arab state system is not functioning well: Fully six out of 22 members of the Arab League are hopelessly conflicted internally (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen), while the traditional leaders of the Arab world, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are not pulling their weight. One very key Arab state, Syria, is an ally of Iran, the enemy of most of the rest of the Arab states. To expect the Arab League to somehow bolster and moderate the Palestinians in a peace deal — and with Netanyahu! — is like casting your bread upon the receding waters of the Sea of Galilee.
This is not an attempt to discourage Obama from pushing — or even bullying — both sides. But he should be realistic. The most we can hope for in the near term between Israel and the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank is an agreed delineation of their border as part of some sort of renewed armistice line, along with the beginning of a gradual Israeli pullout from additional parts of the West Bank, based on Palestinian security and governance-building accomplishments. That would at least stop settlement spread and give Palestinians hope. Resolving the 1948 refugee issue and the status of Jerusalem’s Holy Basin — in other words, reconciling the two peoples’ totally contradictory national narratives — may have to be left for future generations. An end-of-conflict, end-of-claims agreement is not within reach.
Meanwhile, an Israel-Syria deal beckons. It is also difficult and uncertain, but nevertheless far more achievable. Netanyahu’s posturing here is not as hard-line as on the Palestinian issue. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appears to understand what is being asked of him: not only peace with Israel, however cold, but distancing Syria from Iran, sealing its border with Iraq and cutting off Hezbollah and Hamas, thereby strengthening Abbas and the P.A. The payoff for Israel and America of a successful Syria-Israel process is thus of regional strategic proportions. It’s worth an all-out effort.
Yossi Alpher is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. He currently co-edits the bitterlemons.org family of Internet publications.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
The Mirror in the Mikveh
If Rabbis Are Allowed To Intermarry, Get Ready for the Non-Jewish Rabbi
Top 10 Badass Mah Jongg Jews
Auschwitz Museum 'May Not Reflect Real Facts' Says Hungarian Lawmaker
You've successfully signed up!
Peace may be closer than you think. Peace is the path, not the goal. Leaders of the Arab world and beyond have been standing up en mass, calling for peace and unity, and calling for others to join them. Which is why so many have. There is more, just last week, Hamas very quietly announced a strategic shift from rockets to 'Public Relations'. By "very quietly", I mean that the western media mostly ignored them. It's really not surprising. For some people, "peace" is a very bad day in the stock market. For the settlers it's an end to the Zionist dream of a "Greater Israel". The world looks on with curiosity.
If Alpher is correct, then the only conclusion that can be reached is that Solana is right about how to produce a near-term peace and protect the Israeli and Palestinian children. There was a second part to Solana’s proposal. He proposed that if the parties fail to reach an agreement by date certain, then the U.N. should dictate the terms of the peace. This can work if the members of the Security Council can reach agreement and if they are willing to station troops charged with using all necessary force to prevent violation of the dictated peace.
We will never accept the zionist theft of Palestine. Just as we drove out Cusader kingdoms with Saladin, a modern Saladin will arise from somewhere and kick you real estate agents back to Europe. Obama and Alpher think in terms of years, we think in terms of centuries. A thousand years may pass, and in that time only scholars will remember who Obama was, but we will continue to fight for justice for Palestine
And what did you achieve RK when you threw out the Crusader Kingdoms? The Crusaders actually created a very prosperous country in the Holy Land, not unlike the present day Medinat Yisrael. When Acre fell in 1291, your ancestors basically "Zimbabwized" Palestine. The Second Rhodesia in the Holy Land,the State of Israel will, Inshallah, be here for thousands of years to come.
We acheived a lot when we thru out the Cruaders-we had the glorious Mameluke caliphate, followed by 400 years of Ottoman empire. Ill grant you one thing Spphardiamn, Israel is like a Crusader kingdom, but unlike the Curaders, we allowed Jews to live and didnt burn synagogues. You will see that we really are the owners of Palestine and Andalus
I'm sorry RK you are the owners of nothing. You won't retake Medinat Yisrael nor will your incursions into Europe be tolerated any further. If you noticed, the BNP and PVV are now represented in the European Parliament. Charles Martel is back.
Raed Kami,
Do you think that Solana should be guided by your desire to retake Spain (Andalus).
I advise you to live for Palestine, not to die for it.
I was honored to have Yossi Alpher as a colleague when I was Director of National Affairs (US domestic policy concerns) at the American Jewish Committee. He's a brilliant and good man, and though I often disagree with him -- more often tactically than strategically -- this excellent piece is an example of his cool-headed, consistently thoughtful, well-grounded analysis. It's important to stress, as Yossi Alpher does, that preposterously optimistic expectations are not only misplaced but become, themselves, impediments to any movement towards peace. (Whether any peace is ever truly achievable is perhaps our biggest disagreement.) In that vein, the one area where I can't accept Yossi's analysis is his assertion that Netanyahu's demand that the Arabs accept Israel as a "Jewish state" is a deal-breaker. If it is, then it smokes out true Arab intentions and no peace will ever come. That, I fear, is most likely. But there are worse things than a state of war: abject surrender is one of them.
Islam - the religion of the Ishmaelites - will never accept a non-Islamic state anywhere, particularly in what they call "Palestine." If the League of Nations Mandating of a Jewish National Home in 1920 was unacceptable to the Arabs, and if the 2/3rds vote by the UN General Assembly in 1947 for a Jewish STATE only lead to the Arab attack of 1948, then it is ludicrous to believe that the Arabs will ever accept the right of a Jewish state to live in peace in their midst. And why should they? What have the Arabs to gain by accepting it? Getting their leaders assassinated? Even Sadat only came to accept the premise of a peace treaty with Israel only after his '73 military gambit failed and finally had no other choice but to conclude that his only hope for regaining the Sinai would be to make peace. But would the Saudis gain? Or the Algerians? Or the Iraqis or the Iranians? They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by accepting a Jewish state. The best that can be hoped for is managing this conflict forever, and keeping Israel strong enough to make an Arab takeover nothing more than an unattainable dream. Only radically reforming Islam can offer even the glimmer of hope. Either that, or the coming of the Messiah.
Mr. Yossi Alpher, who describes himself as "a veteran campaigner for a two-state solution", believes that progress toward a two-state solution will likely be slow for the reasons cited in his article.
It seems to me that Mr. Alpher's cautious projection for success of a two-state solution is too optimistic. Based on the electoral success of Hamas (which regards control of any part of "Palestine" by Israel to be unacceptable), a two-state solution (in which Israel vacates all territory obtained following the final armistace in 1949) may ultimately be unacceptable to Palestinians.
If a state run by Palestinians is unacceptable to Israel, perhaps Israel should explore the idea of a "three-state solution" in which Israel would cede the West Bank (exact borders to be negotiated) to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. In return, Jordan would grant full citizenship to the residents of the West Bank and Egypt would grant full citizenship to the residents of the Gaza Strip.
The main advantages of a three-state solution for Palestinians include citizenship in established Arab countries and escape from the frequently inept and corrupt Palestinian government. The main advantage to Israel would be dilution of the Palestinian call for elimination of the state of Israel in the larger voice of Arab countries which already have peace treaties with Israel.
The main disadvantage of a three-state solution for Israel would be the surrender of historic Jewish land and the need to remove (at least) the smaller Jewish settlements that dot the West Bank territory. The main disadvantages from the Arab viewpoint is that Egypt and Jordan would likely be unwilling to accept responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and that substantial funding from petroleum-rich Arab countries would likely be required to enable Jordan and Egypt to absorb approximately 4 million Palestinians.
From my point of view, a three-state solution potentially offers a good division of advantages and disadvantages to the parties to the conflict. Moreover, it would bypass the problem of Israeli recogntion of a Palestinian state and the problem of the Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel. Accordingly, I believe that a "three-state solution" ultimately would be superior to a "two-state" solution.
Martin J. Goodman
Our goal: Justice and mercy and faith.
Isaiah 2. many people shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the G-D of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths." For out of Zioon shall go forth the law, And the word of the OLRD form Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.
Remember, mankind, For the words of the holy Law spoken here below ascend on high, where multitudes come to meet them to take them up and present them before the Holy King, there to be adorned with many crowns woven of the supernal radiances. All these words, then are self-spoken, as it were, before the Most High King. Whoever saw such joy, whoever witnessed such praises, as mount up into all those heavens at the moment those words ascend, whilst the Holy King looks on them and crowns Himself with them! They spring up and down, they settle, as it were, on His bosom for Him to disport Himself with them, whence they ascend toward His head and are woven there into a crown. hence the words spoken by the Torah: "and I would be playing always before him" (Proverbs 8) In the verse cited there is twice mention of "them that fear the LORD"; the first indicates the mankind themselves as they are here below.
Sephardiman, thank G-D for you son. May your son, not learn your taste for words, to your fellow man. May he be blessed with truth and wisdom in the hidden part. read Psalm 51
To Joel Levitt, Steven Steinlight, Raed Kami: I do not include Hoveland as he sells Arab propaganda, never changing his story regardless of the truths on the ground. His summation are without sense or realities. To the above I say get with the real politic and the truth on the ground. Your analysis is that of academics who never really see what is real but what they dream as true. The main issue that has changed since Israel after 1967 is that the undying support for US Presidents that has existed till now has vanished. The general population is very disturbed and angry at the Policies of Obama and State. Without the support of Israel's population there can be no peace, and there will be none. In the past it has been the Arab intransegence against any reasonable peace ovature that has symied things. Today it is Israels feeling toward a peace that has evaporated.
Instead of the Policy adopted by the US to destroy Netanyahu and regain a Left Goverment it has strengthed the populace towards the Settlers and now most Israelies who previously thought the settlers were a thorn to peace now stand solidly behind them. No Israeli Government can stand that abandons them now. So the naive stupid policy of the US to abandon Israel in the hope of ingratiating themselves with the Arabs has failed miserably. They have alinated Israel and the Arabs are just as vehemently anti US as they ever were. In fact, most of US Foeign policy is in a shambles. There outreach to Iran has proved a joke to the middle east. There response to NK was whimpy and futile, and all the negotiations failed to stop NK from developing a WMD. Netanyahu is using the stragy of the Arabs. Talk, Talk, keep building. Things will certainly change if the Israelies stand tall and hold out. Lots of pressure but they have withstood that before and survived.
As Obamas support dwindle, and his policies come under more and more attack, so will the US reevaluate their failed diplomacy. At the moment the US is not ready or willing for another War so Iran gets a pass from them. Israel on the other hand has an exestential problem with Iran, and with this Gov in power, will sooner then later have to attack Irans Nuclear facilities in order to remain a soverign country.
Tis better to suffer a traditional attack and survive then face a Nuclear Attack that will desroy them. As for their competency to do this they have many more weapons then the IAF to destroy Natanze and the many other instalations. They may have to use tactical Nukes to destroy these facilities and make them unusable for hundreds of years. There destructive power will be limited somewhat to the target area.
So much for Peace in the Middle East. I am a born American, Veteran of WW II, and I love the land I live in. I also love the land of Israel and prey for its survival. It is the Jewish Homeland and the saftey valve against any future Holacaust.
Ms. Chartier-It's interesting in that the "Franks" & "Alans" have been busy castigating me for my support of President Obama's Mid-East peace overtures. RK, sadly enough, is just another hotheaded Jihadist, who needs to be put in his place. Medinat Yisrael is the Resheet Simchatgeulatanu and if Islamic extremists and their fellow travellers have a problem with that, well then my most sincere condolences. The Jewish State is here to stay.
When I read an article in the New York Times that narrates the expulsion of two Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. Apparently, ownership of the property has been indispute over many years, with Palestinians having been ceded the land by Jordan prior to the '67 war. The '67 was broke out before the property had been formally registered in the tenants' names. Claiming ownership based on Ottoman time deeds (!),Jewish nationalists took over the property.
I have no sympathy for the Palestinian militants who kill innocent Israelis, but also have no love for the zealotry and arrogance of the Israeli extremists. I agree that a viable solution for a peace agreement is receding with the Netanyahu government, much as we may yearn for it, Americans, Israelies, and Palestinians alike. No amount of heartbreak, tragedy and misery on both sides has been sufficient to break the imnpasse. Why should it now?
editing correction to first sentence of comment. End of first sentence should read, my heart breaks.
Corrected Text
Stephen Steinlight: You wrote: “I can't accept Yossi's … assertion that Netanyahu's demand that the Arabs accept Israel as a "Jewish state" is a deal-breaker.” As Netanyahu well knows, accepting Israel as a "Jewish state" is implicitly accepting second class status for Israeli Arab citizens, since Israel has spent the last more than 30 years ignoring its declaration of independence and its Basic Law and treating its Arab citizens in just the unacceptable way that the Palestinians expect. If Israel abandons its illegal discriminatory behavior, then the Palestinians’ expectations will change.
jgarbuz: You wrote that “[Since] … the League of Nations Mandating of a Jewish National Home in 1920 was unacceptable to the Arabs and … the 2/3rds vote by the UN General Assembly in 1947 for a Jewish STATE only led to the Arab attack of 1948, then it is ludicrous to believe that the Arabs will ever accept the right of a Jewish state to live in peace in their midst.” and you wrote: “…why should they? What have the Arabs to gain by accepting it?”
1948 was 61 bitter years ago, and the Palestinians are today just as concerned with the immediate future of their children as we Jews are concerned with the future of ours. So it is not surprising that the center of gravity of Palestinian opinion has evolved to support for finding some modus vivendi with Israel.
The results of the careful surveys of Israeli and Palestinian opinion which have been produced by the cooperative work of the Truman Institute of the Hebrew University and the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research are informative. The majorities of both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe that conditions in their areas of residence are bad. The late May through early June survey polled 528 Israelis and 1270 Palestinians (living in the West Bank and in Gaza). Of the Israelis polled, the opinions of 75% of the respondents as to conditions in Israel ranged from “So-So” to “Very Bad,” the opinions 86.9% of Gazan Palestinian respondents as to conditions in Gaza ranged from “So-So” to “Very Bad,” and the opinions of 64.8% of the West Bank Palestinian respondents as to conditions in the West Bank also ranged from “So-So” to “Very Bad.”
The majorities of both peoples think that the solution of their current problems is a negotiated two-states-for-two-peoples peace (63.2% of the Israelis and 60.8% of the Palestinians concurring). But, the majorities, 61.3% of the Israeli respondents and 69.2% of the Palestinian respondents, believe that the chance of a successful negotiation within 5 years is “Low” to “Nonexistent.” What is the cause of this pessimism? Fear! 6o.5% of the Israeli respondents are worried that they or members of their families could be hurt by Arabs, and 44.7% of the Palestinian respondents are worried that they or members of their families could be hurt by Israel.
Given believable assurances from the international community, only the small religious factions, the ardent supporters of Gush Emunim and of Hamas, will try to subvert an agreed peace, and such attempts will be suppressed by the rest of their societies.