By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM—What has Israel contributed to the impasse in the peace process, and to the suffering of Palestinians?
That is a question several have asked me, often with a follow up charging that I have not responded.
I have responded, more than once. Those convinced of Israeli culpability either have not understood my English, or they are not satisfied with my explanations. When I do not list the severe errors that they hold dear, they accuse me of evading the question.
Israelis have made no shortage of accusations against their own government for “missing opportunities.” Usually this means not offering enough, or not taking advantage of the possibilities of Palestinian receptivity with a generous offer.
No doubt Israel has not made its offers attractive enough. The question is, could Israel have offered enough to satisfy Palestinians and other Arabs, and lessened restrictions on the West Bank and Gaza, without endangering its own security?
Could it have gone after the really bad people, and allowed other Palestinians freedom of movement, including opportunities to work in Israel?
To those questions there is no absolute yes or no.
Moreover, it is overly simple to discuss “Israel” as a policymaking entity, just as it is overly simple to discuss “The United States” or any other democracy.
Democracies have dominant policymakers, but those individuals cannot overlook the pressures received from domestic allies and antagonists, the constraints of economics and international politics. Israel’s political spectrum is wide and boisterous, with demands for spending more on social services or doing more to pursue peace with the neighbors. There are religious Jews more concerned with observing the Sabbath than anything else, intense religious nationalists who feel they have a deed from the Almighty for the whole of Eretz Israel, and young couples, with or without a religious motivation, who want the best housing they can acquire for the least money.
One result of all these pressures is about 500,000 Israeli Jews living on land that Palestinians claim as their own. For numerous Palestinians, all Israelis are living on Palestinian land.
There may have been missed opportunities since the crucial events of 1948 and than 1967, but they have not been obvious.
Israeli policymakers have generally not moved any more heroically or decisively than policymakers in other democracies. Israel has limped along following what its officials perceived as opportunities and constraints, rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the present and future, then an assiduous pursuit of a rational strategy. Over the years settlers have demanded construction, suburbanites have demanded homes on cheap land, Palestinians have not come forward with attractive offers, and inertia has done its work. Politicians typically do what is easiest, not what one or another group of deep thinkers with controversial ideas claim is wisest.
Occasionally there is an heroic moment in politics, but often they end badly. Remember John Kennedy ordering an escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, and George W. Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan with aspirations to make them stable democracies?
Among the tough nuts currently facing those who would bring peace to the Holy Land are those half a million Jews living where others do not want them. No one should expect a Jewish government to move them, especially after the removal of a few thousand Jews from Gaza brought rockets instead of peace.
Those faulting the Israeli government for missing opportunities have their favorite moments when they are convinced peace was at hand. Camp David in 2000 was one of those. Analysts quarrel about offers made, Palestinian responses, the presence or lack of counter offers, or whether the whole thing was made hopeless by the Palestinian narrative of being the sole party that has suffered, and having the weight of Islam on their side.
Without trying the impossible of solving this or other disputes about moments in history, I have no trouble faulting the Palestinians for mistakes greater than those of the Israelis. It has not be wise for them to insist on what the side with greater power has viewed as unacceptable: the right of refugees and their families to return, and 1967 borders. They have spoiled their chances further by incitement of their own people, and violence against Israeli civilians. The result is a profound lack of trust, which threatens the viability of any negotiations.
The claimed “punishment” of all Palestinians because of a few bad applies is another issue without a simple answer. Armies do not operate like the local police. They do not have complete control over the population, and the people they would arrest have the means to resist them. Are the Israelis less considerate of the local population than other active armies? The question provokes loud claims rather than conclusive answers. The Goldstone Report on Gaza demonstrates predetermined conclusions and reliance on questionable testimony that renders it a hostile document rather than anything reliable.
Is Gaza the world’s largest prison, as claimed by those thinking they are on the moral high ground?
Blockade is a conventional way of warfare, not objectionable when waged against an enemy who targets one’s own civilians, and fails to provide a prisoner the elementary rights assured by the rules of warfare. The IDF monitors levels of food, fuel and medications allowed into Gaza. Reports are that the people eat better, and are healthier than those in much of the Third World. Part of the explanation is the United Nations, which had been providing food, housing and medical care for 60 years, as well as protection for fighters and stores of munitions in its facilities. The Palestinians suffer as a result of all that assistance, insofar as they have been kept from looking after themselves.
You have heard of welfare dependence. The Palestinians represent the world’s worst case.
Add Obama to the problems currently facing both sides. He has lessened whatever meager prospects there were by his overreaching demand of a total freeze of settlement building, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and then backing down and praising Israel’s partial compliance. The combination has turned both the Israelis and the Palestinians against him, lessened his credibility as a mediator and the prospects of peace in the near future.
There have been several years of relative quiet, considerable economic development, and fewer Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. If Palestinians can see those signs as better than violence, it may help to keep the heroes out of action. The crucial element of trust among Palestinians as well as Israelis may then grow to the point where meaningful negotiations are feasible.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University