By Rabbi Dow Marmur
JERUSALEM — By all accounts a large number of people and organizations in Israel are trying to draft the speech they believe Prime Minister Netanyahu ought to deliver before both Houses of Congress next month. The most recent effort comes from a group of left-wing intellectuals, among them many of the best and the brightest in the land – recipients of the prestigious Israel Prize – to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state on the basis of pre-1967 borders. Symbolically, they made their declaration in the same hall in Tel Aviv in which Ben Gurion proclaimed the State of Israel in May, 1948.
An earlier but not dissimilar attempt has been made by some forty public figures, including former high-ranking generals. It, too, assumes the establishment of a Palestinian state on virtually all the lands – including Gaza – Israel conquered in 1967.
I’ve also seen several speculations about the speech that President Obama would like the prime minister to deliver. It should be conciliatory and not very different from the above versions. Obama is also said to be irritated and worse by the fact that Netanyahu has been invited by the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and thus may become a tool in the internal United States pre-election politics. One of the many anomalies of American political life is that whereas most Jews vote Democrat, the Republicans are perceived to be friendlier to Israel.
The least congenial imaginary draft of Netanyahu’s speech that I’ve come across is authored by Professor Efraim Inbal of Bar Ilan University. He contends, first, that “Israel is unable to offer anything acceptable to the Palestinians.” If they didn’t accept the offers of Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, when they “had gone beyond the preferences of their constituency,” they aren’t likely to accept anything that Binyamin Netanyahu may offer in 2011.
Inbal’s second point is that nowadays when Arab states that have been in existence for decades are falling apart, a new Palestinian state isn’t likely to do better. Even with massive international support, its chances of survival are small, he contends.
This brings Inbal to the conclusion that “while peace with the Palestinians is not a realistic goal, Israel can still take certain measures to ameliorate the situation.” He argues that it’s for Israel “to develop a coherent conflict management strategy that will minimize the suffering on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He urges us to remember that politics is the art of the possible and no prime minister of Israel should try to go beyond that. The question is, of course, if even that is possible.
I’m ideologically committed to believe that the Israeli intellectuals who’ve endorsed the Palestinian state, the public figures who urge the Government of Israel to endorse it and even President Obama who wants Israel to meet the Palestinians more than half-way will get the desired response. But the way I sense the situation in Israel, the best I can hope for – and even that is a lot – is Inbal’s apparent common-sense call for “a coherent management strategy.” The least congenial version may be the most realistic.
Unrealistic expectations are a sure source of unhappiness. The Israeli elites in particular are very unhappy with the occupation and its consequences. Inbal’s assessment may be more realistic and probably reflects the view of the majority of Israelis, but it carries no hope of a resolution of the conflict. Only more of the same or worse.
*
Rabbi Marmur is spiritual leader emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. He now divides his year between Canada and Israel. He may be contacted at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com