By Rabbi Dow Marmur
JERUSALEM–It’s always refreshing when serious people refuse to give up hope – as a growing number of “peaceniks” in Israel have done – about solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The latest effort comes from three distinguished Israelis: a former admiral, a former peace negotiator and a businessman.
I understand the article in The New York Times of April 24 by Ami Ayalon, Gilead Sher and Orni Petruschka to say that even though there may be reasons for asserting that Israel has no negotiating partner, the Jewish state could nevertheless take important steps to create conditions for the resolution of the conflict. They call it constructive unilateralism.
The ultimate structure of every serious peace plan that has ever been presented is always the same: a return to the pre-1967 borders with significant land swaps that would allow the bulk of the Jewish settlements – say those now on the Israeli side of the separation fence – to remain in Israeli hands. By way of compensation, Israel would give up land in the Negev to make it possible for the West Bank to be connected to Gaza to form a viable Palestinian state.
Nevertheless, this version is different. It advocates that Israel should take unilateral action to create conditions that would make it worthwhile for the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table.
The authors cite research that indicates that of the 100 000 Jews in settlements on the other side of the fence, (some 200 000 live inside the fence) about a third would already now be ready to leave if properly compensated and given the wherewithal to settle within the Green Line or in the other settlement blocs. Others will follow.
Ayalon, Sher and Petruschka also favour Israeli support for the Palestinians’ UN bid for statehood in the belief that this would further encourage them to come to terms with Israel and thus pay the price for their independence. Only after a treaty, so the writers suggest,Israel would in fact end its occupation by withdrawing its troops from the West Bank. They write that their plan seeks to avoid the mistake of the withdrawal from Gaza which was sudden and total, and thus enabled Hamas to take control.
Constructive unilateralism may be refreshing, but is it realistic? Even if the above measures are within the realm of the possible, the fact that nothing is said about the future of Jerusalem is telling. Of all the sticking points, Jerusalem sticks most.
And while the authors call for the end of all settlement construction, the Government of Israel is seeking new ways to expand it and to find ways of circumventing Supreme Court decisions while claiming to be fully committed to the rule of law.
That’s probably why the article doesn’t appear in Israeli newspapers to address lawmakers and other movers and shakers, but in The New York Times which is read by those in power inWashington. Will the United States be able to put enough pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to embrace constructive unilateralism?
Anybody who seriously cares about the future of Israel, not as a military occupier but as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, realizes that the present stalemate is ultimately untenable. That’s why every attempt to break it peacefully, however unrealistic it may first seem, is worthy of our notice and support (for what it’s worth).
*
Rabbi Marmur is spiritul leader emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. Now dividing his time between Canada and Israel, he may be contacted at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com