The challenge for the Israeli peace camp Toby Greene The Israeli peace movement had a major relaunch last week. What, you didn’t hear about it? It was a big deal. Slick media campaign led by Haaretz; a couple of thousand delegates in a Tel Aviv hotel; cabinet ministers on the programme; even a message from Barack Obama. I am not making this up. It really did happen. You may have missed it in the rapid escalation between Israel and armed groups in the Gaza Strip. In fact the conference delegates themselves were sent fleeing for cover as Hamas targeted Tel Aviv for with an unprecedented barrage of rockets. The peace camp was under fire – literally. There could be no better symbol of the challenges it faces in making its case. It is nearly 10 years since Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip. Hamas took over within a year and the threat posed by armed extremists there to Israel’s security continues to grow. This latest escalation highlights not only the threat posed by Hamas, but by even more extreme Islamist groups. Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others somewhat dragged Hamas into this round, likely thrilled by the site of ISIL charging through Iraq. The central argument of the Israeli peace camp, that ending the occupation – and Israel’s rule over two and half million Palestinians – is necessary for Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, is correct. The problem is that those who argue that territory evacuated by Israel becomes a base for terrorists to attack are also correct. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly acknowledged both sides of the dilemma: ‘We don’t want a binational state, and we don’t want a Palestinian-Iranian state next door.’ But it is direct security threat posed by Islamist extremists, and not the demographic threat posed by the continuing occupation, that is currently foremost in Netanyahu’s mind. A month ago he gave a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies, Israel’s leading strategic thinktank. It was an event built around an idea that INSS promotes as ‘Plan B’: if Israel cannot reach a deal with the Palestinian leadership it needs to separate from the West Bank unilaterally, to bring about a two-state reality and head off the threat to its democratic legitimacy. But on this occasion Netanyahu did not even mention the threat to Israel posed by the occupation. He was looking beyond the Jordan River, to the chaos which has engulfed Iraq at startling pace, which threatens to knock on Jordan’s door, and which could ultimately come to Israel’s borders. How to insulate Israel from the threat of Islamist extremism in the east is Israel’s fastest-growing strategic preoccupation. Weak Arab states create vacuums filled by jihadists: to Israel’s north in Syria and Lebanon, to Israel’s south in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, and now to Israel’s east. Israel cannot risk this happening in the West Bank. The problem for the peace camp is not that Netanyahu is wrong about this. The problem is that he is right. It is true that Netanyahu is not naturally inclined to the idea of giving up sovereignty in the West Bank. But the security argument is no shallow excuse for simple intransigence. According to American envoy Martin Indyk, in recent peace talks Netanyahu ‘sweated bullets’ in confronting ‘his own strongly held beliefs in order to try and find a way to reach an agreement’ before eventually shifting into what Indyk called ‘the zone of a possible agreement.’ This included, according to Israeli officials, acceptance of pre-1967 lines as the basis for an agreement. At the same time Netanyahu insisted on maintaining an Israeli presence on the Jordan river to stop the West Bank becoming another Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, by the time the United States had got Netanyahu into ‘the zone of a possible agreement’, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas had, according to Indyk, ‘checked out’ of the talks, and refused to respond to a US framework proposal. This was, according to Indyk, due to the humiliation Abbas faced domestically following new settlement announcements promoted by Netanyahu’s hardline coalition partners. Settlement announcements have without doubt helped undermine talks. They are making a solution harder to implement on the ground. There is no justification for building in the most contested areas. But in the current circumstances it is tough to persuade Israelis that freezing or removing settlements will advance peace. Every Gaza rocket that explodes over Israel – fired from an area in which Israel removed every last settler – only serves to bolster Netanyahu’s claim that the conflict is not about the settlements. Israel exists in a region where Islamist extremism breeds on decades of economic, social, and political failure in the Arab world. Those in Israel and beyond who believe a two-state solution is vital for Israel’s future – I count myself among them – have to acknowledge this. The challenge for the Israeli peace camp – and for those around the world who want to advance towards a two-state solution – is to convince the Israeli public to support separating from the West Bank, with or without an agreement. But this requires acknowledging that a security framework will be needed, to give Israel the ability to insulate itself from regional threats and stop the West Bank going the way of Gaza.
Posted on: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:34:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015