Netanyahu says “No” to Obama: No to a Palestinian state for now, as long as the Palestinians are divided and represented by two separate governments, as long as terrorism is not overcome, the Jewish state is not recognized, security is not under control, the right of return is not waived. In the meantime, settlement must be pursued to cope with natural growth, commensurate with President Bush’s assurances to Sharon.

In translation: the “obstacles” he heaps on the road of peace render him negative, recalcitrant, a war-monger.

 

How did Israel slide to this disadvantaged position in the US, for the first time in its history, and how did the Arabs accede to their stature of peace-seekers, much to the chagrin of policy makers in Jerusalem and to Israel’s staunch supporters around the globe? In one word; Initiative.

In more than one word: Israel’s ideological identity has kept eroding over the years by the futile Israeli concessions initiated by The Oslo Accords. Only more wars were generated, more pressures on Israel were exercised, more expectations from Israel were raised and extracted, and more incurable damage was caused to Israel’s interests.

 

The world’s and Israel’s own  self-inflicted fixation with the “Israeli-Palestinian dispute”, as if that were her main concern and not the much more menacing Israeli-Arab conflict and the growing threats of Islam against the Jewish state, has made Israel stand out in the international arena for its passivity and paucity of diplomatic initiatives. Since it does not propose a clear program for the Middle East, nor address it in any imaginative way the problems under consideration with the Palestinians, the Arab and the Muslim world, it finds itself constantly on the defensive, reacting to others’ ideas. Since others are more concerned with their immediate economic interests with the Muslim world, rather than with Israel’s welfare, or the moral and long-term effects their policies may have, Israel’s struggle for survival must embrace a short-term tactical accommodation with the world. Like Abu-Mazen’s positions, Israel must respond by “Yes, but”, rather than a “No, but”.

 

A positive approach of this sort, instead of drawing red lines which are constantly eroded and thus manifesting weakness, should announce a four-principle policy, which even if rejected at first by the Arabs and other Muslims, should be egalitarian, fair and reciprocal to the West, and especially to the US.

 

First, Israel should declare its recognition of the right of self-determination of all Arab and Muslim peoples, including the Palestinians, provided they recognize the same for the Jewish people. Non-recognition of that right to the Jewish people would mean a non-starter for any negotiation; so far, Israel recognized the Palestinians, but no reciprocation has happened yet, as seen by Abu Mazen’s present rejection of a Jewish state.

 

Second, Israel recognizes movements of national liberation of all nations which recognize hers, that being Zionism. In Oslo, Israel recognized the PLO but her mindless negotiators never insisted on reciprocation, hence the continued denigration of the national revival of the Jews, by all Arabs and Muslims, and the continued validity of the PLO Charter which derogates Zionism and vows its eradication.

 

Third, the entire land of historical Palestine, including Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza (the land of Israel in Israeli parlance), must be put to negotiation and be re-apportioned between Israeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs, who both are the owners of the territory and the sole determinants of its disposition. How they each call their portion is according to their own discretion: Palestine, Israel, Zion, the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, the Arab State, the Jewish State etc. Palestinian Arabs, like the Israeli Jews, certainly deserve a state, large enough to accommodate most of the Palestinians, but not separate Palestinian entities in Gaza, Amman, the West Bank, the Negev and the Galilee, while the Jewish state is challenged and called into question.

 

Fourth, when the final and permanent border between the two entities is determined by negotiations, distinction must be made between sovereignty over territory and the personal status of the inhabitants. To wit, that Palestinian Arabs, including the Arabs in Israel who elect to identify as Palestinians, can continue to live in Israel as alien residents who owe their loyalty to the Palestinian state, and vice versa for Israeli Jews who would elect to reside in the Palestinian territory. There will be no better guarantee for peace than the mutual presence of each party’s population in the other’s territory. The gradual voluntary exchange of population might occur over the years, with each individual moving in and out of his/her present dwelling, according to each person’s wish and pace, and within the rule of law.

 

The list of problems accompanying such a long term settlement is long and complicated. But many other existing options have been tested and failed. Great statesmanship consists not only in discriminating between good and bad (that would be too easy), but in seizing the bad before it grows worse. We have been set on a failing course in the past two decades, if we fail again to seize the opportunity, things will grow worse. If we take an initiative, we will have turned a corner and kindled a flame of hope at the end of the tunnel.

 

 

 

 

* The author is a professor of Islam and the Middle East at Hebrew University, Jerusalem