CAN THEIR LEADERS MAKE THE VERY HARD DECISIONS REQUIRED FOR PEACEMAKING BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS?

by Robert Lifton

Now that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has applied to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state and membership in the UN, putting great pressure on all the parties, the Quartet (the United States, the UN, the European Union and Russia has presented a plan to the UN General Assembly. The plan calls for Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to meet without preconditions within a month and to have security plans in place within three months. It calls for significant progress to be made within six months and a final peace agreement by the end of next year.

“What is all the negotiation about,” many people ask, “after all the years of negotiations, doesn’t everyone know the issues and the solutions that are required for an end of conflict deal between the parties?”  I think it is true that everyone involved knows the issues and even the ultimate outline of the deal. What most people don’t realize is that two elements of the deal involve not only difficult but possibly life threatening decisions by the two leaders. Let me elaborate.

There are three basic issues to be resolved by the parties. The first issue that was recently the focus of political conversation in this country and elsewhere is the question of borders –where are the borders of Israel and the Palestinian state and how are they secured.  President Obama raised a firestorm when he presented the concept in his May 19^th speech stating that: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” I addressed that topic in my article in the Huffington Post titled “President Obama’s speech and the Peace Process – Nothing Will Change.”

The second issue requires a determination as to the status of Jerusalem, with the Palestinians seeking jurisdiction over East Jerusalem and the Israelis seeking to control an undivided Jerusalem as their capital.

The third issue relates to the Palestinian insistence on a “right of return” by Palestinians to the properties in Israel inhabited by their families before the 1948 war between Israel and the Arab states that attacked it.

These were the topics of negotiation between Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak under the aegis of President Clinton in 2000. They were the same topics of negotiation between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. In Olmert’s op-ed piece in the N.Y. Times of September 22, 2011 he summarized his proposed deal with Abbas as follows: “The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.

According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.” 

In that context, it is important to understand the truly difficult decisions for the respective leaders. Let’s start with Mr. Netanyahu. There are now approximately 370,000 settlers in settlements located beyond the original 1967 borders, excluding Jerusalem. After drawing borders that would include the major settlements within Israel, there are still about 75,000 settlers left outside those borders who would face the choice of living in the new state of Palestine or leaving their homes to return to Israel.  Even if, as it is estimated, about half would move out of their settlements in return for equivalent housing in Israel and/or some form of subsidy. That still leaves about 37,000 dedicated settlers who would fight the state of Israel against being uprooted from their homes and from land they believe is theirs by right. Some commentators point to the successful evacuation of settlers out of the Sinai in 1982 as part of Prime Minster Begin’s deal with President Sadat. But even in that case, the evacuation of Yamit required force and Yamit only had some 3.000 settlers. Moreover the Sinai settlements did not have the same level of emotional biblical ties as the West Bank. Forcing the settlers out today might well require military action by Israel against its own citizens; action by an army that has a significant proportion of senior officers and enlisted personnel who are religious and themselves believers in the right of Jews to inhabit the land given to them as described in the Old Testament. Any deal with the Palestinians would require Netanyahu to convince his coalition to support such a forced displacement of settlers. His coalition consists of his own right wing Likud party together with the very nationalistic Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Is Our Home) party led by politically ambitious Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has advocated a population exchange of Israeli Arabs by annexing the settlement blocs to Israel in exchange for heavily Arab populated areas inside Israel. The other key member of the coalition is the Shas party, whose religious leader has consistently denigrated the Arabs, calling them “snakes.” Under those circumstances, Netanyahu could well fear not only for his political life but for his safety –witness the fate of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin murdered by a religious zealot for bravely seeking a peace with the Palestinians. 

On the other side, is Prime Minister Abbas who would have the burden of signing an agreement that would for all time relinquish the dream of millions of Diaspora and other Palestinians of the right to return to their claimed lands in Israel -a dream that has passed from father to son to grandson and been at the center of some of those families’ hopes for years. In 2000, just before Arafat entered into negotiations with Barak, a small group of us met with him and came away feeling that there was some room for negotiations about Jerusalem, which people then thought would be the major stumbling block. But I wrote publicly at the time that in my view he was not prepared to trade away the “right of return.” In the Palestinian political picture, Abbas is not in as strong a position as Arafat. He has to deal with the extremist Hamas party in Gaza that does not even recognize Israel and ultimately seeks its destruction. So for him, too, the threat is not only to his political life, but to the safety of his person. 

Yes, we all understand the existential issues for the two peoples –Israelis and Palestinians. And, yes, we all hope that the leaders can muster the brave leadership required to inspire their people to take the risks of a deal to end their conflict. But we should understand the realities facing these leaders, how difficult is the course ahead for them and how much support they each need from the rest of the world – Members of the Quartet, the Arab nations and the other members of the United Nations. Yet, even with that support, it will require a strong commitment to a two state solution and the courage to carry it out. There is nothing in the history of the two leaders that would indicate that they have the fortitude that will enable them to achieve a resolution of the conflict. Still, as we have seen in the case of Ireland, history is sometimes made by leaders who surprise us by overcoming their fears and prejudices. We can only hope that such is the case with this conflict. 

Mr. Lifton, a business man and political activist is writing a book entitled “Life’s Lessons and Stories from a Member of the “Greatest Generation.’”

Comments

[toto]

Excellent piece, IMO.

I like the parallel with Ireland. After all, who would have expected Martin McGuinness to turn into a deal-making, consensual statesman?

[walrus]

"CAN THEIR LEADERS MAKE THE VERY HARD DECISIONS REQUIRED FOR PEACEMAKING BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS?"

Oh, I thought you meant Obama and Netanyahu. Since when did the Palestinian leaders get to decide anything?

The Two State solution is dead. The creation of a Palestinian Bantustan just cements Israeli cruelty.

[William P. Fitzgerald III]

Pat Lang,

Mr. Lifton's piece, in the final analysis, advocates re-starting and continuing the negotiating track, which could lead to the agreement he described and, which he maintains, is the only way to resolve the issues. This solution, which is not a solution, presents the Palestinians with a true Hobson's choice. They could continue negotiating while Israel continues to consolidate
its "facts on the ground" or accept the arrangement Mr. Lifton proposes and which would leave them very little of which to make a viable country.

I propose that we all look at successive maps of the British Mandate, the partition plan, the post 1948 war,
and the West Bank today with settlements and the roads connecting them. Can the Palestinians possibly agree to perpetuate this situation?

The truly possible soution would be for the U.S. to make very clear to Israel that agreeing to the 1967 border and withdrawing the occupation and settlements are the only way to insure continued maintenance of this strange relationship we have with them. Futhermore we would lend support to enforcing U.N. Resolution 242. Unfortunately, the President, in his despicable speech before the U.N., made it quite clear that this will never happen.

Negotiations and any expectations of American help are a dead-end for Palestine but not for Israel and that is the reason for the U.N. gambit.

WPFIII

[JohnH]

Among people who think that Abbas has always been Israel's poodle, the thought is that this whole Palestinian independence thing (the third or fourth declaration of independence in the last 60 years), is a sham.

Instead, it's designed to bolster Abbas' credibility, so that he could actually do a deal with Palestinian support. In this scenario, he would negotiate significant concessions on paper--ones that Israel would promptly ignore. In return, Abbas would grant Israel immunity from Palestinian claims at the Hague.

[Matthew]

If we accept Mr. Lifton's analysis as true, then further negotiations are futile.

The Quartet's new proposal, therefore, is worse than useless. It will permit more discussions about "security" while more facts change on the ground. Secretary of State Clinton has said that an agreement on borders will makes the issue of settlement building moot. Clearly, the Israelis don't want that issue mooted.

18 years is enough. We know what the borders should be. It's time for the alleged Leader of the Free World to act like one.

[GulfCoastPirate]

You want the Palestinians to demiitarize themselves while having to live next tot he Israelis? Too funny. Based on the historical record anyone living next to the Israelis needs to arm themselves to the teeth.

[Charlie Wilson]

"war between Israel and the Arab states that attacked it" Didn't need to read anymore of this bunkum.

[J]

walrus,

You hit the nail on the head, only thing you need to change is Israeli 'cruelty' with a capital 'C'! Israel's government is this century's 'Schutzstaffel' known to the last century by the hated moniker 'SS'.

[Farmer Don]

Off topic, but most of you will remember this fellow.

For a CIA operative, Raymond Davis sure has trouble keeping a low profile.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/cia_operative_arrested_after_argument_over_parking.php?ref=fpblg

[Roy G.]

While Mr, Lifton adopts a more conciliatory and understanding tone towards the Palestinians in this piece, it contains significant flaws, mainly that it does not seem contemporary; indeed this piece could have been written at any time during the past decade, but at this point seems to be less than fresh analysis. Which is perhaps fitting, as Mr. Lifton seems to want to follow the status quo ante, and pretend that negotiations can be restarted, even after the so-called 'roadmap' has been thoroughly trashed.

Indeed, how can the 'quartet' have any credibility left whatsoever, after its figurehead, the throughly biased Tony Blair, was rejected early last week for making a totally one-sided offer that effectively outed him as Dennis Ross' mouthpiece?

Also making a mockery of Mr. Lifton's statements are the announcement of more new housing construction in Jerusalem, which Bibi is claiming belongs 100% to the Zionists?

Regarding Abbas, he has already been caught in the Palestine Papers giving away the farm, only to be rejected by an Israeli government totally uninterested in anything but total domination.

It is also strange that Mr. Lifton takes such a sympathetic approach towards the settlers and far right-wing religious nationalists; yes, this is an unfortunate political situation for Israel, but the appeasement of this bloc is what has exacerbated the problem, leading straight in to the current dilemma.

Today, there is no point in trying to prop up the dead horse of Oslo. Negotiations can begin after the UN vote. Indeed, that is the only leverage the Palestinians have, and they would be foolish to give it up, especially since the flop sweat of the Israeli government shows they finally have something to lose.

[J]

WPFIII,

All this 'empty hype' about 'CAN THEIR LEADERS MAKE THE VERY HARD DECISIONS REQUIRED' and 'PEACEMAKING BETWEEN', is just that empty hyperbole like a dog chasing its tail forever running in a circle accomplishing nothing.

Zionism is attack, attack, and continue to attack the Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and the greater Mideast in general until all is subjugated under Zionism's iron Totalitarian thumb. Those who have sounded the Shofar of warning regarding Zionism, their words of wisdom and warning have been ignored, and alas Zionism's cruelty has been allowed to continue unabated upon the defenseless Palestinians. The late Rav Yolish warned about Zionism, he warned about Zionism's masked cruelty, its attempted masked 'gentle' propaganda which we're witnessing, and that when it is all said and done, Zionism and its current Israeli state is nothing more than a slap in Heaven's face.

The only resolution exists is the dismantling of the cruel Israeli state, and for it to be maintained in such a dismantled condition until it can be molded by Heaven's hands,and not before.

[R Whitman]

The only way to get a Two-State
Solution is to have it imposed from
the outside and dictated to both
parties.This needs to be done by a
president of the US with balls, the
EU, the UN and Russia.

Absent that the Israeli and the
Palestinians will never make the
hard choices. We probably can
expect some sort of contentious
One-State solution in reality.

[turcopolier]

FD

As I understand it RD was not a career CIA employees. he was a contract consultant of some kind. pl

[Matthew]

It's simple. Facts tend to have an anti-Zionist bias.

[Matthew]

Mr. Lifton writes about a mythical state. The Israeli reality is far sadder. Compare the comments section of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-police-beefs-up-security-near-muslim-sites-following-mosque-attack-1.387895

with the statements by Israel's president. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/peres-galilee-mosque-arson-shameful-for-the-state-of-israel-1.387874

As the Colonel might say, they sure ain't Paul Newman anymore...

[Babak Makkinejad]

All:

The only viable - under the circumstances - deal is the HAMAS 99-Year cease-fire idea.

It has the chief virtue of freezing the war in Palestine and enabling Palestinians to have a life not defined by struggle against Israel.

I suppose Gaza and much of the West Bank will revert to Palestinians, the Israelis will keep Jerusalem but there will be no recognition of Israel nor any normalization of relations with the World of Islam.

The two sides will be dis-engaged; sort of like East and West Germany or North and South Korea.

If I were a US leader, I would take that deal (if it is still on the table).

For Israelis, that is the best deal that they will ever get; there will be no peace without Muslims controlling Jerusalem and Jews will not give it up.

The rest - including Mr. Lifton's piece are not even pipedreams.

They are fantasies.

[turcopolier]

Babak

INO, you are correct. a hudna of that length wouldprovide the only hope of an evoulutionary resolution. pl

[toto]

If Hamas declares a truce with Israel, and even if they somehow hold to it, various splinter groups may well choose to ignore it and keep firing rockets or blowing up buses in Israel.

Israel will then retaliate against these groups, leading to a return to hostilities against a stronger, reorganised Hamas.

Of course I trust our host's judgment much more than my own in these matters, but to this naive observer, this "hudna" looks a lot like a transparent attempt at gaining some time for regrouping, rebuilding and rearming.

[turcopolier]

toto

So, you want an absolute set of guarantees. there are none and will be none and in that case Israel is doomed. Happy? pl

[Marcus]

The only solution is matched violence. When the Israelis feel as threatened as the people in Gaza then the real negotiations will begin. MLK and Gandhi are the anomalies, violence gets results through history.

When the Israelis face a two or three front war then you'll see progress, not before, and certainly not under the current cynical "leadership."

[web design London]

. The other key member of the coalition is the Shas party, whose religious leader has consistently denigrated the Arabs, calling them “snakes.” Under those circumstances, Netanyahu could well fear not only for his political life but for his safety –witness the fate of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin murdered by a religious zealot for bravely seeking a peace with the Palestinians.

[web design London]

I trust our host's judgment much more than my own in these matters, but to this naive observer, this "hudna" looks a lot like a transparent attempt at gaining some time for regrouping, rebuilding and rearming.

[David Habakkuk]

I think this is a very significant post, but perhaps not quite in the way that Robert Lifton intended.

What he has actually done is to set out – very lucidly – some of the main reasons why the idea of a two-state solution is dead. At the conclusion, he is left adducing the example of Ireland as a reason for residual hope for some kind of miracle which will resurrect it. But the Irish situation was simply not comparable. Among salient differences, the leaderships of the outside powers involved – Britain, the Republic of Ireland, and also the United States – had come to share broadly similar conceptions of the appropriate solution. And none of them faced intractable internal opposition.

Crucially, the power of the Ulster lobby in British politics was a shadow of what it once had been. The Irish analogy would be more apt, if one imagined that this lobby still had the kind of influence it had had in 1914 – indeed, far more so, as the influence of the Ulster lobby then and later was heavily concentrated in the Conservative Party, rather than being equally powerful in both major parties.

Liberal Zionism, in the United States and also Britain, more and more reminds me of British socialism in the 1980s. As with Zionism, both a great deal of idealism, and also a large dose of less appealing impulses, went into the creation of the British labour movement. In part precisely because of this element of idealism, it was very hard for many decent people to face up to the accumulating evidence that the intellectual premises of British socialism were simply wrong – and also that the less appealing impulses were increasingly in evidence.

Likewise, it is hard for many decent people, in Britain as in the United States, to face up to the fact that a central premise of liberal Zionism – the possibility of the two-state solution – is no longer sustainable. But the realisation that one cannot any longer be both a liberal and a Zionist is sinking in. A crucial question in both countries will be how Jewish opinion splits, as this realisation is confronted.

[turcopolier]

wdl

no,you don't trust my judgment. if you don't trust the palestinians enough to believe in a truce, then it is war to the death. pl

[Matthew]

Col: Since the Pentagon uses game theory, has anyone mentioned that Israel actions are perfectly rational given America's unconditional guarantees?

I heard Panetta this morning again promising unconditional support for Israel's "security." And will he be surprised when more bulldozers head to East Jerusalem?