Ron Dermer: We must stop pursuing a two-state illusion and commit to a realistic two-state solution
Determined to advance a realistic solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, Israel’s prime minister laid out his vision of peace in a speech to the Knesset. The Palestinians, he said, would have “less than a state,” Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley “in the broadest meaning of that term,” Jerusalem would remain united under Israel’s sovereignty, and settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria would become part of lsrael.
Those words were not spoken recently by Benjamin Netanyahu but by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, when he defended the Oslo peace process he had initiated two years earlier with President Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat and for which he would be assassinated one month later.
Twenty-five years later, a gulf has emerged between the positions Rabin staked out and what is increasingly believed to be the gold standard for a potential Israeli-Palestinian peace. The result has been the emergence of a two-state illusion that will never happen rather than a two-state solution that might advance peace.
The extension of Israeli sovereignty to certain territories in Judea and Samaria will not, as many critics suggest, destroy the two-state solution. But it will shatter the two-state illusion. And in doing so, it will open the door to a realistic two-state solution and get the peace process out of the cul-de-sac it has been stuck in for two decades.
Let me explain why.
For 20 years, successive Israeli prime ministers have tried to advance peace with the Palestinians. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions at Camp David. In 2005, Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israel from the Gaza Strip. In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered even more concessions. In 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu called for a two-state solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian state would recognize the Jewish state and agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze. And earlier this year, both Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, Israel’s alternate prime minister, committed to negotiate based on President Trump’s peace plan.
All along, Palestinian leaders have rejected every Israeli peace overture while systematically promoting a culture that rejects peace and glorifies terrorism, including by providing a lifetime of financial support for terrorists who murder Jews.
The rejectionism of Palestinian leaders has been no surprise to those who understand that this century-old conflict has never been about establishing a Palestinian state. It has always been about rejecting the Jewish state.
.@AmbDermer:
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 20, 2020
"... for the past 25 years, int'l leaders & policymakers have been unwilling to admit that they never had the Palestinians onboard for a genuine 2-state solution. And in constantly moving the goalpost to get them onboard, they have now lost Israelis as well." https://t.co/DQz3b8byU1
Sudden Annexation of the West Bank Not on Wary Netanyahu's Agenda
In the subsequent 1½ decades, a single major operation into Gaza has taken place (in 2014). There has been diplomatic and military action, to be sure, but it has been of the quiet and discreet kind intended to chip away at enemy capacities, to shift perceptions slowly or quietly to draw former enemies closer via shared interests. That is Netanyahu's way in government. A major lunge at sovereignty in 30 per cent of the West Bank, apparently against the partial or total opposition of the US, the Europeans, coalition partners, tacit Arab allies and even (for different reasons) the West Bank settlers would be out of character.British experts, leaders respond to Israel’s sovereignty plan
Some Israeli media reports have noted that as a result of his managerial and incremental style, Netanyahu lacks a major "legacy" policy move.
In this telling, an effort at setting Israel's permanent eastern border could fill the gap. The great Israeli prime ministers — David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin — are each associated with a series of major policy initiatives.
The declaration of statehood, the management of the war of independence, the gathering of more than a million immigrants and the acquisition of a nuclear capacity are the legacy of the former. The insurgency against British rule, the achievement of peace with Israel's largest Arab neighbour, ensuring the integration of immigrants from North Africa and West Asia and destroying Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions were among the major achievements of the latter.
Netanyahu's record reveals a cautious, incremental, managerial approach to governance.
This, however, seems to misunderstand the incumbent Israeli premier. Netanyahu's moves are not devoid of a strategic conception. He regards Zionism and Israel as engaged in a long war to establish and solidify the structures of Jewish sovereignty against a protracted Arab and pan-Islamic counter-effort to destroy them. The Palestinians, in this view, are only a relatively minor or subaltern element of the larger effort. This is a conflict not fought out only, or primarily, by kinetic means. Rather, it is one in which the full resources of each society are engaged — economic, diplomatic, cultural and military.
Victory comes in such a contest not through a single diplomatic masterstroke or a devastating blow. Rather, it is gained in careful, incremental steps.
Bold tactical moves are certainly part of Netanyahu's repertoire. Sudden strategic moves seeking to change the picture overnight, however, in the face of international and domestic opposition, would be quite out of character.
Ahead of Israel’s planned application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria starting on July 1, British experts and Jewish leaders spoke out about their support for Israel’s claim and right of sovereignty in the land, and the Jewish state’s democratic decision to carry out its policies.
Retired British army officer Col. Richard Kemp challenged the assertion that Israel’s proposed action would be a violation of international law, which was made by Member of Parliament Crispin Blunt, and other British MPs and members of the House of Lords, in a letter addressed to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the foreign secretary.
Based on Kemp’s lengthy experience working on the Israel-Palestinian issue at the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, as well as many years observing, monitoring and studying the situation on the ground in Israel, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East, he assessed in the letter “that the U.S. Administration’s current peace proposals, including sovereignty implementation, represent the best chance for a lasting peace between the two sides, as well as a future two-state solution.”
“I believe that this plan also has the potential to bring much-needed prosperity for the Palestinian people, as well as greater stability to the region,” he wrote.
Kemp further claimed that Blunt’s proposed sanctions against Israel if sovereignty is applied is harmful to Britain’s trade relationship with Israel and the United States. “The security of British citizens at home and overseas relies heavily on the continued strong intelligence, defence and technology relationship with Israel,” he wrote in the letter.
In the midst of economic uncertainty from coronavirus and Brexit, he told JNS, “the last thing we need is to damage relationship with U.S. and Israel, our important trading partners that share a mutual benefit in our security relationship.”
Israel’s application of sovereignty, which will infuse the Palestinian economy with massive investments and Israeli cooperation, will urge the Palestinians to “act more constructively”—an encouraging new idea in the context of “trying to achieve the same thing for decades and achieving nothing.”
The typical route to pursuing a two-state solution, he explained in the letter, has “proven not only fruitless but has also increased suffering for the Palestinian people and heightened danger for Israeli citizens and the Jewish diaspora.”