Yesterday Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu addressed the Israeli Knesset regarding the unrest during Nakba Day. In my opinion his speech touched on themes that I both agree and disagree with. There was nothing particularly new in what he said but given the events of Sunday, they are particularly relevant.
His speech was standard... But something said in it was surprisingly insightful for a man not known for his great insights. He said: "The prime minister added, "This is not a conflict about 1967, this is a conflict about 1948...." But then the insight ended there.
What he, Israelis and their supporters in general, Hamas, Palestinians and their supporters need to realize is that 1948 is now 63 years ago and that the realities of the present day are what need to be addressed.
This is not to say "Suck it up and get over it" but, while both sides have long-standing grievances if both sides want peace they need to address this conflict in terms that are relevant to todays realites.
In his speech to the Knesset the Prime Minister laid out a few principles (so much for his call for no pre-conditions in negotiations) that he felt the Israeli Polity would unify behind and made that a cornerstone of his call to fellow Knesset members. Below, I want to discuss those principles in context of today's realities.
1. The demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people
Now, many both inside and outside of Israel have said that recognition of Israel is enough. However, given the adjustment of strategies of the Anti-Israel movement to now say: "Sure, we accept the existence of a state called Israel but we also call for full Palestinian Right of Return", the dynamic has changed. I believe it is simply not enough to say, "we recognize a state called Israel" UNLESS, that recognition includes recognition that the composition of said States population is only that State's business.
The pitfall here is that if that recognition of this principle is given then if the majority of the population ever shifts to being a non-Jewish majority then there is a mechanism in place for recognition of a minority run government. I personally think the majority would change that or states would simply abrogate their treaties. However, that is something that needs to be addressed. Simply accepting Israel as a State would do that as long as the next principle is covered.
2. A solution to the Palestinian refugee issue that did not require absorption within Israel's borders
This ties very neatly into the first principle. One can accept Israel's existence as a State but will not accept this condition. When that happens point #1 becomes a moot point. However, this is key. The reality is that Israel of 2011 is 77.5% Jewish. 97% of Jewish Israelis are simply not going to budge on this issue, an issue which if Israel agreed to would be tanatamount to national suicide. No matter how much anyone wishes or dreams, it simply won't happen. So what are the alternatives that will allow for a peaceful resolution.
For Israel's part, some remedies are:
A. Limited return to those refugees from 1948 who were forcibly removed from their homes and compensation to resettle them
B. Compensation to those refugees and their families who were forcibly removed
C. Contribution to a general fund created by the British, Arab Nations AND Israel, to compensate all refugees and their families and assist in resettlement outside of Israel's borders (or inside Israel at Israel's discretion).
3. A commitment to end the conflict.
This is absolutely the key and Netanyahu is absolutely right about this. There can be no "Well, we will not recognize Israel and leave that question for future generations to deal with the Zionist entity". If one wants things to get better or for there to be peace then this conflict must end. Period. Israel, in my opinion should not settle for anything short of an agreement which permanently ends this conflict. Why would they settle for less?
4. The establishment of a Palestinian state only in accordance with a peace deal that did not infringe on Israel's security
.
Given the history of the conflict I can agree with this in principle but the reality of it is far different. "Security" is a word that can mean a lot of things. To me, these are words that are meant to create a map that would have Israel sitting on 50% of the West Bank. To that, I cannot agree. Security often times comes with military might but not always. In this case, security also comes with a peace treaty that allows for dignity and legitimization of Palestinian rights. There has to be some give and take and this is too ambiguous a term to be accepted.
5. That said Palestinian state be demilitarized
There are two sides to this question, and I see it both ways. From a Palestinian perspective, this denies their right to be a State and exercise full state powers and authorities. On the other hand, given 8,000 rockets and terror strikes over the years I can see the Israeli perspective as well. My personal feeling on this is that while this would be an initial part of the peace, it could not be permanent. Palestinians would certainly have to have the capacity for self-defense should it arrive. My feeling is that it could be a gradually dissolving condition which after 20 years of full peace could be abrogated.
One other point that Palestinian posters have brought up here is that a military presence would be needed to stop Israel from striking at Palestine. To counter this security arrangements between Palestinian security apparatus and the Israeli military would have to be worked out to where Palestinians could be counted on to stop, and enforce the Peace. In return Israel would have to pledge to never break border security.
6. The preservation of large settlement blocs within the West Bank
This is one of those where I think the Prime Minister is absolutely and completely wrong. I agree that certain blocs around Jerusalem and Mt. Scopus/Hadassah Hospital need to remain in Israeli hands, I personally believe that Israel needs evacuate all the others. That means Ariel, Itamar, Hebron, and so forth. To get Peace Israel is going to have to give something. These settlements simply don't fit in with a permanent peace deal. Would this cause civil strife, absolutely. But, if doing this buys a peace deal then I believe it would be worth it.
7. The insistence that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel
This is a deal killer. Jerusalem is an important and holy city to the Palestinians. It simply cannot be undivided. There is too much there that is crucial to Palestinian national ambitions. Now, should Jerusalem be divided on the lines of 1967? I don't think so. However, can it be divided as proposed at the Taba agreements of 2000, I do believe that can be worked out. Simply put, it is unrealistic to ask the Palestinians to give up their claim on parts of Jerusalem. It is as unrealistic as asking Jews to pull back to the 1967 lines with no territorial swaps.
SO, Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech is a mixture of right and wrong, realistic and unrealistic meme's. On the first three points he would have 100% of Israeli Jewish approval. On the others, well they simply need to be negotiated. If Israel wants peace, then Israel has understand that there are two sides and the needs of one side are no greater or less than the needs of the other.
In realistic terms, Israel exists both in theory and in reality as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people and is not going anywhere short of a major war. The Palestinians exist as a nationality and despite blunders of the past need to have their legitimate right to self governance recognized. We can replay the War of Independence and all the factors leading up to it and argue whether one side was right and one side wrong all day long. But the fact of the matter is that it is neither here nor there.
For there to be peace both recognition of Israel as the National State and Homeland of the Jewish people has to happen. At the same time the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland must be recognized as well. It really is that simple and anything else will simply take us all down the road to conflict and strife. And that is the saddest thing of all.