I know I’m stepping into it: My take on the Israeli-Palestine dispute (post-Obama speech)

I’ve held this view for a long time, ever since my 2004 class at U-M with Mideast expert Dr. Ron Stockton. I wrote about it for my final in that class, which asked us how we would solve the impasse between the two. With some modifications from then, this is what I think a good solution would be.

We’re rapidly approaching the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, and Israel’s rationale for holding onto the Golan Heights and the West Bank no longer exists. They have longstanding peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Syria alone does not have the power or ability to do anything more than annoy Israel or, in a worst case scenario, lead an attack on the northern towns that would ultimately fail. The continuous moves of the Israeli right-wing to build settlements and refuse to follow a process long established in law are harmful to Israel’s long-term security.

The idea of a split Palestine that has existed since the Oslo Accords has been a poor choice, and is reflected in current circumstances. With a soverign nation in between their two parts, Palestine is like Pakistan in the 1960s: at total risk of a major split. Hamas’ influence benefits from the split between Gaza and the West Bank, because the Palestinian Authority is based in the West Bank, and has little control over Gaza, because it is so tightly closed off by Israel. It’s an untenable situation. The best solution would be Israe lhelping Palestinians relocate to the West Bank and yield it as the Palestinian nation, in return, Israel could keep Gaza and redevelop it for other purposes. A split nation is ungovernable, and Israel would have, in their minds, one less threat to worry about. One contiguous border is much easier to defend than two. Israel would retain safe ports on the Mediterrean, and the Palestinians would have the Jordan River to use for water and other resources. A good IMF loan would be a way to help finance it to keep the burden from hurting Israel’s economy.

The status quo can’t keep going. With a few differences, the original UN partition plan of 1948 gave the West Bank to the Palestinians and some chunks elsewhere (which, to be honest, was a STUPID idea, because nations can’t be scattershot like that), but a West Bank Palestinian nation, by itself, would be a major achievement, it would give them a safe border with fellow Arabs in Jordan, and Israel would maintain access to the sea.

As for Jerusalem….the best, fairest option is to split the city, with UN guaranteed access to all religious sites, and a UN contingent to provide security at the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock, the Holy Sepulchre church, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Getting agreement on this front will be next to impossible, but it is the fairest compromise. It would return Jerusalem to its 1967 state, with East Jerusalem being Palestine’s capital, and West Jerusalem remaining Israel’s, as it has been since 1949.

I’m sure plenty of disagreement will be out there from both sides, but any attempts at unduly penalizing either side would simply cause more intransigence and violence, and an end to this needs to come sooner rather than later. The President simply said out loud what has been U.S. policy (on and off somewhat) since Nixon in 1973, but the response of Republicans and Netanyahu is the knee-jerk reply that has been causing this violence for so long. Netanyahu says that the 1967 lines were boundaries of war, but as I’ve stated above, it’s not a valid criticism, because Jordan and Egypt have long ago made peace with Egypt. Furthermore, the criticism that Ed Henry is voicing on CNN right now, that came from others, is that he’s asking the Israelis to compromise before negotiating with the Palestinians. This is so ignorant of recent history that it makes me want to cry. The Oslo Accords set a process. That process was more or less advanced through 2000, when Ehud Barak made a final offer of virtually the entire West Bank to Arafat, 98% of it, which was a number that had steadily gone up since 1993. So, saying it’s a compromise before negotiation is wrong, because this was ALREADY previously established in negotiations.

I don’t know that agreement will come any time soon. I doubt it will, until the last of these older right-wingers dies off. Netanyahu’s crude attempt to set off the right wing here in America against the President, his blatant attack on our foreign policy when we have backed Israel far more than it has deserved sometimes, deserves a full apology. We helped deliver peace with Egypt and with Jordan, because those nations trusted us, and we were serious mediators because we refused to give Israel everything it wanted. We must keep that same position if we are to help these two sides negotiate a lasting peace.

Update: Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of TPM Media, weighs in (Marshall is Jewish).

Advertisement

~ by Thad on May 21, 2011.