August 20th, 2006
The (Re)Emergence of the Radical Israeli Right
This is probably one of the most dangerous junctures in Israel’s history. Not only because of the rising tide of Fundamentalism in the region, and the looming Iranian nuclear plan, which the international community is so sluggish in stopping. But also because the radical right in Israel, so badly defeated in the last elections, is on the rise again. The way the right is framing the problem is too easily appealing to many right now.
The right’s logic is this: no peace is possible because Israel’s enemies will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel. Therefore Oslo was a mistake, and so are unilateral withdrawals. Each withdrawal is interpreted by the other side as defeatism, and only gets the missile threat closer to the heart of Israel. Withdrawal in the West Bank – Olmert’s “Convergence” plan – would only bring even the most primitive of them within range of Tel Aviv and Israel’s international Ben-Gurion Airport. In the renewed atmosphere of siege created by this war, all this strikes many as a sound argument. The settlers, a very small minority, now feel they have at long last carried the day and secured Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank.
But the logic is faulty. Nothing endangers Israel more in the long run than an inability to end the occupation. The right offers no plan to prevent the Jewish State from sinking into bi-nationalism, which would spell Bosnia. The right’s plan to keep missiles away from Israel’s cities, would only bring terror closer to home in an endless civil war. By the end of this decade there will be an Arab majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. If Israel “converges” to its international border the Arab minority (which, unlike the Palestinians in the territories holds full Israeli citizenship) would be some 20 percent of Israel’s population. Ending the occupation is thus Israel’s most vital interest.
Israel’s plan A to end the occupation – a peace agreement with the Palestinians – has failed with the collapse of Oslo, and Arafat’s refusal of partition in 2000. Israel’s plan B, unilateral withdrawal in the absence of a peace agreement, has now been forestalled by the missiles from Lebanon (and, importantly, by the primitive missiles from Gaza). The only feasible plan C is international intervention, and a multinational force to secure peacful withdrawal. But given the poor show of international will even in the emergency of Lebanon, it seems we would need a plan D. I can’t think of one. Suggestions would be most welcome.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Plan D:
1948: Small Nakba : not all Arabs left Eretz Israel
2006: Big Nakba : all Arabs leave Erets Israel
August 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Plan D: Transfer. The arabs who live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are mostly refugees according to the UNRWA definition. As refugees, by definition they are not living in their permanent homes.
That being the case, they should be resettled in an area in which they will be comfortable, such as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or even Egypt or Saudi Arabia. There is no reason at all to give them permanent homes west of the Jordan River.
Problem solved. You’re welcome.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I’m afraid I have no quick fix solution. I just wanted to say excellent and very insightful post.
PS:
Palestinians would not be “comfortable” in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Saudi Arabia any more than jews would be comfortable in Sweden or Norway.
Maybe it’s time to think about more realistic and pragamatic solutions.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Plan D could be:
Israel declares entirety of territory to be Israel, but agrees to lease the parts “recovered” in 1967 to the Palestinian National Authority for 999 years.
In turn the Palestinian National Assembly declares the entirety of the territory to be Palestine but also leases the area now regarded by the UN to be Israel to the Israeli government for 999 years.
Neither recognises the other as a sovereign state but as a lessee having exclusive use of the areas they lease. Both states are recognised by the UN and have seat in General Assembly.
Instead of there being treaties between Israel and Palestine, which require them to formally recognise each, there will be variances to the leases. Thus technically both can pretend that the other doesn’t exist except under terms defined by themselves. Theoretically therefore neither religion could possibly be offended because legally neither has ceded one square centimetre to the other, ownership remains with the lessor.
This is a completely mad idea which will be dismissed. But in a completely mad region it may just be the solution.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Good point, Bad Vilbel.
You are right that the comfort of the Palestinian refugees is a minor factor in choosing a place to resettle them, so that they no longer will be refugees.
The major factor is to resettle them in a location from which they will not be able to continue to terrorize Israelis, at least as easily as they do so now. That being the case, another Muslim country would be appropriate, but not essential.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Question to everyone how many think a new war will break out in a few months or weeks it seems to be the prevailing thought evrywhere.I am a jewish person abroad i do not have much hope for israel and i dont see it has a future long term
August 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Recreate the TransJordan from the West Bank excluding Jerusalem and claimed areas contiguous to either the border of Israel or Jerusalem. Make Gaza a protectorate of Egypt but as a demilitarized zone, ie., no heavy weapons. Let Gaza become a giant, well tiny, free trade zone, autonomous internally while Egypt would handle foreign policy, a new constabulary and most importantly to the Egyptians the tax authorities.
Even though the possibility of attacks from these areas would remain the governments of Jordan and Egypt would have a legal mandate to suppress these attacks.