I begin with two foundational
statements which undergird my approach.
First, Israel has
the right to exist and to live in security within its borders. This must be
accepted by all parties–including those Arab states (and other nations, e.g. Iran, Pakistan) who still hold out against its existence. It seems to me, however,
that for a number of Arab states, for a variety reasons, some self-interested
no doubt, have come to that conclusion (see e.g. “the Abraham Accords”). Jordan,
whom some consider should be the “Palestinian State”, has had a peace treaty
with Israel since 1994. Interestingly, I have in my files a newspaper clipping
headed “Arabs ‘ready to admit Israel’s right to exist’”. The clipping comes
from The Christchurch Press, dated 16/9/1983 following a UN conference
which ended with a final declaration the acknowledged “the right of all States
in the region to existence with secure and internationally recognised
boundaries, with justice and security for all the people.” The writer, Liesl
Graz, wrote: “Decoded that means the Arab States and the Palestine Liberation
Organisation are ready, for the first time in a formal document, to admit
Israel’s right to exist with the quid pro quo of the right to exist of a Palestinian state.” What happened to that
“olive branch”, I wonder?
Nonetheless, my second foundational statement, Palestine as a homeland
for Palestinians also needs to be recognised as a legitimate state.
Palestinians lived there–and many still do–for generations. There needs,
therefore, to be a “Two-State” solution (more of this anon).
The past is the past: it cannot be changed, but it need not continually
cripple the future. The creation of Israel is a complex and mixed story. There
were injustices, outright subterfuges and duplicity from the beginning (think
the “Balfour Declaration” and the Sykes-Picot Agreement). But very few nations
have a “pure” genesis. My own country, Aotearoa New Zealand has its own shady
bits in its history of creation and subsequent story. And most countries have
suffered from the effects of colonisation. So Israel’s history is no more and
no less a reason to say that it should not exist.
Over the intervening years, in the decades since 1948, there have been
missed opportunities, and exercises in bad faith on both sides. Perhaps the
aftermath of the conference reported on above was one missed opportunity. The continued
occupation and the establishment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank is an
instance of bad faith. Arguably, a missed opportunity and an instance of bad
faith on the Palestinian side, came with the refusal of Yasser Arafat to accept
the conditions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David
meeting hosted by President Bill Clinton in December 2000. Although the
different assessments of the genuineness and fairness of those proposals indicates
how difficult and complex, and often quite partisan, attempts at peace
settlement are.[1]
On the other hand, there have been, and there are stories of goodwill
and efforts at mutual understanding on both sides. Many Israelis, and Jews
outside of Israel, recognise and support the Palestinian right to their own
homeland, and oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. A heartwarming account by
Izzeldin Abuelaish tells of his experiences as a doctor living in Gaza who was
able to work alongside Jewish colleagues in a hospital in Israel. His friends and colleagues in the hospital were genuinely and deeply concerned about the
privations he experienced trying to cross the border from Gaza into Israel, and
also for his and his family’s safety when the Israeli Defence Force shelled
their home on one of its incursions into Gaza. Despite the fact that three of
his daughters and a neice were killed when Israeli shells hit their home,
Abuelaish believes Israelis and Palestinians can live together in peace if they
can only get to know one another. Co-operation and co-existence are possible
but politicians must take a lead in become “humanitarians”. [2]
We
should not forget, too, that there are Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.
There are, perhaps, sometimes questions to be asked about whether or not they
are treated as “second class” citizens. That is an issue for Israeli society to
determine and to fix if necessary. As an aside, I note that it was reported
that Palestinian Israelis were among the first of those who rushed to help the
vicitms of the Hamas militants’ recent incursion into Israel.[3]
The
Two-State Solution.
A
two-state solution, Israel and the State of Palestine, based on the 1967
borders should be established. A corridor for safe travel between the West Bank
and Gaza will need to be enabled at a minimum, but I would hope that my
suggestion of a Schengen-style arrangement outlined below would remove the need
for that. Interestingly, Phyllis Bennis canvassing the possibilities for “an
independent, viable, and sovereign State of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza,
and East Jerusalem” goes on to write this:
But as the construction of the Apartheid Wall
and the continued expansion of the 440,000 settlers in huge city-sized
settlements throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem seem to make the
creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible, more and more Palestinians
are reconsidering the goal of creating a democratic secular or bi-national
state in all of historic Palestine–encompassing what is now Israel, the West
Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. Many, perhaps most Palestinians and at least a few
Israelis, believe that over the long-term it is in the best interests of both
peoples, even if there were an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, to
create a single state, based on absolute equality for both nationalities and
equal rights for all its citizens.[4]
For the present, it is perhaps a more realistic,
though difficult enough objective to obtain a Palestinian State alongside
Israel. I would suggest if such a state were to be created, the following
parameters should obtain.
1.
Settlements: Of course, no new settlement should
be built or begun in the West Bank, (nor within Palestinian areas of East
Jerusalem). However, residents of the existing settlements should not be
required to move, and existing settlements should not be dismantled. What should
happen is that the Jewish residents there should become citizens of the
Palestinian state just as there are Arab Israelis. They could, if they
wished, choose to relocate within the borders of Israel. Hopefully, by adopting
this policy, the angst, anger, and disruption that would likely ensue if
settlements were dismantled, or residents evicted forcibly, would be avoided.
2.
There should be a common defence force,
committed to the security of both states. Of course, each state could have its
own police force, though there would be advantages to having a close
cooperation between the two. Hopefully a common defence force would remove the
possibility, or lessen the likelihood, of conflict between the two states.
3.
There should be a “Schengen-Area” type
arrangement for travel and movement between the two states. That is, Israelis
and Palestinians should be able to travel freely into each territory on their passports or identification papers.
4.
The two states should work towards establishing
a common economic zone and market (like the EU), but perhaps without the
political structure (i.e. an EU-style parliament). The arrangement would be
more of an economic-treaty affair. This would hopefully be also extended over
time to include the whole region, and certainly including Jordan, Lebanon,
Syria and Egypt.
This will only really be workable if there is at
the same time (both before and alongside) the creation of a two-state solution,
a concerted effort by Israelis and Palestinians of goodwill to get to know one
another. Building up trust will be a
long process. I imagine it may take several generations. There may need to be
structural mechanisms (e.g. “Truth and Reconciliation Commissions”?) to address
past hurts, injustices and misunderstandings. Certainly movements within civil
society (some of which already exist) that promote peace and mutual
understanding will need to be strengthened and broadened.
Finally, I know that it is always easy for those on
the outside, and faraway to think they see where the problems lie and how to
address them. Israelis and Palestinians will have to work this out themselves.
Peace and mutual understanding, not to mention that ability to live together in
close proximity, will be best achieved when they work out the strategies and
processes that will enable a better future.
[1] For such different
assessments, and, indeed, descriptions of the nature of the negotiations, see
e.g. Leslie Stein, Israel Since the Six-Day War: Tears of Joy, Tears of
Sorrow (Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity, 2014), 245–47, where he writes
of the Palestinians missing “an historic opportunity” because they insisted on
Israel coming their way “on all the issues on which it procrastinates”
(his emphasis) including the right of Palestinians to return to their former
homes. Anton La Guardia, Holy Land, Unholy War: Israelis and Palestinians
(3rd edition; London: Penguin, 2007) describes how “Prince Bandar,
the Saudi ambassador in Washington, told Arafat his refusal to accept the
Clinton parameters was ‘a crime’ against Palestinians and the Arab world.”
(300). Phyliss Bennis, however, in Inside Israel-Palestine: The Conflict
Explained (Oxford: New Internationalist, 2007), writes that Barak’s
“‘generous offer’ was a myth” because it did not meet “the requirements of
international law”, and because of that fact that “the disparity of power that
had long characterized Israel-Palestinian negotiations remained unchallenged”,
(see pp. 145–46). Assessments of bad faith often depend upon whose side one is
on: or on perspectives determined by a particular stance.
[2] Izzeldin Abuelaish, I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza
Doctor’s Journey on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity (London:
Bloomsbury, 2011).
[3] The New Zealand Herald, 11/10/2023, A 17.
[4] Bennis, Inside Israel-Palestine: the
Conflict Explained, 183–84; main quote on p. 184.
