Column: One Nation "Peace or Piece of Paper"

This is the first of what I hope will be a monthly column on various issue affecting Israel and the Jewish People. I have chosen to name my column, One Nation, as the unity of the Jewish People is primarily what guides my beliefs, be they religious or political. While I have my own beliefs on many different issues, the consensus of those Jews committed to the Jewish People on any given issue will heavily effect my viewpoints. In Israel, I consider the overwhelming majority of Jews to be committed to the Jewish People, regardless of their political or religious beliefs.
Since the birth of the State of Israel, there have always been foreign powers who have placed varying degrees of pressure on Israel to follow their dictates or the will of the International Community. In some cases Israel withstood this pressure, while in other cases Israel has agreed to follow a course of action that it did not perceive to be in its best interest, I.E. the withdrawal from Sinai after Sinai Campaign in 1956. Over the past year, Israel has faced pressure from America and the International Community over the peace process in general, and specifically on the continued building in what the International Community refers to as the Occupied Territories.
As a result of this pressure, last November the Netanyahu Government agreed to a 10 month building moratorium in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank. The moratorium did not include any part of Jerusalem, which according to Israeli law is part of the sovereign State of Israel, as opposed to West Bank, which has never been formally annexed to Israel by any Israeli Government. Recently, there has been speculation that Netanyahu has agreed temporarily to halt building in East Jerusalem, although no official statement has been made to that effect.
Since taking office, the Obama Administration has tried to get the moribund Peace Process between the Israelis and Palestinians restarted. Recently, there has been some cautious optimism, as apparently both parties have agreed to “proximity talks”, even though there is no agreement on what exactly those talks entail. It is fairly obvious to most that these talks will go nowhere, but at least having the talks gives the appearance that things are moving in the direction of peace. Forgetting for a moment Palestinian demands, there is a fundamental difference between the views of the Obama Administration and the Netanyahu Government as to the final result of the peace process.
The Obama Administration, like those before it, sees peace between the Israelis and Palestinians as one between representatives of those two Peoples. They see Palestinian leaders, like P.A. Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who appear to be reasonable, and will to work towards a two state solution. As a result, the efforts of this and previous administrations has been to work out a political deal that would be acceptable to the Palestinian and Israeli leadership. While I’m sure the Obama Administration sees this as a difficult task, it does not believe it to be impossible.
However, for the current Israeli Government, this is not the final peace they envision. They envision a true peace among the Israeli and Palestinian People, where a Jew can live in Palestinian controlled territory in safety and not have to fear for their life. It is obvious that the world would never accept a situation in which Israel expelled its Arab Citizens. If that is the case, why is it then assumed that for Peace to occur between Palestinians and Israelis, Settlements would need to be removed? If Arabs can be citizens of Israel, like they should be, then why couldn't Jews be citizens in a Palestinian State or have dual Israeli/Palestinian Citizenship?
When viewed from this perspective, the Settlements are suddenly removed as the obstacle to peace. Unfortunately, what is left is the realization that Jews would likely not be safe at this point in time, living in a Palestinian State. Until the Palestinian People are educated for peaceful co-existence with the Jewish State of Israel, this type of peace will not be possible. It is for this reason, that we often hear from the Israeli side that they have no partner for peace. While Fayyad may be more pragmatic than his predecessors, he has not demonstrated the leadership required for true peace to occur.
This leaves the Netanyahu Government in a difficult position. On the one hand, it does not foresee any peace agreement in the immediate future that would guarantee its long term security interests, but on the other hand its closest ally will be pushing for a different type of peace, which may compromise Israel's long term security. I believe the following analysis provides the best advice to the Israeli Government: “Israel is dependent on the U.S. as no other country is on a friendly power. Increasingly, Washington is the sole capital to stand by Israel in international forums.…..It takes a special brand of heroism to turn total dependence into defiance, to insist on support as a matter of right rather than as a favor; to turn every American deviation from an Israeli cabinet consensus into a betrayal to be punished rather than a disagreement to be negotiated. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with opprobrium for every deadlock.”
These words, as quoted by Yehuda Avner in his new book, “The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership”, were written forty years ago by then US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger. Amazingly, those words are as true today as they were back then. If Israel is to have true peace some day, it must hold firm to those positions which it knows to be correct, and not sacrifice them for an elusive piece of paper that will not will not bring true peace.