Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Means Commitment to Negotiation

The Ann Arbor News

August 22, 2007

With frustration mounting here and abroad over the Israeli Palestinian conflict, that old temptation – the “blame game” -- is getting louder. Unfortunately, it's a serious impediment to any potential resolution of the conflict.

Depending on which side you listen to in the US, either the Palestinians or the Israelis are entirely responsible for the conflict. Israel and Palestine each have their share of hard-liners and extremists, but poll after poll show that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to put an end to violence and to live in mutual dignity and security based on a just and lasting comprehensive peace.

A resolution recently introduced in the Senate offers hope for bi-partisan U.S. engagement to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Feinstein/Lugar resolution has not yet been voted on, but before Congress went on its August recess it already had 36 co-sponsors, including both Michigan Senators. The resolution, which calls on President Bush to make a two-state solution a "top priority," urges him to appoint a Special Envoy, and welcomes the Arab League Peace Initiative. Building support in Congress for this resolution and a similar one in the House was a major focus of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s advocacy this summer because this is the first pro-active, peace legislation on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict introduced in the Senate in four years. The last time pro-active peace legislation actually passed the Senate was during the Oslo era in the mid-1990s!

Working harder for negotiations may be all well and good, some say, but wishful thinking is not the same as a Palestinian partner for peace. Indeed, that’s the view of Professor Victor Lieberman in his Other Voices column (August 7, 2007). But that forecloses the discussion just where it needs to start. Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the vital interests of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian people.  There is widespread belief that achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace could have significant impacts on security and stability in the whole region. The still newly constituted Congress has the opportunity to mend six years of diplomatic neglect in the Middle East.

Residents of Ann Arbor are all too familiar with the strident voices and unconscionable picketing by some who blame Israel for the continuing conflict. In defense, many in the Jewish community are compelled to give history lessons on Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel and continued terrorist attacks and threats. Neither of these points of view have their eyes on the prize.

Israel’s agreements with Jordan and Egypt, once enemies of the Jewish State, provide living proof of the efficacy of negotiations. The latter involved an enormous exchange of land for peace, and both have stood the test of time so well that the two Arab nations were at the forefront of mediation efforts during Israel’s 2007 war in Lebanon. Clearly, what’s needed is a sustained effort with dedicated diplomacy at the highest levels. 

The term “partner for peace” generally references an Israeli expectation that potential Palestinian negotiators must agree to certain preconditions before talks can take place.  This is a fairly new expectation on Israel’s part, and had it existed earlier it is doubtful that Israel would have achieved its peace treaties with Egypt or Jordan, because in both cases negotiations began before current preconditions were met. Similarly, the Oslo Peace Process between Israel and the PLO was launched in advance of Palestinian recognition of Israel. Indeed, at the time direct negotiations commenced, the PLO’s National Covenant still called on the Palestinian people “to liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine.” (Israel and the PLO exchanged letters of mutual recognition in 1993, at which point the PLO also committed to amending its covenant; the covenant was officially amended in 1996).

Under the “no partner” mantra, Israel eschewed negotiating the terms of the Gaza withdrawal with moderate Mahmoud Abbas, pursuing instead a unilateral course of action – which has led to a complete breakdown of security in the Gaza Strip and regular Qassam rocket attacks on Israel’s south. As a result, Israel was forced in November 2006 to reach a ceasefire in Gaza with the Hamas-led PA – ironically achieving with the radical militant group Hamas, the very option Ariel Sharon refused to consider with the moderate Abbas in August 2005.  These circumstances have shown that the “partner for peace” notion is deployed when politically expedient, and shelved when reaching an agreement with Israel’s enemies is absolutely necessary.

Israel and the Palestinians have made one serious effort at negotiating a solution, and it regrettably ended in failure. Yet smokers typically try quitting five times before they finally succeed. Because we know that Israel can and must achieve a lasting peace with her neighbors, the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement learns from the opportunities that have been squandered, but focuses on creating opportunities in the future through a sustained commitment to diplomacy and political negotiations.