The peace process is dead. Now what?

Ted Belman

In my article Refefining “What it means to be pro-Israel” I suggested that my definition of it is to advocate abrogating the peace process and annexing Judea and Samaria. Ami Isseroff commented that the problem with that solution was that no one will take the Arabs in. I agreed to the extent that to achieve such a solution would be extremely difficult. The world will vociferously oppose it.

Ami then referred me to his article Zionism and Israel: Ideological house cleaning. It is extremely well researched and worth reading. Here’s an extract. Solutions - Whatever solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we support, we need to re-examine all the arguments for that solution, because all of them were born in different circumstances, “a long time ago on another planet.” It is easy to see that there is not much chance for a “bi-national state” (born in the 1920s) or that a “one state solution” (a favorite of the Nazi Mufti, Hajj Amin el Husseini) would result in an explosion no matter who was in charge of that state. But the two state solution (born in 1937, revised in 1947, revived more recently in a new context) may need rethinking as well. Here is one very pessimistic take on the two-state solution

Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, the ‘official’ Palestinian Authority (PA) government:
They want Israel out of as much territory as possible and they wish to receive as much aid, both in dollars and weapons, as possible. But are their long-term policies consistent with the fantasy?

No, because there will not be an end to the conflict. The PA’s position is that it does not and will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that roughly 5 million refugee descendants have a ‘right of return’ to Israel. What they are offering is to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and a temporarily bi-national state in what used to be Israel proper, which will soon dissolve into civil war. This is not a question of ironing out details.

Of course, as long as Palestinians insist on Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, there isn’t going to be any two state solution. But even assuming that the Palestinians will offer acceptable terms, is the two-state solution really going to work? We hope so, but we have to ask questions.

Can three or four million Palestinian Arabs really form a viable state in the roughly 2,200 square miles of the West Bank and Gaza? Will this land be sufficient to support them, with the addition of several million refugees and taking into account the prodigious Palestinian Arab birthrate? Are we all sure that Palestinian Arabs can generate a modern post-industrial economy like that of Israel? And what happens if the land is not sufficient? What happens between a Palestinian Arab state of say, 15 million persons, with a per capita GDP of say, $3,000, and an Israeli Jewish state of say 10 million persons, with a per capita income of $40,000? Can there be peace between two such states?

I agree. That’s the dilemma. Neither the solution I propose, nor the two state solution can work. That leaves us with managing the status quo. We must decide if we can manage it better by going through the motions of the peace process or abrogating it.

In the first option we are pressed to make concessions yet we put facts on the ground in fits and starts. As for ending the peace process, we would continue putting facts on the ground. Rather then contend with the pressure to make concessions, we would have to contend with demands that we enter another peace process. I prefer the latter. We would also have to contend with pressure for a bi-national state. This Israel would reject outright. We would also have to contend with renewed charges of being an apartheid state. Effectively it would be because Israel would be fully in charge of Judea and Samaria as though it was sovereign and thus it would be argued that full rights should be offered the Palestinians. Don’t get me wrong. Israel, behind the greenline, is not an apartheid state, but if Judea and Samaria are considered part of Israel due to annexation or occupation such a charge would be levied. That issue will ultimately have to be resolved.

In the annexation framework I, and others, have suggested offering citizenship subject to certain prerequisites, namely, all citizens must take a loyalty oath and pledge allegiance, all citizens must preform national service in the IDF or elsewhere, all citizens must speak and read Hebrew. These rules would also apply to Arab Israelis. This can’t be done in the occupation framework. Whether we reject the peace process or redirect it to negotiating terms of annexation, we should start pushing in this direction. Obviously the Arabs will reject it, demanding a bi-national state and the international community will do likewise. Thus endless negotiations.

For my part, I would rather have endless negotiations over the terms of annexation rather than over the terms of a two-state solution. At least we would be offering citizenship under certain terms. And of course, continue putting facts on the ground.