30.05.2021 – 08:53
The peace process has become an obstacle to progress.
Has time and effort been devoted to the peace process and has so little effect? America began overseeing talks between Israelis and Palestinians three decades ago. But the Holy Land remains contested by two peoples who cannot live together.
The fighting in May that left 242 Palestinians and ten Israelis dead achieved nothing but clear the field for the next round of fighting.
The peace process set out in the 1993 Oslo Accords aims to create two states that agree using land swaps, security guarantees, an agreement to divide Jerusalem and a limited “right of return” for the Palestinians.
The price of Israel would be a thriving democracy and a holy place for the Jews; for the Palestinians it was the promise of self-government. Sometimes, peace has been too close, but only to be drawn back between reciprocal punishments.
Today, however, instead of being a path to peace, the two-state “process” is blocking the path. Everyone claims that peace is still on the agenda when, in fact, it is not. This is a formula for contention. Almost everything that matters can be postponed with the promise that, one day, it will be resolved in an agreement that is constantly on the horizon.
It is also a formula that, by default, leads to a single state.
The idea that the two-state framework is harmful will not come as news to the Palestinians. Beneath it, the vision of a viable, neighboring sovereign Palestine has been repelled. Palestinian territory in the West Bank is an archipelago on an expanding sea of Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law.
Gaza is a lonely island, cut off by an Israeli and Egyptian blockade. The Palestinian Authority was supposed to be a waiting government. The young Palestinians see him as an agent of the Israeli occupation, even though they praise Hamas, the violent Islamist group that rules Gaza, for standing up to Israel.
Instead of the two states stagnating effort, the new Palestinian vision is to demand individual rights in one state. Those in Gaza and the West Bank hate that they need Israel’s (often banned) permission to travel to see their families.
The recent fighting was sparked by a property dispute in East Jerusalem, where most Palestinians are simply “residents.” Israeli Arabs also complain of inequality and rose up during the fighting in Gaza.
This leaves Israel in a difficult situation. It has flourished under Oslo. GDP per capita has grown by over half in the last 30 years. Its Iron Dome missile defense system greatly and protects it from Hamas attacks.
A divided, weak Palestinian leadership suits Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who shows little interest in the Palestinians. And it’s not just that: the conflict did not show much interest in any of the four elections Israel has held since 2019.
This can not last. The Oslo arrow allows Israel to claim that the occupation will be undone in a final agreement. As interim incumbent, he has no duty to extend full rights to the West Bank.
With no hope of a deal, Israeli critics have begun to speak of a “one-state reality.” This challenges Israel: since the Holy Land has as many Jews as Palestinians, it cannot remain Jewish and democratic while permanently controlling all that territory. Many critics of Israeli policy, including some liberal Jews, now compare the treatment of Palestinians to apartheid.
The Palestinian demand for rights is resonating abroad, no less in the halls of the US Congress. By allying Israel with the Republican Party, Netanyahu has helped the Palestinians become part of America’s culture wars. Progressives in the Democratic Party have begun to declare that the Palestinians matter.
America is Israel’s most important ally. True, American aid is less important than it once was, and Israel now produces most of its advanced weapons. It has relations with more countries, including its Arab neighbors through the Abrahamic agreements.
Yet if it moves away from Europe and America and toward populist countries like Russia, China and India, it will be a blow to Israel as a Western, liberal and democratic ideal.
Most importantly, Netanyahu’s “anti-solutionism” leaves his country less able than ever to navigate a future with the Palestinians. His embrace of the Jewish extreme right makes explosions more likely even when the fire makes Palestinian militants witness the latest communal violence in Israeli cities.
The wall that encloses Israel from the West Bank has led to deeper mistrust between Arabs and Jews. Settlements, once thought to be negotiable, have become permanent obstacles to peace.
The status quo has served Israel well but is not stable. Sooner or later there will be an account that requires a new formula for living near the Palestinians. Adherence to Oslo while undermining it in practice feeds the reality of one state because it makes two states more difficult to achieve.
Instead of imposing peace on a top-down blow to diplomatic splendor, a more realistic goal would be to build it patiently from the bottom-up.
The guiding principle should be to focus on the human and civil rights of the Palestinians. Israel will not give full rights to the Palestinians tomorrow. But it can make its Arab citizens more equal by devoting resources to their communities.
This can make the administration of Jerusalem more comprehensive, so that disputes over the siege do not turn into war. It needs to take more responsibility for the suffering in the West Bank and Gaza and work harder to alleviate it.
A focus on rights also makes Palestinian leaders more accountable. They can not easily demand rights from Israel to deny their people. Mahmoud Abbas is in the 17th year of a four-year term as president. His Fatah party is sclerotic. Hamas violates the rights of its people, including women and minorities. The best Palestinian leaders are a prerequisite for peace.
Leaving Oslo carries risks, obviously. Unrestricted Israeli settlers may be pushed further into Palestinian territory. Hamas, which wants a single state in which the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews, could double its resistance. But today’s road is even more dangerous.
Peace always begins with accepting reality. It takes root by improving life and renewing politics. It can thrive on something new. Then, one day, the parties can start talking again about an agreement, whether of one state or two.
Translated and adapted by The Economist/ FH, Konica.al