Palestinians will never be satisfied with a small independent state; they want revenge. By Giora Eiland. Ynet News, March 4, 2013.
Eiland:
US
President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are expected to visit the region
together in late March to try and promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace
agreement. It is amazing to see how American policy has not changed in 20
years. Each administration creates expectations regarding a solution to the
conflict without reassessing it and asking the basic question: Why have the
peace efforts failed so far?
It
seems that the American approach is: There is a problem (the conflict), so
there must be a solution. What’s the solution? Two states. Why hasn't the
solution been implemented until now? Apparently because we haven’t put enough
effort into it. What’s the conclusion? We have to try harder.
This
conclusion is obviously wrong. The solution has not been implemented yet
because both sides don't really want it. For both sides the cost of adopting
the solution is much greater than the benefit. From Israel’s perspective, the
solution has two main problems: One is the great security risk involved in
withdrawing to the 1967 borders, along with the possibility that the other side
will not keep its promises.
Israel
fears that after it withdraws Hamas, or an even worse regime, will rise to
power in the West Bank and simply ignore the peace agreement. The other price
is the evacuation of at least 120,000 Israelis. The political, social and
economic cost would be huge. The direct compensation for the settlers alone
would amount to 120 billion shekels (about $32 billion). Where would this money
come from? And what about the Palestinian side?
The
American assumption may sound reasonable, but it is completely false. According
to this assumption, the Palestinians want to free themselves of the “occupation”
and establish a small independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. The first
part is true, but the second part is not. The Palestinians were never willing
to make do with a small state of their own. They want “justice,” revenge,
recognition as victims and above all – the “right of return.”
The
Palestinians do not really want a small and divided state, and therefore are
not willing to pay the price for it: A commitment to declare an end to the
conflict, promising not to make any other demands in the future and recognizing
Israel as a Jewish state. When the desire is not genuine, there will not be a
willingness on the part of the Palestinians to make “painful compromises,”
which are necessary for achieving peace.
So what
should be done? The Americans must take a few steps back and reexamine their
basic assumptions. Most importantly, they should try to determine what is
really important for the various players: Israel, the Palestinian Authority,
Hamas, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. They should also determine whether the
“two states” solution is the only one. Many people believe it is a bad
solution, as it has a “zero–sum game” element to it. Perhaps there are other
solutions.
Should
the Americans insist on the old paradigm, Israel must continue to play the
game: Agree to return to the negotiation table without preconditions and
recognize that the peace process is a positive thing. Will the process bring
peace? Probably not, but that is not the most important thing. The most
important thing is that we will not be blamed for its failure.
