Good op ed piece in today's NYT by an Israeli "peacenik." I agree with everything in it, except that he seems more optimistic than I am about a resolution of the right of return in the light of the recent hate-displays, the hate- textbooks, the child martyr-policy, the release of the convicted terrorists.
It's a very good piece. One could almost have hope.
nytimes.com
November 8, 2000
The Pain Israel Must Accept
By DAVID GROSSMAN
JERUSALEM — "I am opposed to our violent
demonstrations," a Palestinian friend told me
last week. "We must switch to quiet
demonstrations and peaceful methods, not only
because of the terrible loss of life, but
because our behavior threatens you, and then
you respond with even greater violence and are
not prepared to listen to us."
It is hard to imagine that many people in Israel
today are prepared to listen to what the
Palestinians have to say, especially when they
accompany their words with brutal acts of
terror, menacing behavior and blood- curdling
threats. And yet, those who truly seek a
solution must listen.
Anyone who talks today to Palestinians in
important positions is forced to admit that
much of what they say is true. According to the
map that was supposed to have been made
permanent by the Oslo accords, the
Palestinians would have ended up not with a
real state, but with only a few blots of land,
ringed and bisected by the presence of the
Israeli occupier — which, after the bloody
battles, would have engendered a sense of
humiliation in every Palestinian heart. All these
truths and many more have created a situation
in which Israel must resort to the most
convoluted logic (not to mention moral
acrobatics) in order to defend itself.
If one takes a hard look at the major obstacles
that stand in the way of any kind of agreement
between Israel and Palestinians, and one
assumes that the problem of the Palestinian
right of return can be resolved in the spirit of
the understandings reached at Camp David, it
becomes impossible to ignore the centrality of
the settlements.
Is it so ridiculous to hope that once the winds
have died down, Israel will address this
question? Is there any possibility that we will
finally realize that even in a matter as
emotionally charged as this, we cannot impose a
solution on the Palestinians? That maybe, in its
own best interests, Israel should inflict pain on
itself in the short term, pain that is almost
intolerable, to reach, in the long run, the goals
that are genuinely vital to it?
Today, Palestinians, both official and
semi-official, say that settlers who want to
remain in the territories under Palestinian
sovereignty are welcome to do so. The rest
would return to Israel. Yet realizing that they
have no other choice, the Palestinians accept
the possibility that certain blocs of
settlements will be annexed to Israel in a
symmetrical land-exchange agreement.
It is hard to imagine that many Israelis would
rely on the good will of the Palestinian
authorities and place their security in
Palestinian hands. But one needn't be a great
expert to understand that no state in the world
would accept the presence of fortified, heavily
armed enclaves in its midst, defended by the
soldiers of another country and bound to that
country in dozens of mutually exclusive ways.
There is no choice anymore. Bitter as it may
be, we must say what many Israelis have been
thinking in their hearts for years: To achieve a
just and lasting peace, a large number of
settlements will have to be uprooted. Not just
small settlements like Ganim, Netzarim and
Kadim in the West Bank, but any settlement —
no matter how large and well-established —
whose location may hinder a future peace
agreement. That means Ofra, Qiryat Arba and
Beit El, which are also in the West Bank, and
settlements in the Jordan Valley and the
Hebron hills.
Let's not pretend: The overwhelming majority
of settlements were established for the
express purpose of preventing an agreement,
or at least blocking any territorial continuum
that would allow for a Palestinian state. Now,
when these tactics have proven "successful,"
creating a tangled web that has made the
situation complicated beyond belief, the
settlers are saying: You see! Peace is
impossible under such conditions!
And so the time has come when all Israelis
must ask themselves honestly whether they are
prepared to die for the sake of tens of
thousands of settlers who live in isolated,
armed enclaves in the heart of an Arab
population. Are they prepared to have their
children put their lives in danger to defend
these settlements?
As the friction between Israel and the
Palestinians continues, Israel is often pushed
into hunkering down, even when it is clear that
its position is hard to defend. Time after time,
Israel finds itself adopting a harder line,
which is only to its detriment, and then
retreating after a painful bloodletting.
For that reason, it is time to ask ourselves
again whether the statement, "We won the
Six-Day War" must lead to the conclusion that
"we will stay there forever, in the heart of a
conquered people." Will our great victory boil
down to that?
For years, the peace camp has stuttered about
the need to evacuate the settlements, put off
by the idea of uprooting families and the
children who were born there and afraid of
the national trauma that such an act would
entail. But the time for stuttering is over.
Common sense tells us that we cannot defend
the settlements and that they endanger the
fragile prospects for peace. They will have to
be dismantled.
Supporters of peace must reach a conscious
decision, with all the pain it brings, and take
the final step. The events of the last month,
even if they generate worry and doubt,
reinforce the importance of such a step and
show that there is great danger if Israel lacks
the courage to make such a decision. |
