Israel’s security lies in regional peace

Palm Beach Gardens

On March 22 Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu defiantly declared to the world that: “there will be no freeze on construction in Jerusalem. Everyone knows it”.

An enduring occupation requires a high level of arrogance and a poker face in rationalization of injustice. The international community is well aware that Israel may have reached its limits in “digesting” the occupation demographically. Washington, in particular, is worried about Tel-Aviv’s denial of reality: for every Jew there is an Arab within post 1967 Israel controlled land.

The Israeli government is nervous about a serious shift in the US administration’s attitude towards an extended, worsening and hazardous occupation. The White House expects Israel to freeze illegal building of housing in occupied Palestinian territories and to come to the peace table. But Israel insists that it is not ready to stop building on “liberated” land. Tension between Tel Aviv and Washington is mounting.

The US relationship with Israel has been exceptionally close for years. Many believe this relationship has in fact turned symbiotic; seemingly the interests of the two states are deemed to be identical. Recently, however, the leadership of the US military and national security has voiced concerns over this level of closeness to Tel-Aviv and over Washington’s handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Over the past six decades, Israel has partnered with the US, militarily and diplomatically, but the Zionist state has become too alienated from the region. Does Israel expect America to continue indefinitely to tolerate the occupation, offer massive aid, defend the Jewish state in the United Nations and ignore collective punishment of the Palestinians?

For their part, the Arab states have made a bad situation worse by irresponsible treatment of Palestinians, blaming Israel for all their troubles, refusal of much needed reform and counterproductive diplomacy. But Israel’s enduring occupation cannot be rationalized as a necessity for security.

Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has been in doubt about its future. The US has been supporting Israel unconditionally since the 1967 war, a cataclysmic event which bolstered Israel territorially but exposed it to endless risk.

Advocates of Israel interests call upon Obama to be “gentle” and “reassuring” with Israel, but advocates of Palestinian rights expect our president to be firm with a government which regards land annexation as land reclamation, sanctified by divine will. Building settlements on occupied land is illegal under the Geneva Conventions; for Palestinians, annexation is theft of their private properties.

Sentiment against Israel’s defiance of international law has been growing slowly within the US, and more so in Europe. In response, Netanyahu has been trying hard to shift world attention from Israel-Palestine to Iran. He has partially succeeded. By reviving the image of Iran as the center of the “axis of evil”, the Israeli occupation has been downplayed. This diplomatic diversion paints Israel’s land-grab as a “tolerable” infraction, when contrasted with Iran’s nuclear threat, purportedly aimed at “vulnerable” Israel. US sanctions on Iran are tightening.

For some unclear and disturbing reason, Israel’s possession of a large stockpile of atomic bombs has been ignored in dealing with Iran’s crisis. The nuclear crisis is regional and not a recent emergency; it started in the early seventies when Israel was permitted in secret by the US to acquire the bomb. For the Middle East, there is a double standard regarding legitimacy of occupying foreign land and the possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The Arab and Muslim world see Zionism through their lens. Unconditional US support of Israel has tarnished America’s reputation in the Muslim world. In recent months, some of Israel’s own friends have had second thoughts about the cost of the occupation and defense of settlement policy. Many wonder if Israel is risking its future in holding on to the occupation. US intelligence predicts dire demographic consequences for a state that swells in power and yet shrinks in security.

The occupation of vast Palestinian and Syrian territory, annexation, settlements, a Berlin-wall like fence (deep inside the West Bank), endless check points and collective punishment (against a mixture of civil rebellion, military resistance and fading terrorism), all such measures erode Israel’s democracy. Should Israel become an apartheid-like regime, as is expected in a decade or so, reverse migration of Jews may take place. An alternative could be ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Palestinians. Both scenarios are nightmarish.

True friends of Israel should encourage the Jewish state to end the occupation by seeking peace. Israel’s security will not improve through a new war with Iran.

Likewise, true friends of Palestinians should encourage them to unite around a platform of democracy and human rights. Such supporters should also demand Arab political awakening to provide a climate in which a future Palestinian state could be viable and democratic.

An inclusive and comprehensive regional approach for US foreign policy should be based on treating Israel, Iran and the Arab world as equidistant stakeholders. Only such a balanced policy can help Israel to integrate within the region and relieve the US from the impossible task of securing a state with elastic borders.

Lasting security for Israel can only be achieved through peace with neighbors.

Middle East reconciliation in the Diaspora

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Florida - In trying to save Israel and save Palestine, competing interest groups in Washington are “saving” no more than the conflict itself.

The efforts of the Jewish, Arab and Muslim communities in America should be harnessed for the resolution of the Arab Israeli conflict. So far, the Jews advocate for Israel and the Arabs and Muslims promote Palestine. This one-sided loyalty significantly slows down the peace process.

The boldness of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in arguing his case for building settlements is bolstered by the unconditional support he receives from much of the American Jewish community. In crisis situations, siding with Israel trumps any other position, regardless of whether Netanyahu is right or wrong. In seeking peace, the White House must work creatively with the Jewish community. Obama should also work with the Arab and Muslim American communities; they are an important factor in the promotion of peace.

Would the Jewish American community ever consider cooperating with the Arab and Muslim American communities (and vice versa) in the process of finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? So far, the incentives on both sides have not been strong enough for such cooperation. But the three Diasporas may have to work together, sooner rather than later.

The relevance of the Jewish American community to the resolution of the conflict lies in its very powerful lobby and the history of American-Israeli relations. And while the Arab and Muslim American communities do not have strong influence in the Congress, they can potentially serve as a rich intellectual resource, with a freedom to pose daring ideas and an ability to mediate with the Arab and Muslim worlds—factors of great potential for the promotion of peace.

Could the Arab and Muslim communities extend the hand of reconciliation to the American Jewish community? This shift requires formidable moral and political courage. Jews need to be assured that Israel has a right to exist and be safe in the Middle East. Arabs could acknowledge that Israel has great potential in contributing to the development of the region.

Arabs often pose a rhetorical question: why does Israel need more assurance? The answer is largely psychological. Perceptions of Israel’s invincibility are, to a large extent, illusory. Although Israel is a military regional superpower, being a demographic minority, feeling regional isolation, observing a growing Palestinian population, dealing with the guilt of the occupation, watching the Muslim world adopting “Palestine”, looking at Iran’s military build up and regional alliances - all such factors make most Jews anxious to the core and worried about the future.

The Arab and Muslim communities could launch a campaign in Hebrew addressing suffering, condemning prejudice, incitement and fanaticism. Arabs could lead Jewish delegations to Muslim cities around the world to deal with stereotypes through dialogue. They could call for a worldwide conference of reconciliation and peace in Cairo, and then in Jerusalem. This conference would be an occasion to popularize the idea that social justice and forgiveness go together.

The Jewish American side could also reach out to Muslims and Arabs. Arab and Muslim Americans have felt vulnerable in America since September 11, have accepted Israel’s existence within its 1967 borders, have organised an American Task Force on Palestine – which is active in dialogue with Jewish groups – and have actively participated in interfaith programs all over America.

The American media campaign against Islamism should be discouraged. The Jewish community has a special role in calming the right-wing evangelical political forces.

The most important mutual gesture of reconciliation could be the drafting of a common peace proposal on behalf of the Jewish, Arab and Muslim communities. The experience of preparing such a historic document would generate healing and a potential breakthrough.

All three sides in the American Diaspora should discover that the adversary is thirsty for reconciliation; that each side is a potential mediator in the festering Arab-Israeli conflict; and that joint advocacy across the divide could generate real peace.