The Iranian crisis should not marginalize the Palestinian question

Palm Beach Gardens,

In the landscape of Mideast politics, Palestine is central. Palestine is emotionally “owned” by most Arabs and the wider Muslim world.

In his March 5 visit to the White House, Prime Minister Netanyahu had no room for Palestine on the agenda. The encounter of the Israeli leader with Obama was largely about Iran.

Netanyahu seems to have struck a deal with President Obama: Israel will not attack Iran before the US elections; in return, with or without the use of force, the US will stop Iran from acquiring the atomic weapon.

There was a “silence” ingredient in this deal: Obama did not raise objections to Israel’s settlements; in return the US president preserved the support of the Jewish community.

But like the cactus tree, which once dotted the hundreds of villages of historic Palestine, the issue of this occupied nation is hard to eradicate.  

This past Sunday, two popular TV talk shows, MSNBC’s UP with Chris Hays and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS Live, forcefully exposed the impact of the Palestine question on Israel’s future security.  In steering two separate weekend Palestine/Israel/Iran round table discussions, both Zakaria and Hays demonstrated great courage and mastery of subject. Their speakers were chosen for expertise and eloquence.

Among the panelists of MSCNBC, retired Israeli Major General Shlomo Gazit presented  – from Israel via a satellite-  a three-point proposal for a political Israel/Palestine settlement: 1967 borders for a two- state solution, reduction of settlement communities and compensation for settlers who would return to Israel’s 1967 borders.

In response, several Israeli panelists asserted that dismantling settlements would “cause civil war”; no Israeli government “is able” to challenge the settlers.

The three Palestinians on Hay’s panel, including a live participant from the West Bank, seem to consider General Gazit’s proposal a good starting point for negotiation. But only one of the three Israel representatives on the panel, J Street’s Jeremy Ben- Ami, showed interest in the General’s proposal.  

Gazit rightly cautioned that “both sides” are not ready for “peace”; he believed, however, that Israel and the Palestinians should be led into a “political settlement”, which would require tough reinforcement to control enemies of peace from either side.

In this two-hour program Mustapha Barghouti, the eloquent Palestinian peace activist spoke passionately. Barghouti reported with pride on a growing non violent movement for resisting the occupation.

Barghouti’s moderation is not unique. It is no more difficult to imagine the emergence of Mandela-like leadership among Palestinians. Grassroots non-violence is already present in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Still, Hamas, which governs Gaza, has resisted changing its hard line position, ironically handing Israel an additional excuse to maintain the occupation.

The CNN Middle East discussion followed the MSNBC program. In CNN’s panel, New America Foundation’s Daniel Levy was a powerful advocate for a two-state solution. But sadly Levy, a moderate, sounded extreme to the other Jewish American panel participants. Except for Levy, Jewish panelists argued that Palestinians do not want Israel to survive.  Elliot Abraham of The Council on Foreign Relations and Wall Street Journal analyst Bret Stephens sounded more Israeli than many Israelis.

Rula Jebreal, an Arab Israeli author and a contributor to Newsweek, participated in the two panels.  Jebreal pleaded for a two-state solution: we are heading into a one-state, “but it won’t be Jewish”.  

The Palestinian speakers were moderate and shunned violence. The Israeli and American Jewish speakers were divided in their opinions; but they all shared one attitude: fear of the future.

All panelists seem to agree that Israel is already in a one state scenario, with one authority ruling over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. While most Palestinians point to a dangerous drift toward apartheid, Israelis point to the status quo as an alternative to unpredictable change.

The retired Israeli General is right: neither side is ready for peace. In the meantime a transitional political settlement is more realistic than full peace.