The Israelis have what is essentially 3 options when it comes to unilateral actions they can take to deal with the conflict/occupation. Let’s explore what is likely to happen under each scenario, and you will perhaps see why the status quo continues:
OPTION A: Withdraw to pre-1967 armistice lines, shore up the separation barrier, and leave the Palestinians to self-rule in the West Bank & Gaza Strip.
This seems to be the option desired by most non-Israelis around the world who are not very knowledgeable about the conflict. This unilateral action will almost certainly lead to the following outcomes:
- The weak Palestinian Authority (PA), currently the ruling institution in the West Bank, will be unable to quell the uprising of rival groups such as Hamas. The PA is presently rather unpopular with Palestinians, and the lack of a common enemy in their midst (i.e. Israel), will lead to infighting, chaos, and bloodshed. Hamas or another extremist/terrorist group is likely to either acquire control of the West Bank, or at least contest it using violence.
- The West Bank would be controlled by the PA (at least initially), with Gaza ruled by Hamas. Thus Palestine would essentially be two states, incapable of coordinating and providing the stability and leadership to build a viable state. Leaving aside that Hamas will not stop short of eliminating Israel altogether, as is their oft-repeated intention, the chaos and violence caused by this division will almost certainly boil over into Israel, causing constant problems that will likely prompt Israel to re-enter Palestinian territory to quell these threats.
- External forces in the Middle East, whether it be state actors or non-state militant groups, will vie for influence and control, further exacerbating the instability and volatility of the nascent state of Palestine.
- Jewish settlers in the newly minted Palestine, if forced to evacuate by Israel, will staunchly resist and may turn to violence once soldiers come to force people out of what they consider their biblical homeland. If they are not forced to evacuate, or otherwise co-opted into Israel, they will face constant threats and attacks from the now emboldened Palestinians living around them.
- Israel now has a tiny sliver of land (as little as 9 miles wide in some places) between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea that will leave it vulnerable to threats from hostile neighboring counties and militants.
Other factors to consider:
- Israel will never withdraw from Jerusalem, at least not the Western half and the part of the Old City that houses the Temple Mount. This simply will not happen, leaving many issues unresolved even if Israel “ends the occupation”.
- The Palestinian “refugee” issue would remain unresolved. If all of those currently claiming this status returned to the West Bank, the infrastructure and government would be so overwhelmed that no amount of foreign aid or coordination could provide the resources necessary to handle this situation.
Why this option is not realistic, in summary:
Without negotiating or coordinating Israel’s withdrawal from territories captured in 1967, the resulting power vacuum and corresponding chaos will lead to nightmare scenarios for Israel that will force it to continue intervening in order to stop violence from spilling over into Israel. Palestinians have shown no ability to establish their own institutions, nor have they shown a commitment to democratic and pluralistic values that will actually lead to peace and stability. The risks and obvious outcomes of this approach makes it a non-starter for most Israelis.
OPTION B: Declare sovereignty over all of the West Bank and Gaza, granting citizenship and equal rights to all, creating a single binational state.
This is an increasingly popular approach on both the right and left fringes of those who follow this conflict. This unilateral action will almost certainly lead to the following outcomes:
- If not immediately, over time Jewish Israelis will be outnumbered by Arab Muslims and others, leaving Jews at the mercy of those who have historically oppressed, subjugated, and otherwise tried to eliminate them. It does not take an extensive knowledge of history to know what happens when Jews do not have self-rule, or when they live in a society where antisemitism is common.
- Most Palestinians and Arab Muslims in general do not want to share a country with Jews, as evidenced by the fate of Jews in every majority Muslim country around the world.
- There is little underlying foundation of tolerance, pluralism, or democracy in current Palestinian or Arab society. These values are necessary for different religions and peoples to live side-by-side. In reality, Palestinians and most Muslims have been indoctrinated to hate and kill Jews. This will not lead to a successful state.
- There is no guarantee that any Jewish customs or rights would be protected in a non-Jewish majority state. Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews wherein they could worship and practice freely, and non-Jews could live freely as well.
- Attempts to build institutions and a community where Jews and Arabs share power will be met with extreme resistance by groups and individuals that oppose a binational state or the presence of Jews in general. Even Christians are disappearing from majority Muslim countries, further illustrating the likelihood that Jewish Israelis would not fare well in a binational state.
- Also, many Palestinians do not want Israeli citizenship, even when offered. They simply do not want to share power with Jews or acknowledge that Jews have rights in Israel/Palestine.
- Most Israeli Arabs would actually rather live in Israel as it is currently constructed. Most Israeli Arabs realize that they live in the best county in the Middle East when it comes to religious freedom, economic and social opportunity, etc. They value the pluralism and secularism of Israel, and know that upending that system will lead to bad outcomes for Jews and non-Jews alike.
Why this option is not realistic, in summary:
Israel would be giving up its entire reason for being, its national identity, and its security in exchange for no guaranteed positives. A non-Jewish majority that comes from a population that is heavily anti-Western and antisemitic would almost certainly lead to a situation where once again Jews are unsafe and oppressed. Israel is currently in the position of power in this conflict, and has little to gain from this arrangement.
OPTION C: Maintain the status quo until the region stabilizes and a viable peace partner emerges.
This is the least popular but only realistic option for Israelis. Here is what results from this approach, and why it is preferable for Israel compared with A & B:
- UN and other foreign bodies regularly condemn Israel, but never actually take any tangible action against Israel.
- This makes diplomacy harder for Israel, but only emboldens ardent Zionists who believe that foreigners do not care for Israel and have never done anything good for Israel.
- Hamas remains in power in Gaza, and the PA in the West Bank (divided government).
- The division amongst Palestinians only weakens the Palestinian position, and demonstrates that there is no viable partner for peace.
- Israelis must deal with occasional dust-ups and terror attacks, but there is no real threat to its existence and the vast majority of citizens are safe.
- Israelis can continue to settle in the West Bank under government protection, slowly creating a de-facto greater Israel within the West Bank. In any future negotiation, they will be in an ever-stronger position.
- Palestinians are kept in a legal limbo that makes it easier for Israel to take action against them when there is a threat. In other words, Israel can treat Palestinians in the West Bank as enemy combatants without the rights of citizens.
- Most Palestinians do not want Israeli citizenship anyways, so granting them the option really does not solve any problems (see OPTION B).
Why Israel does not end their occupation, in summary:
The current situation, while far from ideal, gives Israelis a feeling of predictability, stability, and security that the other options simply do not provide. Israel is willing to take condemnation and maintain an oftentimes unjust system because the security and freedom of its citizens is the #1 priority. Israelis have no confidence that Palestinians will negotiate in good faith, create a stable and peaceful state, and accept Jews as equals worthy of self-determination. Israel has made the very straightforward calculus that OPTION C provides the most security, prosperity, and future flexibility; while A & B lead only to danger, uncertainty, and chaos.
Key Takeaway: There is no unilateral action Israel can take that will actually end the occupation. Despite being the far more powerful entity in the conflict, a partner capable of compromising and enforcing agreements is required from the Palestinian side — this partner does not currently exist amongst a deeply divided Palestinian population presently engaged in a de facto civil war.
No comments:
Post a Comment