By Ben Dror Yemini
Yediot Aharonot, June 3, 2016
The program of Commanders of Israel’s Security offers an a refreshing alternative for those of us who are tired with both the creeping annexation of the right and left wing illusions about a peace agreement. Agreements – OUT. Arrangements – IN. You don’t have to agree with every word of their proposal. Some ideas still need more ironing out. But it seems to be a plan that can extricate us from the interminable dichotomy of left versus right. There are, it appears, other options. And that is important.
In the midst of a round of shuttle diplomacy by US Secretary of State John Kerry in January, 2014, then Foreign Minister Avidgor Lieberman told the British Telegraph that “Kerry’s proposal is the best we can get. We would do well to accept it.” Details of the proposal were leaked to Thomas Friedman who published them in the New York Times on January 29th:
Two states for two peoples on the basis of the 1967 borders; the large settlement blocs to remain under Israeli sovereignty; a solution to the refugee problem that does not involve resettling them in Israel; unprecedented security arrangements in territories to be evacuated by Israel. After details were made public a few days later on February 7th, Lieberman reiterated his support for the plan. He also asserted – this time in Hebrew – that “the unity of the people is more important than the unity of the land.” He made exactly the same statement again this week. Lieberman also attacked cabinet minister Naftali Bennet for opposing Kerry’s plan. Netanyahu tended to support it as well, though he never said so publicly. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand. Even when the US administration put forward an improved version calling for dividing Jerusalem, the Palestinians – as usual — turned that down too. Lieberman, meanwhile, didn’t give up. In the ensuing months he made more moderate statements, even criticizing Netanyahu when the latter sharpened his rhetoric against the administration.
Netanyahu, so it appears, is now on the same page as Lieberman. This week he even said that he “finds positive elements in the Arab peace plan.” Netanyahu praising the Arab peace plan? Normally this would have been grounds for another “big bang” on the Israeli right, but nothing happened. No expressions of joy on the left, no anger on the right. As Amnon Abramovich said this week, the left is not impressed because they don’t believe him, and the right is not impressed because they don’t believe him.
On second thought, maybe something real is changing, not just the rhetoric. Housing Minister Yoav Galant said this week at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents in New York that the government is not building in the settlements. This is the policy that Netanyahu has difficulty stating publicly. To be sure, the truth of the matter is a bit confusing since building is taking place. It continues under the auspices of the Settlement Division, controlled by Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel. Galant warned against the mixing of populations and the creation of a one state reality. We know what happened in the Balkans, he said, and we therefore need an arrangement, even if the Palestinians do not want one.
Even if nothing comes of the French peace conference or the Egyptian-Saudi initiative, Israel’s willingness to compromise is valuable in and of itself. The possibility that none of these initiatives will lead to an agreement should not be cause for despair. There’s a one-sided arrangement in the wings, and it is attracting new supporters, as Nahum Barnea points out in his column.
Hundreds of former security officials have published “a plan to improve Israel’s security and political situation.”
Some members of the group have well know positions. They took part in a variety of initiatives and organizations in the past, mainly on the dovish side of the political spectrum. Their experiences, however, have led them to recalibrate their direction. They no longer place their hopes in a Palestinian partner who continues to insist on the right of return. Today they ask themselves what Israel can do to extricate itself from the current impasse.
The surprising answer is that there is no alternative to continued Israeli military control in the territories. But ongoing control does not mean more settlements, increased friction or inaction. The plan evaluates the situation on the ground, providing concrete suggestions to improve the lives of the Palestinians and deal with points of friction.
The proposal also contains some good news. Despite the creeping annexation, all is not lost. Of the 570,000 settlers living over the Green Line, 200,000 live in East Jerusalem and another 260,000 live on 4.6% of the territory of the West Bank, adjacent to the Green Line. Taken together they represent 80% of all settlers, and will continue to be part of Israel in any future arrangement. Construction and development will continue in these areas. The main problem is the 108 settlements, containing 110,000 settlers, located in areas densely populated with Palestinians. These settlements are the main source of friction. They are the heart of the problem.
Regarding Gaza, the plan calls for Israel to allow increased transport of goods and state its willingness to establish a Gaza port. Israel’s condition will be acceptance of a list of security measures. What the plan lacks is a description of these measures. Will Hamas object? Maybe. But a proposal to improve the situation that includes construction of a port will enhance Israel’s standing. A basic element of the plan is a public statement of support by Israel for an agreement based on the principle of two states for two peoples, alongside practical measures such as completion of the security fence (which will place most of the settlers on the Israeli side), along with a cessation of settlement expansion beyond that line of separation.
The program of Commanders of Israel’s Security offers an a refreshing alternative for those of us who are tired with both the creeping annexation of the right and left wing illusions about a peace agreement. Agreements – OUT. Arrangements – IN. You don’t have to agree with every word of their proposal. Some ideas still need more ironing out. But it seems to be a plan that can extricate us from the interminable dichotomy of left versus right. There are, it appears, other options. And that is important.