These are naive observations, however: Israel missed and continues to miss opportunities to normalize relations with the Palestinians and with the Syrians not because of mental blocks, but rather because of domestic political considerations. Mahmoud Abbas and Bashar Assad are defined as non-partners not because Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz have an emotional problem preventing them as partners in dialogue, but because they do not have the political power to do so. The real deterrent factor acting upon Israeli leaders, including Ehud Barak, Bejamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, has come from within the domestic political system: They feared the residents of the Golan Heights and the West Bank settlers more than they did the plotting of Arafat, Hafez Assad and his son. Olmert and Peretz suffer from the same weakness.
There is no way of knowing whether Israel’s willingness to withdraw from the West Bank and the Golan Heights would result in reliable, long-term peace agreements, but it can be confirmed that Israel is largely responsible for the fact that such moves have not been seriously considered or formulated. Israeli governments since 1967 have preferred domestic tranquility over the possibility of unrest on the foreign fronts. Defining the Palestinian and Syrian enemies as non-partners is a direct consequence of that order of priorities.
I would add, as a non-Israeli observer, it is not clear to me that the opposition to changing Israel’s devastating policy towards the territories it occupies and the region at large is only among settlers. As a casual observer of Israeli politics and the Israeli media, it also seems like there’s plenty of support for a maximalist Israel from people within the 1967 borders. I hope I’m wrong.
It’s all about water.
The West Bank lies atop the aquifer that provides Tel Aviv with its thousands of sparkling swimming pools full of water (Israel uses 10x as much water per capita as the surrounding nations). There is no way Israel will *ever* turn over full control of the West Bank to any sovereign entity.
The Golan is also important, but for another reason. If you look at a satellite photo of the area close to the Jordan River, you’ll see a clear deliniation of Israeli vs. Lebanese territory. In Israeli territory, water-intensive agriculture has turned it various bright shades of green. In Lebanese territory, it’s more of a lighter green due to less water-intensive agriculture utilizing plant strains that are less productive but better adapted to the desert environment. Israeli agriculture is as addicted to that water as Israeli civil life is addicted to the water that fills its swimming pools.
Once you realize that Israel is as addicted to water as the U.S. is addicted to oil, its actions regarding the Golan and the West Bank start making a whole lot more sense…
What BadTux said. Water is effin important, and Israel’s water policies and strategies are more secret than their nukes. Though, it is not ALL about water. The settlers are important, especially since they basically regard God as some landlord…
When it comes to support for retaining the settlements in WB from within Israel proper it changes from time to time. I don’t have the data here, but as far as I can remember there have been times when as much as two-thirds of Israelis wanted to dismantle the settlements for peace. This was probably during the heyday of Oslo. My point is that support for Imperial Israel will depend on the political situation.
“Israel is the chief culprit in the failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli or Israel-Palestinian peace”?
Another quote from the editorial:
“The automatic negative reactions to any Palestinian or Syrian signal of a willingness to end the conflict is based on persuasive evidence: the attitude of Hamas to Israel’s very existence; the limited degree of control that Abbas commands over the PA; the role of Assad in arming Hezbollah as well as its connection to Iran; and the like.”
It really bothers me when people blame Israel for everything, and by doing so at least seemingly absolve Israel’s couterparts of their screw ups, of their intransigence. Yes, Israel is far from perfect, but the Palestinians are where they are at least as much because of their own choices, and their treatment by other Arabs, as because of Israeli policy. There are victims and villains of both sides. At least in Israel you have editorials in major papers, like this, shoegazing and wondering: gee, are we a good partner for peace? One imagines that’s harder to find, in Palestinian or Arab papers.
In general though, I agree with the editorial. I think Israel could affect great change by being more conciliatory, and more boldly and obviously turning the other cheek to attacks, at least at the start, in hopes of getting some dialogue and progress going. But I think people underestimate how difficult it is for an Israeli PM to do anything bold or imaginative, when the Palestinians just continue to shoot themselves in the foot by lobbing missiles and fighting each other, blowing up their own border crossings and then complaining they’re shut. Israeli *is* a democracy, and its people are no better or worse than any other democracy–if they’re attacked, they’re not going to be easily persuaded to turn the other cheek, and so for a PM to do so… well, can’t you imagine it being very difficult to try to maintain power, to stay firm on security and yet be dovish too? Which isn’t to say Israel ought to be excused but, people seem to just brush aside its concerns, as if they’re completely make believe. Anyway. Sum up: yes, Israel ought to take the initiative, if only because it can afford to, but also because it really has no other choice. But that doesn’t mean the Palestinians are off the hook.
Oh and, BadTux: addicted to water?? I was not aware a nation or people could be addicted to *water*. WATER! It’s like, what, now Israel has to apologize for having farms and fabrication plants? Maybe if Lebanon or Jordan started making computer chips, they wouldn’t be using so much less water than Israel. And I don’t know what Tel Aviv you’re talking about, but last time I was there, I saw (from an American’s perspective, at least), a lively but poor city with a few tiny pockets of niceness and couple of nice hotels. “Thousands of twinkly pools” I did not see. *** As for the Golan–maybe if Syrian snipers hadn’t been shooting at Israeli farmers before 1967, and then if Syria hadn’t attacked Israel, Israel would not have felt compelled to take over the Golan. Hmmm. I dunno, that’s just a thought. Something tells me they weren’t eyeing aquifers, in ’67. And considering Israel’s huge investments in desalination technology (largest desal plant in the world in Ashkelon, with more in the works), one thinks it is at least plausible to imagine that Israel has better options than war and occupation for securing its water needs. Considering the amount of development in that area, it seems, again, at least imaginable, that Israel is aware of this.
Issandr and the foregoing commentators are ignoring something obvious: not water but SECURITY.
From 1967 onwards, the majority of Israelis have always favoured conditional return of the territories:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200209/ai_n9088251
The condition? Demilitarization of the returned territories and no cross-border funny business.
The Egyptians and Jordanians met these conditions, and the result has been return of territory (Sinai) and peace with Egypt and Jordan for over a quarter-century.
Oslo headed in the same direction: Start of Israeli withdrawal, conditioned on demilitarization of the areas from which they withdrew.
Why demilitarization? Because Golan and West Bank are very sensitive security-wise: They are the topographical high ground and so thoroughly dominate Israel militarily.
The settlers? Yes, they have some power, but not more than the majority of the Israeli electorate.
Furthermore, the evacuations of Sinai (Yamit) and Gaza showed that:
* The Israeli majority will choose peace over territory or settlements.
* The settler minority will not take arms resist the majority.
That’s all encouraging. And Kadima was formed to evacuate the territories — until Nasrallah reminded the Israeli majority that the West Bank would be a nice, high topographical base for missiles.
Thus, I think sometimes the Arabs have been their own worst enemies — every time the Israeli public gets in favour of a concession, they get scared off by an Arab action.
For example, the Israelis left Lebanon, and Nasrallah promptly installed missiles pointing at Israel. Didn’t it occur to Nasrallah that his missiles might make the Israelis hesitate to evacuate the West Bank?
The same for missiles from Gaza shot into Israel: The Israeli public supported withdrawal from Gaza but now has second thoughts.
The same for the large arms Arafat tried to bring into the Palestinian Authority from Iran on the Karine-A (in violation of Oslo): The Israeli public supported the Oslo withdrawals, then were scared into stopping by the prospect of large arms pointed at them from the West Bank high ground.
Last, to make the Israeli public feel that returning territories would not be committing suicide militarily, it does incalculable harm for the Hamas charter or Iranian demonstrators to talk about eliminating Israel, or for bloggers to continually write that “Israel has no right to exist.”
Sari Nusseibah has got it right: Do the Palestinians want to own one state (Palestine in the territories) or two (Palestine plus Israel proper)? If the Israelis think it’s the former, they’ll withdraw. If they think it’s the latter, they won’t withdraw.
The Israeli peace movement often points out that Israel should act to support Arab moderates. Shouldn’t the converse hold as well: Arabs should act to support Israeli moderates (favouring withdrawal), and not act to frustrate them with rockets, etc?
I never said, and don’t think, it’s about water. I think it’s about an Israeli sentiment of racial superiority and the fact that they think they can get away with it. The security issue might have been true in 1967 but is completely bogus now. They are holding on to the territories because of a twisted Messianic vision that legitimizes the colonization of other people’s territories. No need to look for complex geostrategic reasons — that’s just apologetics.