deep focus

Borders? What borders?

Robert Malley and Hussein Agha published an op-ed in today’s nytimes, decrying the meaningless of the phrase “two-state solution.” Their arguments rests on pairing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Khaled Meshal, essentially his Hamas counterpart. Both have recently accepted the need for a two-state solution, but only leads to what the authors call “an existential struggle between two worldviews.”

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.

For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.

For Malley & co., the proposed settlement freeze is nice, but meaningless. Even if Netanyahu’s government relents, the settlements must be removed, not frozen, so we’re back at the 1967 borders. But even if we do that, the Spirit of ‘48–the existential struggle–will remain. So, basically, why even try?

What Malley is invoking–the definition of the state of Israel as Jewish, right of return for Palestinian refugees, etc. etc., are what the peace process calls final status issues. To be resolved at the end, that is. And as Malley sees it, there is no reconciling the two positions. E.g., Either Jerusalem is the undivided capital of eternal Israel, or half of it becomes East Jerusalem and the capital of Palestine–and thus divided.

Luckily, Obama’s Mitchell team at State has a better handle on things, re: settlement freeze. What Malley is calling for, in between the lines, is for Israel to concede all their current positions–predominantly, the idea of Israel as a  Jewish state. Proponents of defining Israel as Jewish usually (conveniently?) fail to mention that 20% of Israelis are Christian and Muslim (and Jewish) Arabs.

And while many would agree (including myself) on the need for concessions from Israel (with simultaneous concessions from the Arab states, e.g. normalization of relations with Israel), simply dictating terms to the Israelis won’t work. The Israelis won’t accept it. And then there’s no peace agreement at all.

Negotiation on final status issues must correlate with everyday, on-the-ground improvements in the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians. That’s why the settlement freeze matters.

There is injustice, certainly. But reality is not black and white. Its shades of grey call for an incremental approach, one that works toward resolving final status issues while also improving the lives of the people.

The Oslo approach failed for a number of reasons, but on the practical level–which is where Malley directs his argument–the people didn’t see any change. They saw Palestinians and Arabs concede and compromise, and in the end, the Israelis elected Netanyahu to his first term in the 1990s, on the principle that land for peace would never work. Negotiations cooled pretty quickly after that. The second intifada and Operation Cast Lead in January of this year put an end to the little steps taken toward normalization between Israel and the Arab states following Oslo. It’s easy to say we’re just back to where we started. But now is not the time to give up on the peace process; some things have changed, particularly with the Arab Peace Initiative. Grievances have grown on both sides, but so has experience. We have tried before, and now know what doesn’t work. The only options are to alter the approach and try again, or to give up.

Cynicism is probably warranted, considering the way things have gone before. But let’s try to keep a little bit of hope alive.