Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu took a bold, if not entirely satisfying, step toward peace on Sunday. Speaking at Bar Ilan University's commencement exercises in Tel Aviv, the Israeli PM departed from his past positions and redefined Israel's stance on a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
Rising to calls from the Obama administration, the Palestinian Authority and a few members of his own governing coalition, Netanyahu declared that "Israel embraces the idea of a Palestinian state, would not build any new settlements and would refrain from expanding existing Israeli communities in the West Bank."
But it's hard for some people to take yes for an answer. There are already those among both the Palestinians and members of Israel's hard left who are shouting about the insufficiency of Netanyahu's move. And not surprisingly, they are balanced by those on Israel's hard right who see the Prime Minister's remarks as a total betrayal. To my mind, that's a sure sign that he is on the right track, if not yet at the appropriate stop for this train.
The question now will be this:
Are all sides prepared to enter a conversation based not on what is True, Just, Fair or mandated by God, (because about these things, we are not likely to agree any time soon) but based on what works? That is all that matters, if peace and security, and not the triumph of a particular ideology, theology, history or some concept of honor, are the real goals of each side. These are all abstract ideas, which however important they may be, have a proven track record of being more effective at war-making than peace-making, in this conflict at least.
But, because we know that these ideas are so important to so many swept up in the conflict between Israel and her neighbors, it is vital that those of us who care about them, work as hard as possible to locate how truth, justice, fairness, and even God will be honored by making the peace we need instead of holding out for the final solution to which some on each side aspire. That is what defines the ability to change without feeling that one has betrayed one's self or their most deeply held values.
Netanyahu took a tremendous chance last night. He stood before the world and changed. That is hard for any of us, and especially so for politicians, who are usually rewarded by playing to their base and assuring them that the one thing which they will never need to do is change. But peace will be a change. It will redefine the region and with that redefinition will come shifts in identity, and ideology which are hard.
What does it mean to be a lover of the biblical land of Israel who is willing to cede land? What does it mean to wear a key around one's neck even if one will never return to the house that goes with it? These are tough questions, but Benjamin Netanyahu seems ready to wrestle with them. Are other leaders in the region? Are we, who support one side or the other in this conflict? If we are, peace is not only possible, it's likely.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, but apparently not in Mr. Netanyahu's universe. To the Arabs he expressed a willingness to negotiate without preconditions being placed on Israel, but he placed several deal-breaking preconditions on the Arabs, thus precluding any hope of progress (which is exactly what he wants).
1. No compromise on J'lem. This is a non-starter because Israel insists that the international community accept its illegal "annexation" of East Jerusalem and its environs. That's not likely to happen. So until Bibi is willing to negotiate the status of the Jerusalem metropolis in good faith, no Arab leader will sit him him.
2. No compromise on the Arab "Right of Return," meaning that Israel insists that the Arabs give up even the right to insist on compensation in exhange for dropping 60 year old claim. The "right of return" has been a principal tool in the Arab propaganda machine since the founding of Israel in 1949. There is no way they will give it up for nothing.
3. No compromise on demilitarization. From the perspective of the Arabs, Israel has been acting as a beligerant occupier of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Demanding as a precondition to any negotiation that the PA give up all rights to self-defense is a guarantee that negotiations will never commence.
Conclusion: Bibi might have talked about a theoretical Palestinian State, but it was so conditioned on unilateral acquiesence by the Arabs, that he might as well have said "No Palestine. Not now, not ever."
Viewed another way, this is a test for Obama administration ability to act as a true "honest broker" in the peace process. If it lets Bibi get away with this, the Arabs will rightly conclude that the U.S. still plays favorites in the middle east.
Bibi never said that he "would refrain from expanding existing Israeli communities in the West Bank." Just the opposite. He said he would continue to expand them, under the inaptly phrased "natural growth" doctrine. All he agreed to was the stop expropriating additional land for their construction, an admission that the land on which they sit was expropriated in the first place.
At the end of the day, what will work in creating peace in Israel/Palestine is the same as what would be most likely agreed upon as "True, Just, Fair," etc. Whatever the shape a solution takes, it must start with an understanding that both sides have been wronged and have wronged the other. Sounds pat, but rhetoric that forgets that fact is pervasive and very inflammatory without effectively engendering healing and new solutions.
This short article lays out how to go "beyond the blame game": http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/mar09_brown
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.