{Previously published in The Jerusalem Post}
How does one reconcile this moral dilemma if you believe Israel has a right to exist as the home of the Jewish people but believe in two states for two peoples?
This year’s August congressional trip to Israel is different
from previous years, as so much attention is focused on who is not joining,
specifically the members of the pro-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions)
“Squad,” Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
However, most members who come to Israel do have an open mind and can grasp the
difficulties that have thwarted decades of efforts at resolution of the
conflict between Israel and its enemies, some who will not be satisfied until
there is no Jewish state and no Western-oriented presence in the region.
Some say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about the occupation, and Israel for its own good should unilaterally withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, and that the Jews of all peoples, after centuries of oppression, should not be occupying another people’s land.
Yet if there is to be created an autonomous Palestinian state adjacent to Israel, is it reasonable to expect that missiles won’t be exploding in Tel Aviv, or that they won’t have to run their children into bomb shelters all the time everywhere in Israel?
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. Its reward was
three wars launched from the coastal enclave and plenty of indignant
international condemnation for Israel defending itself against forces launching
missiles from school yards and hospitals, and digging tunnels under borders to
sneak across and murder civilians.
Some advocate that the two peoples should have their own states based on the
pre-1967 lines. Aside from the technicalities of armistice lines and borders,
what if an objective analysis of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and the
current pathology of the Palestinian leadership leads to the conclusion that
the Palestinian Authority remains in power only because of the help it receives
from Israel’s security forces? What if an Israeli withdrawal would likely lead
to the creation of a “Hamastan” on the Jordan, a proxy of Iran backed with
money and armaments?
How does one reconcile this moral dilemma if you believe Israel has a right to
exist as the home of the Jewish people but believe in two states for two
peoples?
Groups like J Street and their congressional supporters preach that the
corrosive effect of occupation is worse than the security risk of withdrawal,
finding a small group of former IDF officers to support their claim. All will
be well if the cause of the conflict, the “illegal” occupation,” disappears.
If that were so, then how would one explain PA President Mahmoud Abbas walking
out in 2007 when more than 100% of the disputed territory was offered with land
swaps? In December 2018, Palestinian chief negotiator Saab Erekat confirmed
that this was indeed the Israeli offer, and they turned it down.
If you are a congressional representative who prioritizes security
considerations, the question to ask is: What do secure boundaries mean for
Israel in the 21st century?
Those who advocate for a complete Israeli withdrawal minimize the importance of
strategic depth in the age of missiles, as missiles fly over borders in a split
second while Israel has the proven capabilities to intercept projectiles at a
rate of 80%-90%, mitigating the need to have more territory. This argument
rings hollow as territorial depth is essential for a country the size of New
Jersey, 11 miles wide at its narrowest point.
The minimal Israeli mainstream security consensus, considering current
logistics, is control of the Jordan River Valley, especially with Iran already
having a military presence in Iraq and Syria, a demilitarized Palestinian state
with defensible borders, and control of airspace.
Unfortunately, Palestinians were encouraged to become even more intransigent by
former president Barack Obama’s parting gift to Israel in 2016, UN Security
Council Resolution 2234, when the US abstained and joined for the first time
with the UN claque of Israel-bashers.
It labeled any Israeli presence over the Green Line, including the vital Jordan
River Valley and the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple, as illegal. This
undermines the legitimacy of any land swaps, as Israel would be retaining,
according to it, stolen land, a pretext for future conflict no matter what the
Palestinians sign onto now. The only saving grace of 2234 is that it was
adopted under the sixth chapter of the UN Charter, so it is considered a
non-binding resolution.
Suppose the Palestinians again remain intransigent. What would members of
Congress who want an end to the occupation propose then?
Since the Palestinians will remain the perpetual righteous victims to the
Squad, while Israel remains a Western colonial occupier, we can expect from
some quarters more clamoring for BDS. Never mind that Israel is the only real
democracy in the region with rights for all its citizens and the one steadfast
ally of the US in the region.
Israelis have enough on their plate with Iran threatening from the north, east
and south, so the status quo, in spite of everyone’s distaste for the current
situation, is the only logical choice until a durable Palestinian leadership is
willing to sign an end of conflict agreement that credibly won’t endanger
Israel’s existence as a Jewish State.
The writer is the director of Middle East Political and Information Network™
and a regular columnist to the Jerusalem Post and i24TV, and contributes to
JNS, The Hill, the Forward, and JTA. MEPIN™ research analysis is read by
members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, Knesset members,
journalists and organizational leaders.