It is time for realism, not despair
ONE OF Middle East journalism’s favourite clichés is to declare the death of the peace process, with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman one of the latest to read the last rites for the two-state solution. But despite bilateral negotiations hitting an impasse, powerful political opposition on both sides, and the rising tide of violence in the West Bank, he is wrong to do so, and new proposals emerging on the Israeli centre-left show why.
First, moving towards a two-state solution does not require a final status agreement. Israel can act unilaterally to disentangle from the Palestinians in the West Bank, and support for this approach has gained some ground in Israel. In recent years the prominent security think tank INSS has been the most influential of a band of advocates for a new Israeli separation plan, and Israeli politicians on the Israeli centreleft are increasingly taking up the idea.
Opposition leader Isaac Herzog recently launched his own version. This includes completing the West Bank security barrier, stopping settlement activity in the 92 per cent of the West Bank east of the barrier, and turning over civil control of much of that area to the Palestinian Authority, while keeping the IDF in place. Prominent Labour MKs also propose legislation to compensate those living in isolated settlements to move into Israel or the major settlement blocs west of the barrier. This would stop the drift towards a binational state and move towards a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank, even without a peace deal.
Until recently, those proposing this approach swam against a tide of public apathy fuelled by the outcome of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which led to a Hamas takeover and rockets fired all over Israel. But in a recent INSS poll, 59 per cent of Israeli Jews said they would even be prepared to evacuate isolated settlements in a unilateral “realignment” move.
Second, there is a strong and growing geostrategic incentive for Israel and Sunni Arab states to unite around the two-state solution. They share concerns about a resurgent Iran, the threat of Sunni jihadists, and US retrenchment. The Palestinian conflict limits their ability to deepen co-operation. That is why the Israeli opposition proposes making a formal response to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and calls for a regional conference.
Third, when in the future, the parties are ready to negotiate a final status agreement, the growth of settlements beyond the major settlement blocs need not be an insurmountable obstacle. True, their number now exceeds 80,000, and there is little appetite in Israel for evacuations. But the built-up area they cover is less than one per cent of the West Bank, and Israeli public figures from Oslo Accords architect Yossi Beilin to President Rubi Rivlin are openly discussing how Israelis could remain in the borders of a future Palestinian state.
These three factors are augmented by the fact that the Israeli right, though currently in the ascendant, has no coherent alternative vision. Surveys continue to show that in principle, Israelis and Palestinians agree that the two-state option is preferable to a one-state alternative. Meanwhile, the recent Palestinian violence undermines the Israeli right’s claim that the “status quo” is as good as it gets.
In recent years, the political tide has been against the Israeli centre-left, but in Israel politics can change fast.
What’s more, policies that start out on the Israeli left have a habit of creeping rightwards. Even Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged the possibility of unilateral separation in a recent thinktank discussion in Washington. This is time for realism but not despair. We may not be about to see “peace now”, but those who want to see a peaceful future should get behind the new pragmatic Israeli thinking about how to advance towards a twostate reality.