By Michael Felsen
BOSTON, Massachusetts: There’s something very disconcerting about a recently conducted Israeli public opinion poll. The survey, undertaken for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth at the beginning of this month, revealed that 66 percent of Israeli Jews don’t believe that there will ever be peace with the Palestinians. In the same poll, 88 per cent responded that Israel is a good place to live. Explaining findings that seem irreconcilable, pollster Mina Tzemach remarked: “As a defense mechanism, we make a separation between our personal lives and what is going on in the country. We’re completely aware of what is happening here, but we don’t let that influence us. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to live here.”
Let’s examine some of the facts of which Israelis are “completely aware”. They include, presumably, the marked determination of the Palestinian people to have their own sovereign state, the reverberations of the Arab Spring and the mounting evidence that the Arab “street” does indeed care about the lot of the Palestinian people. They also include, presumably, Israel’s increasing isolation in the world community, following moves like the grant of 1,100 building permits in Gilo, a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem built on land seized in 1967 — an action universally castigated, including by the United States, as obstructive to peace.
Tzemach opines that, despite “what is happening” around them, Israelis cordon off that reality as a defense mechanism and choose to ignore it.
After decades of failure of the “peace process”, attributable to innumerable causes, the inclination to give up hope and to tune out the “situation” is understandable. But is it a viable option for the Israeli people? Who, at this moment in time in the Middle East, really believes that the Palestinian cry for statehood will simply fade to a whimper? Or that the status quo of occupation is sustainable? Historic changes are afoot in the region. Can Israelis safely close their eyes and ears to the seismic shifts around them?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly embraced a two-state solution, and has called for a resumption of talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who many have called the most promising partner for peace Israel is ever likely to have, has likewise affirmed the goal of a Palestinian state living in peace with the state of Israel. In their negotiations in 2008, Israel’s previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas came very close to resolving all outstanding issues in this decades-old conflict.
Following his United Nations appearance, Abbas was riding a wave of popularity among Palestinians that bolstered his non-violent, two-state agenda. Abbas’ ascendancy has been at least temporarily derailed by the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit after five years in Hamas’ custody — a most welcome development — through a deal struck with Hamas that will deliver over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. For now, Hamas is basking in the peoples’ approval of the outcome of that negotiation. If Abbas and his two-state approach — in contrast with Hamas’ peace-abnegating one-state stance — are to regain the momentum they had only days ago, he needs to begin delivering results.
Abbas has made clear that he cannot and will not return to talks with Israel until its government agrees to accept the 1967 lines as a starting point for discussion on final borders, along with a hiatus in settlement construction. While Netanyahu insists on “no pre-conditions”, Abbas’ demands, which have remained consistent, are reasonable. The international community overwhelmingly views the 1967 borders, with land swaps, as the basis for negotiations. And the case against continued settlement construction in areas that the Palestinians claim as part of their future state, which will be subject to negotiation, is strong, as a matter of international law and basic fairness.
The time is now for the Israeli people to belie the polls. They must let their government know, after all, that they believe peace – with security – is possible, and are ready to make the bold moves required to make it happen. Inevitably, such moves — like the Shalit deal — involve risks, but also commensurate actual or potential rewards of incalculable value. A temporary halt in settlement construction is the critical first step to get the parties talking again. Once talks begin, with persistent international support, the Israelis and the Palestinians — having come so close before — can go the distance. And when they do, “a good place to live” will take on a whole new meaning for both peoples.
Michael Felsen is an attorney and President of Boston Workmen’s Circle, a 110-year-old communal organization dedicated to secular Jewish education, culture and social justice. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 18 October 2011, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
