First Line Israel Draws Will Suffice

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet are under pressure from the U.S. to produce a plan for further Israeli deployment from the West Bank. Thus far, they have failed to come up with such a plan, for the Cabinet is riven by ideological, political and personal differences, ranging from those opposed to the return of any land to the Palestinians--the historic position of the Likud--to Ariel Sharon’s proposal for Palestinian Bantustans limited to about 35% of the West Bank, to Yitzhak Mordecai’s “security” map calling for the retentionby Israel of 55% of the area.

In the end, however, there will be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. To be sure, there will be provisions for the demilitarization of the new state and for various arrangements that will assuage to a certain extent Israel’s security concerns, including minor territorial adjustments. But the maps now being argued about could not be more irrelevant, except for the fact that even the most parsimonious proposals mark a historic turning point. They come to terms with a partition of the “Land of Israel” and accept the principle of returning territory to the Palestinians, a principle that was always rejected by the Likud. Indeed, it was Likud’s insistence on the retention of the entire Land of Israel that essentially defined the party and justified its existence.

The various maps have now confirmed the principle of territorial partition. Therein lies their importance, not in the borders they advocate. The principle will lead inexorably to a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian reluctance to dismantle terrorist operations in areas under their control, however politically destructive and morally reprehensible, will delay the outcome, but in the end will not prevent it.

The reason for this inevitability is not the effectiveness of the peace process or the genius of the Oslo accords. The Oslo agreement is deeply flawed, although it is the most that could have been achieved at the time, and the peace process it triggered has not been so cleverly contrived as to make it irreversible.

Rather, it is the relentless logic of history that will yield a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The question is not whether it will happen, but when, and at what further cost in human suffering. The state will emerge not as a reward for Palestinian good behavior, but because at the end of the 20th century it is inconceivable that a people with its own culture, faith and political identity can remain under permanent occupation by a power utterly foreign to it. The days when dreams of such permanent foreign rule can be entertained are gone forever.

Given the inevitability of the outcome, it is tragic that Israel’s current political leadership is so lacking in vision as to fail to understand that resistance to this historic process, even if motivated by tactical considerations, creates resentment and bitterness that undermines the very security in whose name the policies are justified. The talk about “reciprocity” from the Palestinians is a smoke screen, for the list of Israeli violations of the Oslo accords is as extensive as the list of Palestinian violations. Right-wing columnist Uri Elitzur wrote in Yediot Ahronot Dec. 19 that “the reciprocity demand is admittedly only a pretext. . . .The truth is, we are fighting for the extradition of terrorists in the hope that Arafat will never hand them over, and we will never have to take another withdrawal step.”

Similarly, the ineptness of Palestinian leadership, its reluctance to take on the terrorist infrastructure in territories under its control, and its failure to build a democratic political culture and transparent institutions (despite demands from the Palestinian population for accountable political leadership) have done immeasurable damage to the Palestinian cause. Among other things, these failures have weakened the pro-peace forces within Israel and in the American Jewish community.

A peace agreement will become possible when Israel’s leaders finally accept the truth that granting Palestinian freedom and political independence is not a matter of Israeli altruism but an essential precondition for Israel’s security. That is the truth Yitzhak Rabin came to understand and that made possible the Oslo agreement. Absent such understanding, even the smallest compromise is seen as a gratuitous gift to an undeserving adversary. It is an attitude that, in the end, will not prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state, but will further damage Israel’s security interests. For these interests can be dealt with effectively only in a context of negotiations that accept the legitimacy of both sides’ basic aspirations. President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright are to be commended for having set that context as the goal of their initiative to revive the Middle East peace process.