There Can Be No Peace Without Maturity

Several months prior to the outbreak of World War II, British Maj. Gen. Bernard Montgomery wrote from Palestine: “The Jew murders the Arab and the Arabs murder the Jew. This is what is going on in Palestine now. And it will go on for the next 50 years in all probability.”

More than 60 years later, old Monty’s prediction seems as relevant as ever. The same elements of the conflict that led the British to end their 30-year rule in Palestine still determine the situation today. Only unlike the British, the Israelis and Palestinians have nowhere to go; they are doomed to share the land and work out some sort of settlement that would at least make it possible for them to live together without violence or oppression, if not in full peace.

The collapse of the so-called “peace process” that started eight years ago with the Oslo accords and the first seven months of the current wave of violence have led many Israelis to conclude that the conflict cannot be solved at this time; it may still be possible, however, to manage it. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems to share this view, unlike his predecessor, Ehud Barak.

Barak sought to end the historic conflict once and for all, offering the Palestinians unprecedented concessions. None of these concessions could satisfy the Palestinians; the gap between the two sides is simply too deep. Given the nature of these problems, Barak was wrong to seek a binding final peace settlement rather than offer the Palestinians pragmatic solutions to specific problems.

Recognizing that the conflict cannot be solved at this time, Israel can nevertheless take a number of steps that might allow a nonviolent coexistence and perhaps even pave the way for peace sometime in the future. These steps might include the unilateral dismantlement of tiny isolated settlements, including the Israeli neighborhood in Hebron. These settlements cause a great deal of tension and animosity. Over the next few years, Israel could gradually reduce the number of residents living in some of the larger settlements as well.

Israel could benefit from the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, not as the final outcome of the peace process but as one of the first steps that would make peace possible in the future. Also, for peace to be possible, both peoples will have to give up some of their national aspirations. Fifty years of statehood have brought many Israelis to a point where they are able and willing to make such concessions; knowing that the existence of their country is no longer in danger, their sense of security has led them to adopt a more mature position.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have not yet grown out of their primal stage of nationalism. For them to develop security and maturity, they also have to experience at least one generation of national independence, and hence it is in the interest of Israel to encourage Palestinian statehood. In the meantime, it is in the interest of Israel to make the lives of as many Palestinians as possible as easy as possible, lifting restrictions on freedom of movement, granting more permits for Palestinians who seek employment in Israel.

Unfortunately, hardly any of these thoughts can be advanced as long as the current wave of violence continues; hence it is in the interest of both sides to stop it.