This week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Palestinians have finally agreed to sit down and talk with Israel about a more comprehensive peace plan. It is great to see the two leaders sit down face to face to work out a plan, but I am concerned with the long term repercussions if Prime Minister Netanyahu does not handle this properly.
Secretary Clinton included this in her press conference:
Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states – Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.
Note the emphasis on two states. While I do not support it, I have come to terms with the reality of a state called Palestine in much of Judea and Samaria. I also realize that some sort of state will exist in all of Gaza, but it is closer to Hamastan than Palestine.
In creating a new state, Israel has to be very careful about the security rights it gives up and how the Jewish residents are treated. I proudly wore a “Yehudi lo megaresh Yehudi” bracelet leading up to and for years following the Gaza withdrawal. I still believe in the motto: “A Jew does not exile a Jew.” But, it appears that we will be facing that predicament again in the future.
The security concern is a major factor in my feelings toward starting a new Palestinian state. In the plans of the British Mandate of Palestine, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state were both called for. Remember that Transjordan included both what is now Israel and Jordan, so as far as I am concerned the Palestinians have a state, but they always want more.
When we went along and gave the Palestinians more, and left Gaza with no conditions, we gave the Palestinians a location from which to attack. I was afraid that would happen, and my fears are realized regularly with rocket and mortar attacks originating in the Gaza Strip.
What would a Palestinian state in the West Bank mean? It would mean rocket ranges could easily hit Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Naharia, Haifa, Beer Sheva, Hod HaSharon, and virtually every other major population center in Israel. A war could quickly divide Israel in two, and the 1967 borders could hardly be considered defensible.
I pray that Bibi keeps this in mind when negotiating a peace deal with Mahmud Abbas. The time for unilateral moves toward peace has gone. We saw the disastrous results of that. Now, it is time for concrete promises that will be enforced. It is not worth having peace at all costs. Jerusalem is permanently part of Israel. All of it. The areas around Gush Etzion are also, in my opinion, non-negotiable. I believe Bibi has similar views in that aspect. I am thrilled that he is leading the negotiation, rather that Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak, as I believe either would give away a lot more for a lot less in return.
I will keep my eyes on Washington in September, and I hope any steps forward do not come with more steps back.
About the author
- More at
