sherwinX03

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

International What the Future Holds for Israel By Sherwin Pomerantz Is peace between Israel and the Palestinians a possibility? Has the leadership of either group learned anything in the last 55 years? Can people in this part of the world live “normal” lives as that term is defined in the West? Will we be dealing with terror and in a state of war forever?

These and questions like these are being asked in Israel today as, quite frankly, they have been since the re-establishment of the state in 1948. After all, except for very brief periods of semi-quiet, such as the period after the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, this has never been a normal country. One of the first things I was told when I moved here 20 years ago is that I needed to understand the difference between America and Israel. In a word, in America one can plan for the future while in Israel no one plans for the future because the future, both near term and long term, is simply so uncertain.

So what is one to make of the developments of the last few months?

Private citizens from both the Israeli and Palestinian sectors meet in Geneva to draw up a plan for a two state solution, not unlike what was agreed upon in Oslo or what was offered at the end of the Barak administration, and they are roundly criticized for this private diplomacy.
Four former heads of the Mossad, Israel’s secret service, openly criticize the Sharon government’s policies with regard to the treatment of the Palestinians.
The Israeli Armed Forces Chief of Staff publishes a critique of the present governmental polices towards the Palestinians even though military brass are enjoined from making political statements.
The world criticizes the construction of a separation fence by the Israeli government to keep out Palestinian terrorists while the Israeli government continues to build the fence and debate how deep into Judea and Samaria the fence should go in order to encompass Israeli communities such as Ariel which are located well beyond the 1967 borders of Israel.

If one were to remove himself or herself from personal involvement and feelings and, instead, look at the commonality that pervades all of these events an interesting thread should be evident to the reader. With the exception of the participation of private Palestinian citizens in the recent Geneva discussions, all of this open discourse, self-criticism, and analysis is taking place in the Israeli camp. No open discourse is taking place on the Palestinian side and it is widely known and accepted that the involvement of the Palestinians group in the Geneva discussions was done with the express permission, consent and overall guidance of Chairman Arafat. And therein lays the problem.

Yes, it is true that the Sharon government is engaging in some policies which do not resonate with the majority of the population of Israel, but there is public criticism of those policies within Israel and an incredible amount of self-analytic discourse as well. Yes, it is true that some of the members of the Israel Defense Forces who monitor the movement of Palestinians through the various check points engage in behavior against both Israeli and Jewish law, but they are identified, accused and then court-martialed for such behavior. Yes, it is true that the policy of targeted killings of terrorists and their leaders by the Israelis sometimes results in the death of bystanders, but there is follow up dialogue and adjusted actions as a result.

On the other side, in the Palestinian camp, this kind of analysis, criticism and dissension from the party line dictated from the top is met with derision, imprisonment and, even in some cases, summary execution. The fact is that the decision of the Sharon government to attempt to marginalize Yasser Arafat and treat him as non-existent has strengthened his position and made it clearer than ever that he is still calling all the shots, as it were.

In an atmosphere like this there is really no chance for peace and no hope for an end to the hostilities, regardless of how much self-criticism takes place on the Israeli side. The Sharon government seems to feel that its only obligation is to protect the citizens of Israel at any cost and the Palestinian leadership seems to see its goal as to simply continually goad the Israelis into more and more military response to a situation which, ultimately, can only be resolved politically.

Former Soviet dissident and now Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Jerusalem, Natan Shransky, is fond of saying that nations cannot make peace with other nations where human rights and democratic values are not cherished and respected. Given the present conditions in the region coupled with the above analysis one can only conclude that until the present Palestinian leadership passes from the scene (i.e. dies) and the present Israeli leadership responsibility is passed to others with alternative visions, there is simply no hope for peace.