[Mb-civic] Visions of Israel after the conflict - Daniel Levy - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Visions of Israel after the conflict

By Daniel Levy  |  April 2, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

ISRAEL'S MULTIPARTY SYSTEM makes interpreting election results a 
thankless task, but in last week's parliamentary elections, two 
resounding messages emerged: Israelis want to step back from both 
territorial expansionism and social neglect. Actually, the two are 
linked -- money invested in settlements doesn't go to education, health, 
or pensions.

Many Israelis seemed to vote for their vision of what a postconflict 
society should look like. The big surprise was the new pensioners' party 
winning seven seats in a protest vote from young Israelis, while large 
parties, such as Amir Peretz's Labor, also campaigned primarily on a 
domestic agenda of social inclusion.

The election results partly suggest that further territorial evacuation 
has been pocketed as a given, but they also reflect socioeconomic 
concerns and an element of escapism. Israeli society is not yet in a 
postconflict place, but it might be looking more soberly, willingly, and 
resignedly at the steps necessary to get there.

When Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared his Convergence Plan, 
his opponents in the Likud party and far right responded that the 
election had become a referendum on the evacuation of the West Bank. 
They lost that referendum. There is a clear Knesset majority for serious 
territorial compromise. Occupation is beginning to be fingered as the 
national malaise. With the public and the leadership unusually in unison 
in saying ''get us out of there," everything now depends on how it is 
done and where the new line is drawn.

In his victory speech, Olmert reached out to Palestinian President 
Mahmoud Abbas and described a negotiated peace agreement as ''Israel's 
best and most stable alternative," mentioning unilateralism only as a 
fallback. Abbas has long advocated peace negotiations, but he and Hamas 
are in a cohabitation government, and despite some moderate noises from 
their internal leadership and their adherence to a ceasefire, Hamas is 
still some ways away from climbing onboard the permanent and unequivocal 
nonviolence train of the Irish Republican Army and the ETA. Combine this 
with a suspicion that Israel may want to maintain some territorial and 
other aspects of the occupation, and many suggest that unilateralism 
will be the preferred Olmert policy. This may be an accurate reading of 
intentions, but it would be a wrong-headed policy. An approach that 
consists only of barriers, separation, and unilateralism cannot deliver 
ongoing quiet.

This is where the US role should come into play. Any secure and stable 
border delineation will require broad local (Israeli and Palestinian), 
regional, and international legitimacy and acceptance. Given their 
respective starting points, Israeli and Palestinian positions can 
possibly be bridged. This would likely require committed US engagement.

Two questions arise: Will the administration go for it and will the way 
this issue plays out in domestic US politics allow it to happen?

Those advocating that President Bush make good on his 2002 commitment to 
a two-state solution, and who understand that an agreed resolution of 
the conflict dramatically improves US prospects for realizing regional 
strategic goals and removes a rallying cry from extremists, must carry 
the day.

Domestically, a recent Harvard Kennedy School of Government research 
paper by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer suggested that the 
''pro-Israel Lobby" is the prime driver of US foreign policy in the 
region. Their argument, strong in substance but lacking in nuance and 
overdosing on polemic, is that the Israel lobby (and mainly AIPAC) goes 
largely unchallenged in defining the debate both in Washington and in 
the public at large -- with intimidation tactics featuring prominently.

Yet, to the extent to which this phenomenon exists, the Israeli election 
results suggest the antidote. AIPAC has too much allowed itself to be an 
echo chamber for the Likud, now only Israel's fifth party by size, with 
a puny 11 seats. The pro-Israel position in the United States needs to 
start approximating more closely just where the debate is in Israel. 
Israel seems to be waking up to the devastating effect that occupation 
has on its moral fiber and national security interests. Those in the 
United States who claim to speak in the name of Israel's good should 
also turn that page. Mainstream organizations like Israel Policy Forum 
and the Union for Reform Judaism are already there and should be 
listened to more closely.

This would allow the US government to play the role of Israel's older 
brother -- close always, nudging when needed -- but not its bodyguard. 
It is that older brother that Israel could do with right now.

Daniel Levy served as a policy adviser in the Israeli prime minister's 
office. He was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/02/visions_of_israel_after_the_conflict/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060402/9492a3c1/attachment.htm