After 63 years of Israeli military occupation and settlement expansion into Palestinian territory, both the Israeli and U.S. governments have made it painfully obvious that political realities in their respective capitals make prospects for peacefully resolving the Israeli-Palestinian debacle all but nullified. In light of an impending resolution set for September, the UN General Assembly could authorize overdue conflict resolution. Israel and the U.S. should seize this opportunity to defer the matter to the fair and capable hands of the international community.
As a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli Defense Forces seized and still occupy Gaza, the Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and all quite illegally. The confiscation by force of these lands left three options for how to proceed: genocidal eradication of the Palestinian people, giving the land back to the Palestinians or maintaining a state of perpetual martial law. The Israeli government has so far chosen not to relinquish their unsanctioned land grab, but remain unwilling to absorb Palestinian voters into Israel’s own version of apartheid democracy. The Israeli people, on the other hand, courageously stand ready for co-existence with Palestine.
Given the fractured nature of parliamentary politics within the Israeli Knesset at the moment, the “Road Map to Peace” remains a concept dead-on-arrival. There is a discernible disconnect growing between the Israeli population and those who represent them in Tel Aviv. The majority of citizens repeatedly inform pollsters of their collective desire for welcoming a lasting two-state solution, to live side-by-side with a functional, sovereign and peaceful Palestinian state.
As new settlements creep further into the heart of the West Bank, the concept of ceding occupied territory becomes a non-starter for settlers in the voting booth. Tzipi Livni, whose moderate Kadima party captured the most popular votes in Israel’s last general election, could not ascend to the position of prime minister, unable to forge a coalition government within the Knesset. Livni’s embrace of a two-state solution was openly repudiated by many political factions that ultimately formed a consensus of support for Netanyahu’s coalition.
Considering that more people live in New York City than the entire country of Israel, demographic gerrymandering and strategic redistricting efforts predictably start to resemble blood sports. Keeping Arab-Israelis from participating in elections has become a prime directive for many Israeli politicians. With more than thirty different parties participating in the election, the practicalities of formulating a unity government rely upon courting pro-Zionist elements intractable in their unwillingness to initiate or support compromise with the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu has made it clear that his legacy will be that of having preserved the Jewish state as such. He has scoffed at the previously agreed upon Palestinian “right of return”, insisting that he will gladly get back to the negotiating table once Palestinians agree to the forced reality that those ousted by incoming Israeli settlements will have to find homes elsewhere within the accepted boundaries of the as yet non-existent nation of Palestine - a difficult sell for Palestinian politicians to offer their constituents.
The last prime minister of Israel willing to cut a deal with the Palestinian Authority was Yitzhak Rabin, during the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993. He was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In 1995, he was murdered by a radical Jewish assassin. The political and actual dangers involved with this process are real. Netanyahu rightly recognizes the limitations his house-of-cards coalition is faced with.
As for Washington D.C. leading the charge towards a meaningful solution, it seems as though the aspirations of the AIPAC lobby have successfully blockaded such efforts with a preemptive publicity campaign, determined to prevent the U.S. Congress from influencing the debate whatsoever.
AIPAC is a heavyweight contender of congressional influence, one of the most powerful firms in the country – second only to AARP according to Fortune Magazine. AIPAC has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to “sink or swim” a candidacy at any level of government, democrat or republican. AIPAC receives support from Israeli backers with deep ties to both military defense contractors and the settlement industrial complex. For these reasons, AIPAC persistently supports delay tactics, standing against any meaningful solution, two-state or otherwise.
President Obama and more than half of the U.S. Senate attended this year’s conference – a turnout nearly on par with his state-of-the-union address. Obama took the opportunity to announce to the Palestinians they can forget about U.S. support in the forthcoming UN vote over Palestinian statehood, followed by thunderous applause. AIPAC is not an enemy to be made heading into an election year.
On the heels of this public display of unity with the AIPAC lobby, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the U.S. House of Representatives, garnering dozens of standing ovations without having said one thing even remotely consequential.
There are other Jewish American lobbyist firms, however, willing to challenge AIPAC’s peace-preventing political philosophies. Groups such as Tikkun, Jewish Voice for Peace and J Street, to name just a few, are attempting to advance U.S.-based legislation aimed at bolstering efforts for a two-state solution, but their collective agendas are effectively drowned out by the well-funded AIPAC powerhouse.
Time is of the essence, as the Arab Spring goes relentlessly viral with its spread of democratic aspirations sweeping the whole of the Middle East and North Africa. Revolution has literally reached Israel’s front and back doorsteps, with Egyptians toppling the Mubarak regime, as well as the latest Syrian unrest, including recently reignited border challenges in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
A two-state solution remains the only foreseeable and pragmatic path forward for an indefensible status quo. The responsibility for administering the solution should be UN-mandated, from the outside in, as it was with the formation of Israel by a similar measure in 1948. This allows for both Israeli and American political leaders, including Obama and Netanyahu, to maintain plausible deniability when answering geopolitical demands for explanation. Then perhaps, in reflection of actual democracy, the realities on the ground could finally match the majority will of Israelis, Palestinians and earthlings the world over.
Comments