JUNE 5, 2014
JERUSALEM — It’s not easy to mark the exact moment when a peripheral idea suddenly becomes mainstream. But it’s safe to say that in today’s Israel the worrisome idea of annexing land in the West Bank is no longer marginal or considered as extreme as it once was.
The idea is called by different names, and the details of the plan — when there is one — vary. It is often called “applying Israeli law,” which presumably sounds more inviting than “annexation.” It is occasionally a call for only partial annexation. Yet the trend cannot be denied: Up-and-coming leaders of the Likud Party, the speaker of the Knesset and several ministers have come out in support of some form of annexation. On Monday, the idea was even raised in the cabinet, in a discussion concerning measures of retribution for Palestinian transgressions.
Annexation of the territory that was taken from Jordan in the 1967 war (apart from East Jerusalem and the Old City, both of which Israel declared to be legally under its jurisdiction) has long been an option. Yet for decades it wasn’t seriously considered. Two reasons made it unappealing: the expected outrage of the international community that has never accepted Israel as the legitimate ruler of the West Bank, and the demographic implications that annexation would have on Israel’s “Jewish and democratic” character. The territory is largely inhabited by Palestinians. If Israel bestowed citizenship on all of them, it would dramatically erode Israel’s Jewish majority. Why then has annexation suddenly become politically kosher?
The obvious reason is the failure of the peace process. For 25 years, Israelis and Palestinians have tried to negotiate a mutually agreed separation — the so called two-state solution. They failed not for lack of professionalism, but rather because they couldn’t agree on the terms for separation. A growing number of Israeli leaders are reaching the conclusion that this old idea is dead. Since they think the status quo is unsustainable, they are searching for new ideas.
The two available new ideas force Israel to forgo core building blocks of the old peace process: to sacrifice the element of “agreement,” or to sacrifice the element of “separation,” or both.
Giving up on the idea of an agreement led many Israelis to support taking unilateral steps toward separation and drawing of borders. Giving up on the idea of separation led other Israelis to support annexation.
In supporting such ideas, right-wingers have redrawn Israel’s political map: Israel’s right and Israel’s radical left both have toyed with a “one-state solution” in which all Palestinians residing west of the Jordan River (excluding those in the Gaza Strip) would become Israeli citizens, while centrist and left-leaning Israelis still support the principle of separation.
Curiously, supporters of annexation often claim to occupy the higher moral ground. Reuven Rivlin, the leading contender to replace Shimon Peres as Israel’s president next week, is a longtime supporter of full annexation. He believes it is the only realistic and moral solution. “It is shocking to me to hear people talk about a ‘demographic threat,”’ he once said. Mr. Rivlin is an old-school Likud liberal. He talks about equal rights and he means it. Likewise, Uri Elitzur, a leading figure in the settler movement, recently published an article, days before his death, in which he warned that annexation is the only choice if Israel wants to avoid becoming an “apartheid state.”
Advertisement
Supporters hope that if the international community can be convinced that Israel truly means to give the annexed Palestinians full rights, it might come around to supporting the idea. The other obstacle that proponents have to overcome is the fear of losing Israel’s Jewish majority — and they tackle it by claiming that there are fewer Palestinians in the West Bank than is commonly thought (some demographers agree). Hence, they argue, annexation would erode the Jewish majority but not destroy it.
The idea is alluring for a great number of Israelis. It could potentially appeal to a majority who, like me, have little faith in the prospects of a reasonable peace agreement. It is especially tempting because its opponents don’t have a satisfactory alternative to propose — unilateral withdrawal from territory lost its charm following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which led to Hamas rule and rocket attacks.
But this allure is dangerous. Zionism is about having a Jewish and democratic state. Annexation means putting the sacredness of the land before Israel’s character, or putting tactical security concerns before Israel’s character.
Israel can either bluff, abandon its democratic ideals and attempt to achieve annexation without granting rights to the Palestinians, a road that would lead to international isolation and a national identity crisis. Or it could seek one peaceful state for two warring peoples, a road that would destroy Israel’s essence, endanger the Jewish majority and perpetuate a bloody conflict.
Shmuel Rosner is the political editor at The Jewish Journal and a fellow at The Jewish People Policy Institute.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 6, 2014, in The International New York Times. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
NEXT IN OPINION
No comments:
Post a Comment