|
June 26, 2009
Status quo hindering peace
Obama's Cairo speech offers a new opportunity in the process.
EUGENE KAELLIS
President Barack Obama's carefully crafted speech in Cairo received wide media approval and may already have influenced the Islamic world. The election of an anti-Syrian government in Lebanon and the desperation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his handling of the election in Iran and brutalizing many objectors, indicate that Obama's strategy toward the Islamic world may be working. A Hezbollah attack and an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel now seem far less likely.
Two days after the Iranian election, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated he goes along, "in principle," with Obama's plan. There will, of course, be much more talk and many negotiations, but for now, there is positive momentum.
Jews with misgivings about Obama's position ought realistically to accept that he has evidently expressed determination to achieve a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian accord where presidents Carter, Clinton and Bush have failed. Though beset with economic woes, he is not waiting for the closing days of his first term to make a vigorous start on what bodes to be a prolonged and difficult process. He holds lots of cards and he will not be deterred.
With the likely easing of the recession, the probable continuing disarray of the Republican Party and a Democratic Congress remaining through the 2010 mid-term elections, Obama's re-election in 2012 seems almost certain. If sections of the American Jewish community, unhappy with the pressure on Israel Obama will almost certainly have to exert, were to deny him support and mobilize to defeat him, such efforts would not only fail, they would alienate the significant American support Israel now enjoys.
Obama will now expect details from Israel, particularly on settlement plans. If Israel continues to be in the West Bank, the Israeli peace movement will take to the streets and Obama may take the unusual step of publicly chastising Netanyahu, the leader of a country heavily dependent on American aid and good will.
If American Jews want to oppose Obama's leadership for a peace plan, that decision should be tempered by the fact that significant Jewish leaders are now firmly in the conservative camp and their opposition is no loss to Obama. The American-Jewish demographic is, moreover, increasingly diminishing, and Obama has demonstrated that he can raise adequate funds with less reliance on big donors. So, such opposition would gain nothing and alienate American popular support for Israel.
Moreover, Obama can outwait a possibly recalcitrant Netanyahu and American Jewry. He can certainly apply major leverage: diplomatic pressure, money and weapons. On the other hand, he could help finance major projects that could benefit the entire Middle East.
The core of his peace initiative so far, seems to be entirely congruent with that of previous presidents and, until very recently, was in accord with the major thrust of expressed Israeli government policy. His reiteration of a call for an end to new Jewish settlements is implicit in the "land for peace" program that was so widely accepted by the Israeli public and probably still enjoys the support of a majority.
The problem with population growth in Israel is not space (one can always build high-rises), it is the limited availability of fresh water, a problem that, for example, Singapore, another high-tech principality, has solved by the use of reverse osmosis, a technology in which Israelis have shown impressive leadership and toward which they will ultimately be driven by the greater use of water in all countries dependent on the Jordan River. Another plan, to link the Dead Sea with the Gulf of Aqaba, could generate significant levels of potable water and clean, inexpensive electricity. Once huge military expenditures are reduced, the outlook is phenomenal.
That Obama would eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities, or even approve of Israel's doing so, is extremely unlikely. He has called for global denuclearization and is not going to risk generating clouds of radioactivity by bombing nuclear plants in Iran or North Korea. More likely, he will make contraband shipping to and from both countries more difficult.
Even if a peace treaty with the Palestinians were signed today, the problems between Israel and Palestine would certainly become less threatening but might also be replaced by others. The number of Palestinian "guest workers" would increase significantly. Israel would be doing what all the stronger economies of the world do – using cheaper and more reliably available foreign labor. Just consider the American use of Mexican agricultural workers, which neither government, and certainly not the workers and the farmers who hire them, want to eliminate. This, of course, would cause the left to concentrate on Jewish "exploitation," a time-honored theme, rather than, as they are currently, violence and "apartheid."
Israel could, under those circumstances, supply significant capital for new Palestinian enterprises, much needed for an economy in which investors right now do not feel confident enough to extend credit. Palestinians are among the best-educated Arabs in the Middle East and can support significant technologies. This investment would include the outsourcing of Israeli jobs to Palestine. All the major advanced economies of the world hire migrant workers and/or outsource. Even China, which is itself a major target for outsourcing, now sends jobs to Egypt, in a largely diplomatic move. For Israel to make a Palestinian state more dependent on it economically would increase Israeli security.
A treaty could not include the return of Palestinians to Israeli territory, and a Palestinian state would have to be denied any weapons not needed for effective policing. Adherence to this restriction would, of course, be monitored.
Limiting the land area of Israel to roughly the pre-1967 boundaries will certainly not be a detriment to economic development (as is the current situation). Small entrepreneurial principalities have often prospered. The Netherlands once had one of Europe's leading economies, as had Portugal, as now do Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland. Each developed a prosperous economy without much land or major natural resources.
In the event of a comprehensive peace settlement, Israel could eventually reduce the enormous military expenditures that cut so deeply into its budget and impose such hardship on Israelis. But other changes can also be anticipated.
One can expect that, over the generations, the reduction of ethnic self-identification and division among Israeli voters would reduce the present intensive political heterogeneity. This shift would lead to a decline of political fractionation and make possible a majority party in the Knesset or at least a coalition of only two or three parties. The effect of this would be to reduce the considerable leverage the small Orthodox parties now have, and lead markedly and swiftly to secularization of Israeli society.
With greater stability, the out-migration of Israelis will decline and aliyah may increase. Nevertheless, one can even expect the ratio of Jews to Palestinians to become more favorable as Palestinians prosper and have a declining birthrate. Indeed, a viable Palestine state could attract Palestinians now living in Israel.
Continuing with the status quo means a continuing drain on Israeli resources, an ongoing out-migration, depriving Israel of potential investment, scaring off potential tourists with every incident or threat and, most important, negatively affecting Israeli spirit and pride. The refusal of some Israelis to serve in the military is just the tip of this decline of morale and patriotism.
Jewish history is one long chronicle of risk-taking. Those opposed to Obama's initiative are obligated to come up with a better one. The status quo is not a reasonable alternative. The Palestinians, having fewer options, can out-wait the Israelis.
Eugene Kaellis is a retired academic and writer living in New Westminster.
^TOP
|
