Flying In the Face of Logic, Adapting the Peacemaking Modality

Michigan U.S. Rep. Andy Levin led a bill late last year that proposed to take steps to encourage a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Levin’s bill placed a ceaseless focus on the occupation, and for that reason alone, the bill’s proposal would not have produced the desired solution it sought to achieve.

The consensus among mediators has been to meet each Palestinian rejection with terms that are better for the Palestinians and worse for Israel.

Since 2000, when the head of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, turned down Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David which would have birthed a sovereign independent Palestinian state with no occupation, no settlements and a division of Jerusalem, the consensus among mediators has been to meet each Palestinian rejection with terms that are better for the Palestinians and worse for Israel.

This approach can only incentivize further conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Why? Because in any conflict if the losing side can get better terms by rejection and violence, it will keep rejecting and pursuing violence. If the winning side gets worse terms by making peace than by maintaining the status quo, it will seek to maintain the status quo. None of this is new or particularly insightful, it’s conflict resolution 101. It is how the expert class approaches every conflict in the world – except for the one involving the Jewish state. 

The discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of a remarkable reversal of cause and effect. The occupation looms large over every proposal which claims resolution as its goal with diplomats underwriting that the occupation is the “heart of the conflict”. 

This flies in the face of all logic. Through this lens the occupation is birthed merely on its own and out of nowhere. When in truth, occupations aren’t birthed out of nowhere and they have never caused war; instead, occupations are the result of war. When two sides clash in a conflict, it is more usual than not that at the end of the conflict, one or both sides is occupying territory previously held by the other. Ordinarily, this is where negotiations begin for a diplomatic settlement. Only once a new line is agreed upon by both sides, does the occupation dissolve and both redeploy to opposite sides of the agreed upon lines.  

Every mediation plan in the history of the modern world has understood this notion, yet it is repeatedly abandoned in Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking. Why? Because to acknowledge this truth, would mean acknowledging how the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began and why it has lasted so long. It began with the defeat of a coalition of three Arab armies in their attempt to wipe Israel off the map. The occupation’s continuation is in the refusal, initially of these Arab states and today of the self-governing Palestinians, to accept any peace deal that requires them to reconcile with the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

The way to end this occupation is the same way previous occupations ended, by reaching some sort of diplomatic agreement that either ends the conflict completely or at least effects some sort of agreed-upon truce. Pursuing an end to the occupation as a means to end the conflict is a misguided approach, impossible to achieve as it ignores the root cause of the conflict. It is astonishing to realize that the accepted view of learned opinion on Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy runs so counter to any tried and tested conception of peacemaking.

If mediators were at all serious about their underwriting of a two-state solution and an end to the conflict, they’d begin with an approach called “Yes to the Occupation, no to the settlements”, a term originally conceived by my colleague Dr. Einat Wilf. I will attempt to articulate my view on why they should undertake this concept merely as a starting point for a renewed approach to engaging with the conflict. The policy of “yes to the occupation, no to the settlements” proposes even-handed steps towards resolution by safeguarding the right of Israel to protect itself from hostile neighbors, while holding it accountable to its commitment to a two-state solution and simultaneously making it clear to the Palestinians that there will be no sympathy plays for their continued rejection of further peace proposals. 

 The proposal must clearly state that Israel must continue to recognize the existence of another people that also view the land as their homeland and, as such, has a right to part of this land. It must be stressed unequivocally that the Palestinians are expected to limit the fulfillment of their right to the land and that their claims are not supreme or exclusive.

The Palestinians must eventually lay down their arms and, in doing so, recognize that the Jewish people have a right to a state in the Land of Israel. Until this stage, Israel will continue to hold territory east of the border militarily.

As long as Israel adopts a clear policy that proves its willingness to divide the land, the military occupation of these territories to foil terrorism and protect the lives of all Israelis is justified until the Palestinians demonstrate the same willingness.

 Military occupation is an essential system of government in territories that are not intended to be annexed. Yet, one is often likely to encounter propagated canards such as “end Israel’s illegal occupation” from uninformed members of the United States Congress, namely “the squad”. Occupation of territories acquired in war is legal according to the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Therefore, as long as Israel adopts a clear policy that proves its willingness to divide the land, the military occupation of these territories to foil terrorism and protect the lives of all Israelis is justified until the Palestinians demonstrate the same willingness.

 So along with “yes to occupation,” a policy of “no to settlements” must be declared by mediators. The military occupation east of the border can be justified to provide necessary security. However, the continuation of settlement expansion cannot. A willingness to divide the land and recognize the right of another people to the land cannot exist alongside the settlement enterprise. 

 The support of such policy by mediators will result in the acknowledgement that the military occupation of the territory will have a single legal system and a single population under this rule of law, without Israeli territorial demands and with a clear statement to the Palestinians of the requirements they must adhere to in order to end the occupation. This in essence also ends the indulgence of support for continual Palestinian rejection. Such a policy will achieve maximum separation between the two peoples and result in minimum friction.

This policy recognizes the existence of two distinct collectives between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It states that land must be left for the Palestinians, but Israel must remain militarily in the territory until they lay down their arms against the Jewish state. This proposal would be a policy that utilizes essential geopolitical opportunities to forge major achievements, without the danger of expansion and without endangering the safety of Israeli citizens.

For Israel, an end to the settlement project is not a defeat, but a return to its basic principles; the integration of a stirring vision that operates according to pragmatic policy that underwrites its commitment to peace and its responsibility to protect its citizens all within the bounds of morality and international law.

Samuel Hyde is a writer and editor at The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance, based in Tel Aviv. His work focuses on topics that range across Israel’s political climate, antisemitism, the Arab-Israeli conflict and extremism in the education sector.