In the old days – that is, a decade ago or so – the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was often described as one between those who think that “the road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem” and those who think that “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad”. That is, between those who believe that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to quieting a stormy Middle East and those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will become easier to solve only when the Middle East becomes quieter.
This debate has been referred to as the “linkage” debate. In 2007, the so-called Baker-Hamilton report about the war in Iraq stated that “the United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict”. That's linkage. If one believes in linkage, one can rationalize the great emphasis put by international players on the relatively minor issue that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel is small, the occupied territories are small, the two peoples at issue are both small, and the level of bloodshed is, well, comparatively low. Of course, the recent Gaza war was violent and the number of Palestinians killed, many of them civilians, was devastatingly high. Yet there are other conflicts in the region and the world in which the number of casualties is much higher. And these conflicts often get a level of attention that is proportionally low compared to the attention given to Israel-Palestine. Linkage – that is, the dangerous impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on regional trends – makes the focus on the “conflict” logical. If Israeli concessions and evacuations would result in a peaceful Middle East, a push for quick resolution could be logical, even amid Israeli resistance.
But recent events in the region demonstrate why serious people should no longer make “linkage” arguments. Not even the most avid believer in the prospect of a successful Israeli-Palestinian peace process could argue with a straight face that the resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem would make ISIS, Iran's nuclear program, Syria's bloody war, or any of the region's other problems, go away – the Arabs themselves have realized long ago that the real threat for them is not Israel. Those who still insist on linkage are either obsessed with Israel (for reasons that suggest they have a deeply-ingrained bias against it) or as comical as former President Jimmy Carter was when proposing in the early Nineties that the solution to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, before the first Gulf War, is for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
If there is no linkage, though – if there is no way that Israel’s ending the occupation is a key to solving urgent problems – why the insistence on going in that direction? Why is this conflict treated with so much urgency*? One reason, surely, is the immoral circumstances in which Palestinian residents of the West Bank find themselves, devoid of political rights and living under Israeli occupation. Fighting for morality is no doubt a noble cause. A second reason would be based on cold calculation – namely, on the presumption that if Israel would like to remain a “Jewish and democratic” state it has to stick with a two state solution, as imperfect as it might be.
But is it moral and wise to currently demand or strive for an Israeli withdrawal from territory? Just last week, radical forces defeated the forces of the Syrian army, chased UN forces away, and took control of the Israel-Syria border area. Looking at the photos of al-Qaeda affiliated fighters waving their flags just across the border from Israel, it is only natural for an Israeli to remember that not very long ago good people attempted to pressure Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights (of course, that was also for the moral and wise cause of peace with Syria). A few weeks ago Israel ended a two-month campaign against the radical Hamas in Gaza. Israel, almost ten years ago, left Gaza and watched it fall into the hands of Hamas. The result is a perpetuation and intensification of a violent conflict and more bloodshed than before. Israelis suffer from rocket attacks, but it is the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal that went up.
Thus, it is also natural for an Israeli to wonder if now – when radical groups seem to be gaining ground all around the region – is really the best time to ponder a possible evacuation of territory. Even under the assumption that the Palestinian Authority means well, and that its leaders truly want peace, is now the right time to test the effectiveness of a yet-to-be-established security mechanism governed by a yet-to-be-proved-as-trustworthy Palestinian administration?
The candid, if not quite politically correct, answer most Israelis would give is no. Israelis definitely do not want another unilateral step after the 2005 Gaza withdrawal and its consequences. And I assume that they would also not consider any other move that means a prompt evacuation of territory. They have a good reason for this position. It isn’t because the current status quo is ideal – it is not. It isn’t because Palestinians do not deserve proper political self-determination – they do. It isn’t because the settlements are essential to Israel's security – they are not**.
The Israeli leadership (and public) would object to considering a prompt withdrawal at this time because of the government's responsibility – its moral imperative – to take measures that keep Israelis secure. That is a calling no less moral than the moral call to end the occupation. And wisely answering this calling is currently unlikely to mean a prompt evacuation and a trial and error approach to security***. That Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas demands an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank within three years is understandable. That the Arab League feels the need to back his demand is not surprising. But outsiders who support such a demand, who claim that Israel has to “take risks”, are no less immoral than Israel’s occupation. Such a demand would make bloodshed more likely. It would risk the lives of many – Israelis, and also Palestinians.
Consider Gaza, consider Syria, consider Iraq, consider Lebanon, and it is easy to see why Israel isn't likely to feel this is the right time to trust the Palestinians, or a proposed “international force”, or any “internationally backed arrangement”, to guard Israel’s backyard.
Honestly, would you trust one of these to guard yours?
—–
* Matti Friedman's superb “Insider's guide to the most important story on earth” chronicles the world's obsession with the conflict. As David Suissa puts in his discussion of the article: “Given the terrifying Islamic violence currently spreading throughout the region, it’s ludicrous that the media is so obsessed with scrutinizing the one civil society that allows freedom of speech and freedom to dissent”.
** The issue of settlements, admittedly, weakens any Israeli argument that is based on security interests. I will not address it in this article. Nor will I discuss the question, also worthy of discussion, of whether security considerations are really a reason or just an excuse for another delay. Surely, for some they are a reason and for others they are no more than an excuse.
*** In this article I don't answer in detail the two obvious questions: when, if ever, would be the right time for establishing a Palestinian State? If this can't happen, what is the alternative? My short answer is that the sequence of actions should be reversed: a reliable Palestinian government first, an agreed solution and talks about ceding territory later. Of course, since Israel controls the territory, it has the responsibility to allow such a government to emerge. I believe that it will do so, if this government focuses on building Palestine rather than on battling Israel.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.