1.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right on principle: A demand that all Jews vacate Judea and Samaria when a Palestinian state is established is preposterous. Calling “ethnic cleansing” in the video clip that his office produced – and that resulted in praise and popularity, but also in international condemnation – might have a been one step too far. But, all in all, the PM has a point: why would the Palestinians insist on a state without Jews? Such insistence is a clear sign that the Palestinian State would be built on the idea of delegitimizing the presence of Jews in the land. And that idea doesn’t give one confidence that the Palestinians intend to live peacefully alongside the Jewish State.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is also wrong on principle: the idea of having a Palestinian State – if one supports such an idea, and the PM has publically endorsed it – is to let the Palestinians decide for themselves how they want to live. A sovereign Jewish State – Israel – makes the rules for us. A sovereign Palestinian State will make the rules for them. As long as it lives peacefully alongside Israel, Israel has no business telling them what they can and can’t do. If their idea of a state is to have a no-Jew zone – like Saudi Arabia – that is for them to decide.
2.
Have you seen the clip? “Ethnic cleansing for peace is absurd. It’s about time somebody said it. I just did,” the PM says in it. Yet one has to wonder: is now really the time to say it? Why now and not next year, or last year?
There are two answers to the question why now:
The first one is that the PM is getting prepared for a UN blitz right after the US election. He is bracing himself, and Israel, in anticipation of a last minute Obama initiative that will aim to erode Israel’s stance and delegitimize Israel’s policy in the West Bank. Thus, Netanyahu is upping the ante by presenting a maximalist viewpoint. By using the language of liberal discourse to discredit a demand that “Jews” will evacuate the land, he hopes to score some points with observers who don’t instinctively support the Israeli position.
The second one is that the PM taped this video to divert the attention of Israelis back to where Netanyahu is strong. This explanation presumes that the timing – and possibly the language, if not the content – is not about any diplomatic development but rather about internal political developments. The polls that show rival Yair Lapid making gains, the headlines that tell stories about Netanyahu’s looming legal troubles, the anger over the issue of Shabbat – all these convinced the PM that it is time to remind Israelis that he, and no other potential candidate, will guard Israel’s (and Jews’) interests.
3.
The idea of letting some of the settlers remain in the land when a Palestinian State is born might be reasonable in theory, but it is impractical and dangerous. If it is only a rhetorical trick by which to explain why a Palestinian State is a bad idea – that’s fine. If it is only an obstacle that Israel intends to use as a negotiation card – that’s also fine. If it’s a PR tool which is aimed at getting some sympathy from outsiders – that’s wonderful.
However, as a practical plan it is a terrible idea: The lives of Israelis that will remain in Palestinian territory are going to be in danger. Israel and the IDF will not be able to abstain from saving their lives when in danger. So there is no question that the result would be as follows: some settlers stay on the land, some Palestinians are unhappy with them staying and plot to harm them, at some point the plot becomes actionable, the IDF intervenes and enters Palestinian territory – now a state – Israel is condemned for invading a neighboring State, and the Palestinians claim that they have a right to retaliate. In other words: leaving “Jews” behind is recipe for serious trouble.
4.
The problem with the “ethnic cleansing” argument is not that it has no merit. It does have some merit. The problem with it is that it turns the discussion from one about finding the best practical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem (and the best practical solution at this time might be to do nothing), to one about the ideal solution in an ideal world. So yes, in an ideal world – when the Palestinians will be like the Finns, as former Ariel Sharon advisor Dov Weisglass famously said – the settlers could stay in the land as proud Israelis living under Palestinian jurisdiction. But in the non-ideal world of the Middle East the ideal is the enemy of any solution.
This does not mean that Israel can’t insist on some symbolic gestures by which the other side demonstrates its intention to be peaceful and respectful of its neighbor. The demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State is reasonable, because it does not complicate an actual situation on the ground. This does not mean that Israel can’t insist on some measures that aim to ensure its security when a Palestinian State becomes reality. The demand that Israel will be allowed to monitor and guard the Jordan Valley is sensible, possibly essential for a peaceful coexistence to be possible.
But to ask that Palestine will absorb Jewish settlers has the disadvantage of being symbolic, the disadvantage of being inessential, and the disadvantage of inserting a complication into an already complicated, if not impossible, process.
