In last week's issue, Bayly Winder discussed President Obama's decision to oppose unilateral Palestinian statehood through the United Nations, and insist on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as the best way to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
I share Winder's frustration with the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, and hope for the day when the Israelis and Palestinians will both know statehood, peace, security and freedom. However, I strongly disagree with Winder's one-sided assessment of the Palestinians' unilateral statehood declaration, and I object to his unfair portrayal of the US-Israel alliance.
For decades, most of the international community has agreed on what a fair peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would look like. The Palestinians would get most of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.
Holy sites in Jerusalem would be under some sort of shared control. Palestinian refugees could return to Palestine but not to Israel. Israeli security needs would be respected. Israel would recognize Palestine, and the Arab countries in the Middle East would recognize Israel.
Winder doesn't mention it in his article, but Israel has repeatedly agreed to a peace deal along these lines. In 1947, Israel accepted the UN-proposed partition plan. The Palestinians rejected the plan, and launched the 1948 war. After the 1967 war, Israel offered to return the territory it captured while defending itself against three hostile neighbors. The Arab states brushed off Israel's overtures with the Khartoum Resolution.
In 2000 at Camp David, and again in 2001 at Taba, Israel offered the Palestinians a state with a capital in East Jerusalem. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader at the time, refused the deal and launched a bloody terror campaign against Israeli civilians known as the Second Intifada. In 2007, as part of the Annapolis Peace Process, Israel made a similar offer to the current Palestinian leaders. They refused.
Now, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas won't even negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Winder says Netanyahu has "hardly been a reasonable peace partner." In fact, Netanyahu has spent his first years in office making overtures to Abbas: freezing settlement construction, removing West Bank checkpoints and publicly calling for talks to reach a two state solution. But Abbas has only met with Netanyahu once, and refuses to continue negotiating unless Israel meets more preconditions.
Since beginning the Oslo peace process in 1993, the Palestinian leadership has launched terror attacks, rejected peace deals and refused to negotiate with Israel. They've done almost everything possible to stall the peace process—and now they say that the stalled peace process is why they have to go to the UN!
It's easy to see why the Palestinians are choosing UN recognition instead of peace talks. UN membership would give the Palestinians a lot of the privileges that come with statehood, but without the tough compromises they'd have to make in negotiations with Israel.
In negotiations, they'd have to compromise on territory. For example, the proposal the Palestinians submitted to the UN gives Palestine the entire Old City of Jerusalem, including the holiest sites in the Jewish and Christian religions. Their proposal also gives Palestine the entire West Bank and East of Jerusalem, including Jewish cities and neighborhoods that most people agree Israel will trade for in a final agreement. Seeking statehood at the UN with maximalist borders spares the Palestinians from making the tough but necessary compromises that will be required in peace talks.
The UN strategy also saves the Palestinians from compromising on the refugee issue—the single biggest obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. For decades, Arab leaders have promised millions of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war (and their descendants) that they will eventually get to return to present-day Israel. There is no practical way for this to happen. The Palestinians will have to resettle these refugees in the state of Palestine, just as Israel has resettled hundred of thousands of Jewish refugees in the State of Israel. But many Palestinian people—especially those still living in refugee camps—aren't ready to compromise on this issue.
Instead of indulging his people's counterproductive dogmas, Mahmoud Abbas should begin preparing the Palestinian people for peace. He should announce on Palestinian television that he's ready to begin statehood talks with Netanyahu, but that he may have to compromise on territory and refugees. Israel is waiting for him. Netanyahu has already called for talks and told the Israeli people that they may have to compromise on territory and settlements.
Real peace will come when both sides are ready to make the tough but necessary concessions that will come with a two-state solution. Until the Palestinians decide to come to the table, the United States should continue to stand with Israel—its only stable, democratic pro-peace ally in the Middle East.
