Imprimir

With more than 1,000 days of a savage war that has left 800 of its citizens dead and 5,000 wounded, Israel still confronts the tough options that it traditionally has faced vis–vis its bellicose Palestinian neighbors. They are so difficult — and some so extreme — as to render them almost nonoptions. Consider:

Transfer: This would involve the forced expulsion of 3.5 million Palestinians from the disputed areas. In addition to being morally repulsive, it would be practically impossible and politically unfeasible. It would surely elicit a violent Arab and Muslim reaction, turn the Jewish state into a pariah among the nations and split Israeli society.

Integration: One political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, with Palestinians and Israelis living in it, would be demographically catastrophic for the Jews. In a matter of decades, the Jewish population would become outnumbered by the Palestinians, virtually rendering Israel an Arab state with a Jewish minority.

Perpetuation of status quo: While it is often claimed that the status quo is untenable, the fact remains that both Israelis and Palestinians have lived with it for almost three years already. Nevertheless, it represents a truly awful situation and is not a healthy policy option for the medium-to-long-term.

Separation: It can be achieved through peaceful negotiations or by unilateral action. The Oslo Accords intended to obtain the former whereas the wall being built at present aims at the latter. Both have a common denominator: They seek a divorce between the two peoples. Some Palestinians seem ready to grant it, but they want compensation in exchange: a state of their own. Most Israelis seem willing to call it fair enough, with some important qualifications.

Of the above, the only viable alternative is separation, which inexorably will lead toward Palestinian self-determination. But, given the violent impulses of Palestinian society and its cult of death built around suicide-bombing, Israelis are concerned that the emerging state would become a launching pad for more terror and mayhem. Striking a balance between Palestinian national aspirations and Israeli security concerns is therefore key to finding a realistic solution.

Thus Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli prime minister and current minister of finance, articulated recently this concept in a Washington Post oped column: «The guiding principle is this: The Palestinians would be given all the powers needed to govern themselves but none of the powers that could threaten Israel. Put simply: The solution is full self-government for the Palestinians with vital . security powers retained by Israel.»

Which are those vital security powers? In a paper published some years ago, Zeev Schiff, Israel’s prime military analyst, described them.

The Palestinian state, he postulated: a) Won’t be allowed to establish military alliances with other nations nor host embassies of countries still officially at war with Israel; b) Won’t be allowed to let the deployment of foreign troops in its territory; c) Won’t be allowed to acquire or develop nuclear weapons; d) Won’t have control over its airspace; e) Will be permitted to have a police force but not an army.

Will a society as chauvinistic and militarized as the Palestinian one ever accept such restrictions? If Palestinians want their state, they’d better. Had they behaved peacefully and never resorted to violent aggression against Israel, these restrictions would not be needed. But the Palestinians are not Swedes. The founding vision of the Palestinian national movement enshrined as a lofty principle the annihilation of Israel. The charters of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas call for the destruction of Israel, and a coalition of PLO, Fatah, Hamas and other terrorists has been killing Israelis for quite sometime.

One thing is clear: The Palestinians cannot challenge Israel’s existence and at the same time expect it to pander to their nationalistic demands. In the near future, they will be offered a state, for the third time already. At that point, the Palestinians will have to make a simple choice: either accept it with its limitations and prosper peacefully, or reject it and condemn the region to perpetual bloodshed.

Julián Schvindlerman is a political analyst in Geneva and a member of the American Jewish Committee