This week’s Israeli offensive in Gaza and the West Bank demonstrates that Israel intends to retaliate against violence perpetrated or backed by the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority as forcefully as it responded to acts of terrorism by Hamas before the group was elected to power.  The offensive might thereby provide a useful wake-up call to Hamas and its supporters.  But in order to advance Israel’s interest in long-term security, the Olmert government should subsequently begin laying the foundation for a new round of peace talks.

Israel’s assault is understandable given recent violence by Hamas militants in Gaza — in particular, the launching of Qassam rockets into Israel and the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.  Israel must show restraint, though, focusing its retaliation on Hamas leaders and institutions.  (Its strike on a Palestinian power plant was unjustified because it indiscriminately punished half the population of Gaza.)  Israel should also emphasize that it has no intention of reoccupying Gaza, but rather seeks only to stop Palestinians from using the area as a staging ground for attacks on Israelis.

If Israel succeeds in liberating its kidnapped prisoner, it should halt its attack, pull back its forces, and release any Hamas Cabinet officials and legislators that do not have blood on their hands.  By that point, Israel’s actions will have made clear to Palestinians that it will hold Hamas accountable for violence against Israelis.  That demonstration, however, will not be sufficient to induce Palestinians to stop attacking Israel. 

Olmert should supplement his iron fist with an outstretched hand by offering a vision for peace between the two peoples.  This vision must go beyond Olmert’s plan to withdraw unilaterally from portions of the West Bank and establish security for Israel behind the separation barrier.  Unilateral withdrawal cannot solve the conflict because it will leave Palestinians deeply dissatisfied and lead them to seek new means of killing Israelis.  Yet Israel cannot currently negotiate with the Palestinians because it lacks a negotiating partner.  Until Hamas recognizes Israel and endorses explicitly a two-state solution, Israel cannot engage in meaningful negotiations with it. 

But Olmert can help Mahmoud Abbas and other moderate Palestinians make the case that Hamas should come to the negotiating table by outlining a proposal that could serve eventually as a starting point for serious peace talks.  (If Abbas and Hamas reach final agreement on a Palestinian peace proposal, which they are reportedly close to doing, Olmert’s statement would also represent an official response to the Palestinian offer.) 

The Israeli proposal should resemble the peace plan outlined by former President Clinton prior to leaving office, which was endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak but rejected by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.  That plan calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank except large settlement blocs close to Israel; the establishment of a Palestinian state that includes Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem; the cessation of Palestinian acts of violence against Israelis; the resettlement of Palestinian refugees to the new state or the provision of compensation to them; and a creative system of governance of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount that ensures Jewish and Palestinian access to it.  Some of the details of the Clinton plan could be modified, but its general contours still represent the only potential durable settlement to the conflict.

Olmert should publicly articulate a vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace grounded in the basic principles of a two-state solution close to the pre-1967 borders, with transfers to the new Palestinian state of some Israeli land in sparsely populated locations in exchange for Israel’s maintenance of the largest Jewish settlements.  Olmert should also voice support for providing a measure of justice to Palestinian refugees through compensation or resettlement to the new state.  (If the Palestinian proposal agreed to by Hamas and Abbas calls for the right of return of refugees to their old homes in Israel, as a draft proposal does, Olmert should explain why this is a nonstarter for Israel.)  Olmert should add that Israel will only sign a long-term peace agreement if the Palestinians commit to disarm and dismantle all militant groups.  Israel would reserve the right to retaliate against any acts of violence launched from the new Palestinian state.

Given Hamas’ extreme positions and the current climate of hostility between Israelis and Palestinians, there is little prospect of negotiations along these lines beginning any time soon.  But the articulation of an Israeli vision for peace would pressure Hamas to moderate its demands and would indicate to the Palestinian people that Israel still seeks a negotiated solution to the conflict.  Following Israel’s forceful offensive, Olmert’s articulation of this vision would not be a sign of weakness.  Instead, it would represent the intelligent pursuit of diplomacy from a position of military strength.

No related posts.