Other Schools
Interdisciplinary Center (Herzliya) - Galia Golan (School of
Government) - The "New History" Revisionism of Galia Golan
Once the PLO, in 1988, accepted the two-state solution, agreeing to
a state only in the West Bank (including east Jerusalem) and the
Gaza Strip, along with recognition and peace with Israel, the end of
the conflict became possible....
Rabin exacted just one clarification and binding assurance for the
future, the PLO's explicit recognition of Israel's right to exist.
We know what has
happened since then – opponents, on both sides, by means of
terrorism, settlement expansion, assassination, did what they could
to prevent peace, leading to the collapse of
Oslo. No wonder that
Israel's rejection of the PLO's "historic compromise" led to the
growth of rejectionist Hamas and its violence against Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4118832,00.html
Do we really want peace?
Op-ed: Israel has squandered repeated chances for peace, while
boosting radical forces
Galila Golan
Published: 07/09/11
I accuse the government of Israel (several of
them) not only of failing to provide its citizens with their
socioeconomic rights but also of failing to provide its citizens
with security.
The government of Israel has failed to provide
its citizens with security because it has rejected ending the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Some would go all the way back to the 1950s
when Prime Minister Ben-Gurion expressed his lack of disappointment
that the Egyptians were too demanding, because he believed that time
was on our side. Many things, not least of which the 1967 war,
proved that wrong.
His successors turned down peace at least with
Jordan, out of a desire to hold onto an expanded east Jerusalem and
the Jordan Rift Valley (despite the fact that peace with Jordan
would provide far greater protection than the occupation of a
hostile population, an armed border and a continued state of war.)
Similarly, some 20 years later, the Shamir government also rejected
the peace plan worked out between Shimon Peres and King Hussein. In
between, who knows how many proposals were ignored or rejected, not
least of which those offered by Sadat that could have saved us the
thousands of lives lost in the Yom Kippur War.
But let us allow that peace with Jordan, and
Egypt, would not have (and has not) relieved us of the central issue
in the conflict: the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians' was a
clearly zero-sum demand: Palestine in place of Israel. Until 1988,
that is.
Once the PLO, in 1988, accepted the two-state
solution, agreeing to a state only in the West Bank (including east
Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, along with recognition and peace with
Israel, the end of the conflict became possible. This decision was
the breakthrough equivalent to Sadat's historic trip to Jerusalem.
The rest would be difficult; there would be determined negotiation
over specifics and procedures, exact borders, people (settlers,
refugees) and, as in the case of Egypt, the Americans might be
called in to smooth the way. But peace became possible.
The main obstacle: Settlements
Belatedly the Israeli government, under new
leadership and for many reasons, did grasp this opportunity. Rabin
exacted just one clarification and binding assurance for the future,
the PLO's explicit recognition of Israel's right to exist.
We know what has happened since then –
opponents, on both sides, by means of terrorism, settlement
expansion, assassination, did what they could to prevent peace,
leading to the collapse of Oslo. No wonder that Israel's rejection
of the PLO's "historic compromise" led to the growth of rejectionist
Hamas and its violence against Israel.
Oddly enough, in what apparently was a genuine
effort by the Olmert government to reach agreement, the remaining
problems were not Jerusalem (on which both sides were willing to
make some compromises) nor even the refugees (the major compromise
coming from the PLO). The outstanding issue was the settlements –
namely how much territory Israel would take from the West Bank to
accommodate the settlements. This is what it boiled down to: The
settlements.
Needless to say, the next, right-wing
government of Netanyahu has shown no interest in beginning where
Olmert left off, and Mahmoud Abbas has been left defending his
compromises and seeking alternatives.
And if the failure of the PLO's compromises has
strengthened radical Palestinians, let us not be surprised by the
popular anger in the region (and outside) over Israel's continued
rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative, which promised Israel what
this country has ostensibly sought since its inception: Peace,
normal relations with all the Arab states and security.
Would it work? Would it last forever? Is it a
gamble? Maybe, but what is not a gamble, but rather a sure thing is
the following: Rockets from the south, at some point rockets from
the north, a renewed Intifada and terrorism from the east and
inside, to say nothing of political and maybe even economic
isolation in the world. This is the "security" the government is
promising us.
Professor Galia Golan, professor emerita
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
|