Imagine a day when Tel Aviv’s beaches are flooded with picnicking Indonesians, Syrians and Algerians, while Israelis flock to Dubai’s shopping festivals and Lebanon’s ski slopes. Yes, I know, this does require a huge stretch of the imagination given the decades of hostility between Israel and swathes of the Muslim world since the Jewish state was formed in 1948. But before you alert the little men in white coats to cart me away, this is exactly what Jordan’s King Abdallah and US President Barack Obama have in mind, according to London’s Times newspaper.
It seems that King Abdallah and President Obama have together concocted a comprehensive peace plan that would include not only the 22 members of the Arab League but also every predominantly Muslim nation. This wildly ambitious project kicked off by a summer peace conference is likely to be unveiled when Obama addresses Muslims during his June 4 visit to Cairo. If this sounds too much like the fantasy of two dreamers, remember that dreams do sometimes come true as America’s first black president can attest.
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the king. “We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms. The future is not the Jordan River, or the Golan Heights, or the Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize.”
And what a prize this is, especially for Israel which would no longer be surrounded by real and perceived enemies, while the Palestinians would finally be enabled to live in freedom and security within the boundaries of their own state. The entire region would also receive a major economic boost, as well as improved security and greater geopolitical clout. It’s a win-win situation for just about everybody involved.
But before the celebrations begin, let’s come back down to earth for a moment. Until now, Israel’s new government, led by the nationalistic Benjamin Netanyahu, has shown no interest in seriously pursuing any peace process. On the contrary, Prime Minister Netanyahu has displayed his disdain for a two-state solution on numerous occasions, while his hawkish and decidedly weird Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann has actually declared the prevailing flimsy peace process dead.
Both men favor the expansion of Jewish colonies on the West Bank and neither is prepared to relinquish land for peace. Indeed, within the last few days, Netanyahu told his Cabinet that on his watch Israel would never give up the Golan Heights as part of any deal with Syria.
Let’s not become too depressed, though. Surely, nothing is written in stone. After all, provided every country that makes up the Muslim world is on the same page, this offer is a historic opportunity that Israel cannot afford not to grasp. Israeli leaders are fond of parroting that Palestinians never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity, so, perhaps, they will have the foresight and the flexibility to throw off their mantel of old hatreds long enough to embrace this groundbreaking challenge.
Alright, so I’m feeling optimistic today. Shoot me! I’m so sick and tired of this endless Middle East conflict that has caused so much death, destruction and hardship that I fail to understand why Israelis wouldn’t feel the same way. Who on earth wants to live in a country embroiled in an endless state of war when there are other options available? Why would anyone in their right mind choose war over peace?
Haaretz columnist Amira Hass may have the answer. In a column headed “Israel knows that peace just doesn’t pay” she maintains that successive Israeli governments since 1993 have understood that peace “would involve serious damage to national interests”.
She believes that peace would destroy Israel’s thriving cutting-edge security and surveillance industry. She says peace would cast a cloud over the careers of some 70,000 working in the security industry, including “professional soldiers, Shin Bet operatives, mercenaries, and weapons dealers”.
Moreover, she says, the quality of life of Israelis would be diminished because any peace agreement would demand equal distribution of water resources throughout a country that suffers from drought. And lastly, she points out that Israelis unable to afford life within a sovereign Israel behind 1967 borders would not be able to avail themselves of superior lifestyles, benefits, subsidies and quality education currently available for those prepared to live inside colonies on Palestinian land.
I’m a huge admirer of Amira Hass, who is unfailingly objective and impartial when it comes to reporting the conflict, but her analysis, in this case, seems to me to be shortsighted. If Israel didn’t spend so much on its military machine, wars and security, it could invest in new industries, build desalination plants, construct social housing, improve education and expand welfare benefits. Plus, peace would mean vastly increased trade, a boosted tourism industry and incoming foreign investment.
It goes without saying that from now on I will unashamedly champion the 57-state solution but with some reservation. Of course, as always, the devil is in the detail. Roll on June 4 when, hopefully, we’ll know a lot more.
