Not a while ago, the prominent Israeli novelist and writer Amos Oz warned that barring a two-state solution to the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel will run the risk of either becoming a dictatorship ruled by fanatic Jews or an Arab state inside Israel. To ward off either outcome, Amos Oz argues that Israel should cast aside the tactics of managing the conflict and instead help create a two-state solution.
It is not as if this is the first time that intellectuals come up with similar arguments. In fact, one can easily find a plethora of articles, books and pamphlets making the same point. Needless to say that those in Israel who support the two-state solution are in fact driven by the same logic. Indeed, when the notion of the “Jordanian Option” was first floated in the aftermath of the Six-Day War by top leaders of the Labor Party, they were influenced by the powerful logic of the same argument. Even today, many among Israelis support the notion of the two-state solution as the optimal outcome to avert the transformation of Israel into a bi-national state whereby Jews become a minority.
Israelis are poised to cast their votes tomorrow to elect a new Knesset. Obviously, the issue of the two-state solution is not dominant in the public debate. More often than not, competing candidates focus on the issue of security particularly after the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted all of his most recent speech before the Congress to warn against Iran’s nuclear program and perils involved in what he characterizes as a “bad” deal with Iran.
Unfortunately, many among Israeli voters have been brainwashed into believing that there is no one to talk to. In other words, while Israelis are willing to put an end to the conflict once and for all, Palestinians are not yet ready to embrace the reality and come to term with the logic of a two-state solution. It is the same logic that has been employed by all successive Israeli leaders to justify the continuation of the status quo. For those at the helm of politics in the current Israeli government, the current stalemate is not mutually hurting.
Let us go to the bottom of the matter, Israeli right-wing candidates are more interested in land grab than in making peace. On the contrary, making peace means that Israel will not be able to expand. To preempt any prospect for peace, they push the fear bottom. To Amos Oz, this is nothing but fearmongering. In this context, it is worth quoting Oz at length, “the same fearmongers who frightened us with the Soviet army at the gates of Kfar Sava are now scaring us again, saying that if we withdraw from the territories, missiles will strike Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion International Airport and Kfar Sava. I don’t know for certain whether that is true, but I can tell you, with the full authority of a staff sergeant in the Israel Defense Forces: It is already possible today to strike the airport, Tel Aviv and Kfar Sava with missiles, not only from Qalqilyah but also from Iraq, from Pakistan and maybe even from Indonesia.”
The current public debate in Israel is not giving us a healthy sign that the next government — regardless of who is in the driving seat — will act differently. I do not see the next prime minister of Israel do what for instance President Sadat did in the past when he stunned the world with his move. A step like Sadat’s entails a leadership that is obviously lacking these days. For years to come, Israeli politicians will be obsessed with the same mantra of the need to enjoy security before thinking of making peace. And yet, the sequence of peace and security looks absent from the public debate.
To be sure, I followed Israeli elections for three decades. With minor exceptions, Israeli elections have not produced a marked difference in the final analysis. As time goes by, less land remains for the Palestinians, more settlers live in the Palestinian land, and peace become more of a mirage than reality. In less than a decade to come, what Amos Oz said might become a reality.
