The American option for Middle East: A variation of unilateral withdrawal
Op-ed: Israel should unilaterally implement suggestions which will be proposed by US for solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Some readers asked me what option I would choose. In choosing an option, I considered two factors: The criteria for a good option and the realistic possibilities that the option would be successful.
The first criterion for a good option is that it must provide ironclad security for Israel. Secondly, that option must not put Israel into actual or potential demographic danger by having Israel absorb many Palestinians. The option must be considered acceptable to the United States, Europe, and, insofar as possible, the rest of the world, including the Palestinians and the Arab world. The option can’t have such powerful political objections that choosing the option puts Israel in danger of political and economic isolation.
The problem with most of the options I originally considered is that they didn’t have a realistic chance for success because they require cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians. In some cases, the cooperation extended beyond those two groups to an Arab state. But there is no guarantee any of those cooperative options can be implemented. Therefore, an acceptable option should be based on Israel’s ability to act alone.
The choices Israel has are to maintain the status quo, offer more concessions, annex the West Bank, or unilaterally withdraw from part of the West Bank. There is no guarantee that any of these choices will work, but clearly the world has grown (unfairly) impatient with Israel’s status quo.
Concessions will never be enough. Annexation will put Israel in demographic danger (although the factual extent of that danger is in some dispute because of an inaccurate Palestinian census) and completely isolate Israel in the world in an economically and politically dangerous way.
The option I would choose is a variation of the unilateral withdrawal, a variation that can be called the American option. This option means that Israel should unilaterally implement the suggestions the United States will propose for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The American option is a variation of unilateral withdrawal. Obviously, the history of such a withdrawal in Gaza and Lebanon provides a cautionary tale. That is why the variation is needed.
No demographic danger
After the Kerry plan is released, after the haggling, the disputes, the ongoing negotiations, the long-term hemming and hawing lead to no concrete result, Israel can simply implement what the Kerry plan calls on Israel to do, provided, of course, that doing so does not put Israeli security in danger.
The Kerry plan will reportedly call for a substantial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, perhaps to behind the existing security barrier or some such line. Such a withdrawal means that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians remain outside Israeli territory while, depending on the lines Kerry defines, about 75% of the Jewish residents on the West Bank remain part of Israel.
The Kerry plan will call on Israel to compensate Palestinians for West Bank territory with territory in Israel. Of course, if the Palestinians don’t accept the Kerry plan Israel can’t do that. But, in keeping faith with the plan, Israel can designate the specific areas it would cede to the Palestinians if there were peace. Since the Plan will not include a "right of return," no Palestinians need to be admitted to Israel as part of any unilateral implementation.
Why is the American option the best one? Consider the criteria outlined above. Israel can keep troops where needed, such as in the Jordan Valley and elsewhere (beyond what the Kerry plan calls for because the Palestinians will not have agreed to the Plan) to maintain security. The major settlements remain in Israeli control. This includes Ma’ale Adumim, recently in the news because of the SodaStream manufacturing plant located there.
What to do with the Jewish inhabitants of the areas beyond the new territorial line becomes a matter for internal Israeli discussion. Israelis can debate whether or not there should be a building freeze beyond the new lines. Israelis can discuss whether the residents want to stay there or not, or if they should stay, or if they should be encouraged and compensated for leaving. And Israel can debate what to do about the Palestinians on the West Bank such as whether to encourage their economic growth, ignore them, or some other choice.
The American option poses no demographic danger. If the United States proposed it, they won’t then be able to say it is not acceptable. Other countries may not agree, but American agreement is the crucial one for Israel because of the special relationship between the two countries and American military, economic, and other assistance such as protecting Israel at the UN.
That is, the American option avoids any overwhelming political objections.
Finally, if the Americans can agree to this option, Israel may be able to readjust American attention to the real danger to Israel: Iran. And Israel itself can then determine how best to deal with the Iranian threat.
Israel should plan to implement the American option.
Lawrence J. Epstein served as an advisor on the Middle East for two members of the United States Congress.
