Article
Israel's just fears of a Palestinian state
A return to 1967 borders would put most Israelis in rocket range. The EU needs to see that a two-state solution is complex
There are indications that the EU foreign ministers will formally recognise East Jerusalem as the future capital of the Palestinian state. This is a reaction to the idea repeatedly floated by Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and to seek international recognition for this state de jure, even though it would only function on about two-thirds of the West Bank de facto until final details are arranged.
I have fought for the two-state solution for many years and am in favour of East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital. While it would be preferable to reach these goals through negotiation, the process has been stuck for too long. The EU's recognition of the Palestinian state and capital might reignite the peace process.
Moreover, this would force Palestinian extremists, who continue to be committed to the destruction of Israel, and Israeli extremists, who continue to dream of the Greater Israel, closer to realising that history has moved on. The question is how such a move by the EU could be made without Israelis feeling that they are being pushed into an ever-growing isolation.
Israel's current government has been catastrophically bad at generating understanding for Israel's justified concerns. This has given ammunition to many leftwing critics of Israel in Europe and the US who make life easy for themselves by arguing that Israel's fears are nothing but a fig leaf for its colonial plans to annex the West Bank.
It is therefore of importance to formulate these concerns to make clear that they are shared even by unequivocal, long-term Israeli proponents of the two-state solution who have condemned Israeli settlement policies for years. Hence I want to spell out Israel's justified fears of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
The first is about security. Israel's citizens are traumatised by years of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which only intensified once Israel withdrew from there. The international community has shown somewhat limited understanding for Israel's concerns, because these attacks have not cost many lives. While I think that the incursion in Gaza was conducted with excessive force, Israel had no choice but to do something to stop the attacks – and was severely condemned for this.
What would Israel's situation be after withdrawing from the West Bank to the 1967 borders? All major population centres of Israel would be in range of Katyushas. These rockets were sufficiently destructive to bring life in northern Israel to a complete standstill when Hezbollah fired large numbers of them into Israel during the second Lebanon war in 2006. If Israel is attacked from the West Bank, the impact will be devastating, and Israel will have no choice but to react forcefully – and as a result will, once again, be the target of international condemnation.
Hence Israelis say "we are damned if we do and damned if we don't" – if Israel continues the occupation of large parts of the West Bank, it is under constant international criticism but at least it is relatively safe. If Israel withdraws from the West Bank, it will open itself to attacks from there, and any retaliation will lead to massive international condemnation. Ergo, many Israelis think, it is preferable to maintain the status quo, unpalatable as it is.
The second issue is the lack of clarity as to whether Fayyad and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, represent all Palestinians: there are currently two governments, with Hamas ruling Gaza. Hence Israelis ask whether anything signed by the Palestinian Authority that is de facto Fatah will in any way bind Hamas, which has already rejected previous agreements with Israel.
Israelis justifiably ask: what if Hamas wins the general election again? Israel will be open to attacks from the West Bank by a government whose charter includes rabid antisemitic rants from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and which is currently armed and influenced by Iran, whose president keeps reiterating that Israel needs to be wiped off the map of the Middle East.
Deeper involvement of the EU is to be welcomed. But if it is to be constructive, it needs to take all these concerns into account in future steps. Recognition of the Palestinian state must be accompanied by more than abstract commitment to Israel's safety, but by very concrete proposals. This would, for example, include committing international forces to safeguard a perimeter of about 20km along the 1967 borders for a number of years to make sure that most of Israel was not in the reach of Katyusha rockets. It would also include a provision that the international community would not accept any Palestinian government as legitimate that reneged on the two-state solution and called for Israel's destruction.
But none of this will convince Israelis that they can take the risk to peace, if they are not sure that the final agreement prevents any further demands that endanger Israel. Israel's concern has always been that Palestinians will demand the right to return for their refugees as part of the final peace agreement – which means the end of Israel as the Jewish homeland, and will lead to a nightmare.
Hence the international community must actively address this thorny issue. It needs to call upon Arab states to guarantee that, as part of such a settlement, they would make every effort to end the refugee status of Palestinians and to allow them citizenship and integration into their countries.
• Comments on this article will remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight
Related Content
User Comments
boule
2 December 2009 10:08AM
All major population centres of Israel would be in range of Katyushas.
How is that worse than the situation in Palestinian population centres? Doesn't Israel have similar weapons? Ok, we'll give Israel Katyushas too.
12pins
2 December 2009 10:09AM
A return to 1967 borders would put most Israelis in rocket range. The EU needs to see that a two-state solution is complex
I totally agree so lets just have 1 state where all will be equal citizens then. Nope dont want that cos the Palestinanians will outnumber the Israelies, and yet you dont want to return to the 67 boarders for fear of attacks(although the only people who should be scared are the Palestianians after the horror show in Gaza), so the status quo continues, and more land are illegally built on by the settlers.
Ladies and Gents the Middle East peace Process.
Neoconned
2 December 2009 10:12AM
A return to 1967 borders would put most Israelis in rocket range.
42 years of occupation and 42 years of excuses.
A look at the Likud Platform is instructive -
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
heatwave2022
2 December 2009 10:14AM
lets just have 1 state where all will be equal citizens then
I am afraid that the mutual bombing has made this now difficult to achieve. It would take a long and sustained effort.
Certainly, not much of the argument about Israeli security holds in comparison to the horrors of Gaza.
If Israelis need security, even more so do the Palestinians need security.
Tzimisces
2 December 2009 10:14AM
"If Israel withdraws from the West Bank, it will open itself to attacks from there, and any retaliation will lead to massive international condemnation."
I think that one argument for setting up a Palestinian state is precisely this problem. If Israel withdraws and an internationally recognised Palestinian state is set up then the new state will be trapped within the framework of international law.
What I mean is this: Currently, the Israel- Haters exploit the ambiguity of the PA's and the Hamas Gaza government's position to argue that they are engaging in "acts of resistance". They imply that, because the PA and Hamas are not states then they are not bound by international law and their atrocities are excusable.
With a Palestinian state, Israel can, legitimately draw red lines that will provide a causus belli. They can say: "if you fire one rocket into Israel then this is an act of war".
This is perfectly reasonable- states have legitimately gone to war on far less. It then becomes the Palestinian State's responsibility to maintain order on its side of the fence. It isn't Israel's fault any more and Israel would be justified in raising hell if the Palestinian state failed to maintain security.
Creating a Palestinian state with a credible government could, therefore, enhance Israel's security.
castelead2
2 December 2009 10:16AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
cappamore
2 December 2009 10:20AM
Let the Palestinian territories be absorbed into the neighbouring Arab countries with their various stable dictatorships - Gaza to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan, The Golan Heights to Syria. That would be the most peaceful solution.
Buckenheimer
2 December 2009 10:21AM
Israel's citizens are traumatised by years of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which only intensified once Israel withdrew from there. The international community has shown somewhat limited understanding for Israel's concerns, because these attacks have not cost many lives
That may be the understatement of the year. As the author also notes, the Israelis feel "damned if we do, damned if we don't" when it comes to sobering decisions that involve relinquishing security buffer zones like the West Bank.
History teaches us that the more Israel gives, the more the Palestinians want to take, and the more the rockets will fill the skies over Israel. It should then be no surprise that Israel will rightfully opt for security and let the chips of international disappointment fall where they may.
Tzimisces
2 December 2009 10:21AM
12pins
"I totally agree so lets just have 1 state where all will be equal citizens"
Er what? You think this is easier?!!!????!!!
The Israeli population don't want it. The two sides have had almost 80 years of continuous fighting and mistrust. Hamas wouldn't accept it.
What is your next proposal? Reversing the partition of India? Bringing Ireland back into the UK?
zounds
2 December 2009 10:21AM
WeHappyFew
Ever though that what you need is a ONE STATE solution?
If we were to take into account the views of the working people of Palestine and Israel, rather than the gravy train politicians and cheap 'n' nasty demagogues, I think we could find a no-state solution. That would be pleasing.
DavieMcDave
2 December 2009 10:31AM
It's interesting how the British/Americans decided to give Palestine back to the Jewish people, but no land back to the Native Americans or the Australian aborigines.
DaveNabal
2 December 2009 10:32AM
One question. If the danger of rocket attacks on civilians is the rationale for annexing Palestinian land, why does that annexation always mean the planting of civilian populations on that land?
Why don't we give the Lebanese Haifa, since it's clearly a potential base for attacks on their civilians?
sarka
2 December 2009 10:35AM
This is a very good and realistic article.
Tzimisces: You are right. Even if it makes Israel more vulnerable, if the Palestinians have some kind of state of their own they will become more responsible in the eyes of the world.
PhilipD
2 December 2009 10:36AM
What the Katyusha argument ignores is that if Palestine is a free and independent country (albeit one that for years will require finanical propping up by the international community), if it fires rockets into Israel then it will be an act of aggression by one sovereign country against another. As such it will be a clear breach of international law, and even the most peacenik leftwinger would accept Israels right to retaliate (within reason), and the international community would support that, and withdraw financial/technical support.
The point being, that it would be in the interests of a Palestinian state to promote peace with its neighbours and to suppress any extremists. In the absence of independence there is no incentive whatever to do so (and no power to do so even it it wanted to.
triantafillos
2 December 2009 10:37AM
1967 borders? Why not 1948 borders, and start negotiating from there !
12pins
2 December 2009 10:38AM
I guess people cant tell when someone is taking the piss then?!
Im perfectly aware that there cant be a single state, but with the amount of excuses coming from the Israelis, lets see how they would cope with the Palestinians demanding equal citizenship, seeing as the "facts on the ground" points to the impossiblity of a viable Palestinanian state.
Will they be more up for proper negotioations, actually tearing down the illgeal settlements built on land that doesnt belong to them?
Cos unless something drastic like the Palestinians calling their bluff, i cant see how the status quo will change.
creel
2 December 2009 10:39AM
Any two state resolution is certain to fail Carlo if thereby, Israel seeks to continue to exclude Palestinian communities exiled from their home territories.
As for Israel's fear, this is of her own making. Her UN Membership was and remains conditional on her recognition that native Palestinians are indeed native.
Logic101
2 December 2009 10:41AM
On behalf of all Israeli supporters:
Good / Great / Excellent Article Carlo.
Hopefully that will save a few people some time.
lovemymod
2 December 2009 10:03AM
so if the arms makers keep increasing the range of their rockets the Palestinians could end up in China.