UPDATE: Carl In Jerusalem translates key paragraphs here:
A tipster (GS) sends in the following:
Avineri, a pillar of the Israeli left-liberal peace establishment for many years, tells Haaretz readers (Hebrew only) – “we were incredibly stupid”…(my words). We thought they wanted a state, and a two-state solution, but it turns out that they want to destroy Israel, because they cannot/will not accept any form of Jewish national self-determination. Welcome (belatedly, and only partially) to the real world.
Oslo: Shattered Dream
In his article “Is Oslo generators were simpletons or rogues” (“Earth” 3.7) raises an important question Aluf Benn and poignant about the failure of the process that started 21 years ago in Oslo. No doubt triggers truly believed that he would bring a historic compromise with the Palestinians, although it is clear that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was skeptical than the other Israelis involved in during in the chances of success.
As it turned out the dozens of meetings conducted by Ehud Olmert as prime minister, disputes about borders, the future of West Bank settlements, Jerusalem, the refugee problem and the security arrangements were severe stumbling blocks on the way to an agreement. But there was one more problem, and my opinion is the reason for the failure of the Oslo agreements prevented ripen into a historic compromise.
The initiators of the Oslo and supporters of the move saw the Israeli – Palestinian conflict as a conflict between two national movements, and believed – and I believed that I – that direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO can find a solution to the territorial issue and the strategies they blocks the dispute between the two movements. Was not easy to convince Israelis – and even the labor movement – that the other side stands a national movement, which has indeed aspects terrorist – but fundamentally it is entitled to the realization of national self-determination, just as Zionism. remembered in the positions of the Golda Meir in this issue (“there is no Palestinian” ), and the fact that Oslo initiative managed to overcome this tradition of denial, that the labor movement was her partner at the time – was an achievement.
Is generators Oslo process were simpletons or rogues? 07.03.2014 | 17:15
But the core of this concept lay a mistake. All those who supported the Oslo process thought that if we think that the conflict between two national movements, the other side also think so.
We were wrong.
Palestinian side does not believe that the conflict between two national movements: he says that this was a conflict between a national movement – Palestinian – and being a colonial and imperialist storm pass away. So last Palestinian textbook is Algeria: no Israeli presence in the West Bank is Algeria, but Israel as a whole is Algeria, and the Israelis will disappear one way or another, as the expelled French settlers from Algeria.
This is why the formula Palestinian two-state solution is different from the Israeli formula. Israel’s position speaks of “two states for two peoples” – the Palestinian version is not mentioned The phrase “two nations”, but it’s only about “two states”. If anyone believes that these only pedantry, please ask the Palestinian interlocutor to express his opinion on the formula of “two states for two peoples” – and will, sooner or later the answer that there is no Jewish. This is also the reason why the Palestinians refused the formula suggested Kerry on “the agreement between the two nations.”
The truth is – and Oslo supporters need to recognize – the Palestinian narrative or Jews are not a nation but merely a religious community, and therefore are not entitled to. This is also why the widespread resistance and uncompromising Palestinian side to recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish nation. Even those who believe that Benjamin Netanyahu raised the issue only to hamper the negotiations, must deal with the fact that the Palestinian refusal to deal with the issue is due to the simple reason that the Palestinians believe that a Jew.
This is the root of the conflict – no borders, no settlements, not Jerusalem. This course is related to the Palestinian position which refuses to give up the principle of the right of return. There are good reasons to visit the Netanyahu government’s conduct during the attempts of U.S. Secretary John Kerry to revive the negotiations: but escape these deep reasons this is intellectual dishonesty.
Zionist leaders the War of Independence, when given the principle of partition, as are the initiators of the Oslo Accords, believed that the perception of the Palestinian national movement is a mirror image of the concept of Zionism that is a conflict between two national movements. Dispute that there is room for compromise – but if you see the Your movement fought the move colonial and imperialistic, there is no place or justification of moral compromise. whether the background, there is also the example of the Crusader, the message is clear. it will be a bit simplistic – but true – to say that the version of PA supports the two-state solution: their view – ours, it (one day) our well.
What can you do? Even the current difficult climate should think ahead.
No what to expect from the United States – and not the government of Netanyahu. The Obama administration has failed in all his foreign policy challenges – Crimea and Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, surreal flirtation with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and statements regarding Obama’s personal friendship with Erdogan revealed increasingly autocratic ruler. The Netanyahu government is focused on – and successfully – only informational dimension, to continue the status quo that Clearly that is disastrous.
This is an opportunity to the opposition, led by the Labor Party, to offer an alternative. There is no point to repeat the mantra that has to return to the peace talks – because even if we return calls, it is clear that, as before, are not fruitless. Not enough criticism of Netanyahu – have to tell the truth: There is opposition officials who were interested to be right and look right. Opposition must be practical and to the point – and this is the opportunity it faces now.
The opposition must recognize that the attempt to achieve a permanent agreement is feasible now. Without having to retreat from the principle of “two states for two peoples” Opposition must offer a series of interim measures, now and now – not as an alternative to a permanent solution, but as a practical and gradual him. Have to think of creative moves, and what is proposed below does not exhaust the possibilities: the opposition must require complete cessation of all construction; Evacuation of illegal outposts; Reconsideration – after the current tensions subside – a map of the layout of the IDF Forces in the West Bank and the cancellation of the rest of the siege on Gaza (possible coordination with Egypt, assuming that the current system will cease without additional complications), and last – a comprehensive initiative to reduce civilian Israeli presence in the West by evacuation plan development – compensation.
The last idea may be a key point: Most Israeli settlers in the West Bank came there not for ideological reasons, nationalistic or religious, but because the economic horizons open to them thanks to generous state subsidization of housing options and extensive Comfort (“Quality of Life”, “upgrading” housing, etc.). left in Israel must recognize that the absence of public housing substantially Israel itself, to tens of thousands of families the option to switch subsidized housing in the West Bank would leverage social mobility and significantly improve quality of life. although not and were not Greater Israel, these people owe now supporters of Greater Israel right Thanks to the social and economic opportunities gave them, and in the current situation they will fight against any attempt to evict them.
Has to offer them an alternative: someone who wanted to return to Israel, will receive generous state support. Development of a detailed plan of evacuation – compensation may for the first time to create a rift between some of the settlers and right-wing government; The idea may find him support among voters “have a future” and in the movement “and their representatives in government, and may deepen the gaps in the current government and create pressure on ministers, as Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, prove that they are not proponents of Greater Israel.
Opposition must present alternatives. Repetition of what has already failed for 21 years is a look back, not forward. Those of us who supported Oslo – and still think that it was the right move and important – must recognize that the Palestinians will not salvation: they are really not interested in a solution of two states for two peoples, that they are not willing to give legitimacy to Jewish self-determination. We can only rely on ourselves – not in the sense of relying on military strength, but relying on our intelligence, the desire to have here a Jewish national state and ability to fulfill the desire and vision even in harsh conditions of deep refusal of the other party.