'Where's our diplomatic horizon?'-Palestinians cannot claim Palestine and Israel at the same time

Jerusalem Post ^ | 5-12-03

[SJackson]

The Palestinians must get used to the idea that they cannot stake a claim to Palestine and Israel at the same time, while pretending they are for a two-state solution.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's message here can be summarized in two words: Get started. The destination of the road map for Palestinians is clear a state. But why should we get started when the destination for Israel is deliberately left murky?

This is the imbalance that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sought to address when he stated that Israel will not move forward to create a provisional Palestinian state unless the Palestinians renounce the "right of return" to Israel.

Powell's response to this idea has been chilly. In the air on the way here he said, "If [requiring such a Palestinian commitment] becomes an initial upfront issue, then it will complicate progress." In his press conference with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Saturday night he said, "I think we should get started now, recognizing how difficult issues such as the right of return are... But let's not let it be a roadblock now to getting started."

Let's get this straight. The right of return is not just a difficult issue, it is the show-stopper for Israel. It is the negation of every Palestinian promise to recognize Israel's right to exist. So unless this part of the end point is settled now, there is nothing to start.

This is not to say that the fate of the Palestinian diaspora should not be on the final-status negotiating table. It is to say that Israel must know going in that the right of return is limited to a Palestinian state and not to Israel itself.

Israel's position on this has become somewhat difficult to understand given how effectively the Palestinians have captured the terminology of this issue. The fact is that the terms "right," "return," and "refugees" are all largely lies built on kernels of truth.

Yes, there are UN resolutions that touch on the issue, but the famous Resolution 194 is, first, non-binding and, second, does not require Israel to take back anyone contrary to Israeli interests. There is then no right, only a demand that Palestinians make.

Yes, some Palestinians personally left Israel in 1948 (such as Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas) and therefore can speak of return to Israel, but this is just a fraction of the 4 million Palestinians. Applying the term "return" to all Palestinians is therefore grossly misleading.

And yes, there were Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war, but Palestinians are the only people who are considered refugees generations later, regardless of how settled they become. Millions of refugees from World War II and countless conflicts that followed are no longer called refugees why Palestinians?

But terminology is not the main problem here, but what is behind it. The Palestinians must get used to the idea that they cannot stake a claim to Palestine and Israel at the same time, while pretending they are for a two-state solution. They cannot say that want every Israeli booted out of their territory, while retaining the right to move to Israel.

The United States knows this. Many Palestinians know this. But there is no advantage to postponing the job of admitting it, and great disadvantages in leaving the matter ambiguous.

There is great understanding that the Palestinians need constant reminders of their diplomatic horizon, namely, that in the end they will have a state. This is so important that the road map requires an "unequivocal" Israeli commitment to an "independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state" at the outset, despite the fact that statehood is a final-status issue.

There is almost no understanding that this same need for a diplomatic horizon exists on the Israeli side, arguably more so. It is Israelis, after all who have been victims of a wave of terrorism from the people they are being told want to live peacefully beside them. And it is the Palestinians who, even as Israelis increasingly came to back the idea of a Palestinian state, have not begun to abandon their demand to achieve demographically what they have failed to achieve through terrorism.

The road map is essentially a continuation of the presumed-dead Oslo agreement, both in letter and in spirit. That Israel would entertain returning to the path of Oslo is itself remarkable. That it would do so as if the last 30 months of terror had no meaning is not realistic.

The new Israeli requirement that the Palestinians renounce all demands to return to Israel proper, as opposed to their own state, is essentially the only formal amendment that Israel is asking to make in the Oslo paradigm.

It is an amendment that says, "We were willing to trust you that this was about building your state and not dismantling ours, but now we need more proof." Powell has displayed a tin ear toward this Israeli need. Israelis will be watching closely whether President George W. Bush displays greater understanding.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.