Peace Deal in a Year?

by Barry Leff

US President George Bush has been here in Jerusalem for the last few days. Not wanting to take any chances with security, they simply shut down the center of Jerusalem for three days. It turns out traffic was not as terrible as people expected – it appears instead of fighting massive traffic jams, most people decided to stay away from Jerusalem, especially the center of town, for the duration.

Both the merchants and the journalists complained. The merchants obviously because they lost three days of sales, and the government was not reimbursing them. The journalists because when they aren’t taking notes in a meeting like to go out on the streets for some “local color” to add to their reports. And for the last three days there was no local color to speak of in the center of Jerusalem because there weren’t any people.

The right wingers were disappointed that attendance at anti-Bush rallies was pretty minimal. So between the lack of traffic jams and sputtering demonstrations, it feels like Bush’s visit didn’t have a big impact.

The question is will Bush’s efforts as symbolized by his visit here have an impact. It’s really hard to tell.

The headlines for today’s Jerusalem Post proclaimed in big type that Bush says there will be a peace deal in a year, before he leaves office.

From my position, as fervent moderate, as a passionate centrist, Bush has been saying all the right things. He tells the Israelis that the Palestinians must have a real state with territorial contiguity. He tells the Israelis that the illegal settlements have to go, and that at the moment additional building in East Jerusalem (neighborhoods like Har Homa) is not helpful. He tells the Palestinians they have stop terrorism and the right of return for Palestinians will be to a Palestinian homeland, not to the Jewish homeland. No one is left completely happy, but hopefully at the end of the day there are two states living in peace, side by side.

But can he deliver?

I desperately want to believe that he can deliver. I love Israel – I love living here, I love the country, the land, the history, the people. I love the food and the weather. The only negative – and it’s a pretty darn big negative – is the tension with the neighbors, and the ongoing problems stemming from the continued occupation of the West Bank. Well that may not be the ONLY negative, but it’s certainly the biggest negative. 

It’s almost been entertaining watching the competing ads in the newspapers. Every interest group has been taking out big front page ads in the local English language papers, presumably hoping Bush or his staffers will take a glance. Front page ads in the Jerusalem Post calling on Bush not to force carving up Israel and giving part of it to terrorists. Front page ad in Haaretz from Peace Now saying “Time is Running Out,” calling on Bush, Olmert, and Abbas to get a deal done.

But is “time running out?” It’s been 60 years since the Israelis got a state and the Palestinians first lost their chance at one. It’s been forty years since the Palestinians have been living under Israeli control. Why should time be running out? Who’s to say it couldn’t go on like this for another forty years?

When I saw the headline of the J Post today with Bush’s proclamation of a peace deal within a year, I had the distinct feeling that I’ve seen this movie before. Isn’t that what Clinton said back in 1999? Why should we believe Bush will be successful where Clinton broke his pick? I mean I pray for them, I wish them every success, I hope to God they can do it. But I’m skeptical. Eight years ago, Clinton, Barak, and Arafat tried to do the same thing. A dramatic peace deal toward the end of a two-term President’s term. Clinton would seem to be a better negotiator than Bush – his administration put together the Dayton Accords that stopped the war in Bosnia; Barak was far more popular the Olmert, and had the credibility that goes with being a former general; and Arafat was, well, Arafat, practically a deity to the Palestinian people. It just seems hard to believe that if those three couldn’t get it together, three unpopular lame ducks are probably not going to have much of a chance.

I can understand why they are trying so hard. Absent something dramatic, Bush’s legacy of his time in office will be centered on the disaster in Iraq; Olmert’s on the disaster in Lebanon, and Abbas, well Abbas would become nothing but a placeholder between Arafat and whoever comes next. A peace deal that really happens and really works would deservedly land them in the history books in a very positive way.

So with all my pessimism, I wish them well and pray for their success. The feeling, perhaps, is one that is natural to the Jewish soul. Whatever the situation may be, however gloomy or difficult, we don’t give up hope for better days.  Rambam (Maimonides) lived in a time when Jews in his country were persecuted (12^th century Spain), yet he still wrote that one of the principle articles of faith was a belief in the Messiah. “Though he may tarry, despite all this, I will wait for him every day that shall come.”

May it be speedily and in our days.

Waiting in Jerusalem…

Comments

[Douglas Pepper Lang]

I am not quite clear why all arguments degrade to their least common conclusion, notably stereotyping of the opponent-moderate, right, centrist?

Is reality not a bit more nuanced? I believe a true Zionist is one who wants Israel to exist, to survive, even flourish.

To do such, in the face of mounting costs attributed to "occupation" is naive and also brings to question the father who loves the child so much that he'd rather sacrifice the loss than cut the child in half. What if there are two children, instead?

Your poll question illuminates the potential bias; where is the question/option "bi-national state where land and assets (incl. water)are shared & balanced?" Not on the list.

It is not a pipedream to imagine a day when animosity is replaced by trust, suspicion by mutual experience.

"Green" to those of us who survive in the Ether, support the vision of an "Eretz Y'srael" which was (Kibbutzim)socialist, intellectual (Home Shopping Channel free), a democratic state, intended as a respite from outside distraction, has now devolved into being the distraction.

Jews in the Diaspora are left to defend inane actions, overbearing responses, collective punishments, manipulation of US Elections and more, without logical rationale for effective defence.

Should we assert that it is better Israel survive and all others perish? What happened to co-existence, mutual survival, free-trade zones?

Are we to accept endless, mindless war as the trade-off? Olmert's drumbeat for Iran, faked videos, what's next?

[Rav Barry]

Actually, I am fully aware that there is zero chance that Har Homa is going to be anything but part of Jerusalem in the future.

That doesn't change the fact, that at the moment, it might not be conducive to furthering the peace process to continue building areas that are disputed, even though everyone knows what's going to happen at the end of the day.

I do find it interesting, however, that the Palestinians don't even bother complaining about certain places, like Gilo...

[Moshe]

With all due respect, you clearly need to spend more time in Israel before spouting off. Har Homa is part of municipal Jerusalem and most of it is Jewish land that was occupied by the Jordanians. No moderate nor centrist calls for stopping the development of a Jerusalem suburb. Either you are just ignorant of Israeli politics due to your being a "greener" or you are really a leftist pretending to be a centrist.